@Dafunkdoc_Unlimited, why do you condone slavery in the bible?

[King Kreole]

My god, the problem with slavery is not the conditions of the slave, IT'S THE FACT THAT THEY ARE A SLAVE IN THE FIRST PLACE! A house ****** was just as much a slave as a field ******! Why?? Because they were deemed to be less than a fully actualized human! That's the whole point of the UDHR! Everyone is a human and deserves basic human rights, including the right to be no one else's property! We're all on the same level in that regard! So saying biblical slavery was ok because they weren't treated like modern slaves is not only historically dubious, but misses the point of emancipation entirely! If you, as a human being, can be sold, it doesn't matter what conditions you're being sold into, it's still wrong! It doesn't matter is the slave was given an higher standard of living than a free man, it's the fact that he/she is deemed a commodity and not a human being. shyt, there are dogs who live better than a lot of people!

 

[...and some waffle fries]

Why are they saying that slavery had a different meaning back then.

So folks ignoring the fact that entire book of Exodus is about Gods people being enslaved by Egyptians and doing hard labor.

God orchestratesd genocides in the OT but yall are appalled slavery was allowed.

Check out Deut 2:30-34

30 But Sihon king of Heshbon refused to let us pass through. For the Lord your God had made his spirit stubborn and his heart obstinate in order to give him into your hands, as he has now done.

31 The Lord said to me, “See, I have begun to deliver Sihon and his country over to you. Now begin to conquer and possess his land.”

32 When Sihon and all his army came out to meet us in battle at Jahaz, 33 the Lord our God deliveredhim over to us and we struck him down, together with his sons and his whole army. 34 At that time we took all his towns and completely destroyed[c] them—men, women and children. We left no survivors.

Genocide was the first and only option? You couldn't find another way around?

 

[The Real]

So, the parts that are negative 2,000 years ago​

​

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

As everyone in the United States and this thread does since we live in a post-Christian society.

Not everyone has those affinities to an extent such that they seem incapable of condemning a single thing in the Bible even when they aren't Christian. This is the heart of what I was referring to. It's clear to anyone thinking objectively that the Bible is full of flaws when it comes to what it specifically endorses. Yet while you claim not to be a Christian, I have never heard you condemn even one thing in the book, while we all know you defend it at every turn. Naturally, that kind of biased behavior is cause for suspicion.

False. I defend HISTORY and believe religion, whether Abrahamic or otherwise, are 'Black' peoples' best weapon against 'White Supremacy'. Not like I haven't stated that before, so for you to come at me with that just shows I need to say it more often so people don't misunderstand my stance.

Maybe you do, but I think your attachment to religion's practical aspects has distorted your historical understanding.

Chattel slavery was not the only form of slavery in the Ancient Near East. This is why I keep stating that comparing Colonial America's to the ANE's is stupid. There were marriages, adoptions, careers, political appointments, etc. in the ANE version. The similarities are superficial. The differences are fundamental. The Dept. of Labor SPECIFICALLY states this as fact.

I know that chattel slavery was not the only form of slavery in the ANE. That doesn't mean the similarities are superficial. Again, every major historical or sociological survey on slavery includes the institutions in the ANE AND chattel slavery under a single banner, even while acknowledging their differences. You have yet to refute that point (it's a pretty obvious empirical one). As such, we have to ask why those institutions are all lumped together. There are excellent analytical reasons to do so- they are similar enough to be regarded that way, even if they have significant differences, too.

ANE slavery encompassed much more than 'forced labor and trafficking in human beings'. This point of history seems to be lost on a certain demographic in this thread.

The point of my argument is that it doesn't matter what else it included as long as forced labor and trafficking were involved. And let's not forget nonconsensual sex. Those features are sufficient to condemn it.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

​

Not everyone has those affinities to an extent such that they seem incapable of condemning a single thing in the Bible even when they aren't Christian. This is the heart of what I was referring to. It's clear to anyone thinking objectively that the Bible is full of flaws when it comes to what it specifically endorses. Yet while you claim not to be a Christian, I have never heard you condemn even one thing in the book, while we all know you defend it at every turn. Naturally, that kind of biased behavior is cause for suspicion.

​

Maybe you do, but I think your attachment to religion's practical aspects has distorted your historical understanding.

​

I know that chattel slavery was not the only form of slavery in the ANE. That doesn't mean the similarities are superficial. Again, every major historical or sociological survey on slavery includes the institutions in the ANE AND chattel slavery under a single banner, even while acknowledging their differences. You have yet to refute that point (it's a pretty obvious empirical one). As such, we have to ask why those institutions are all lumped together. There are excellent analytical reasons to do so- they are similar enough to be regarded that way, even if they have significant differences, too.

​

The point of my argument is that it doesn't matter what else it included as long as forced labor and trafficking were involved. And let's not forget nonconsensual sex. Those features are sufficient to condemn it.

so eloquent.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

That wouldn't be 'slavery' according to YOUR definition, now would it?
​

The ANE definition of the term =/= YOUR definition of the term so you need to clarify what YOU mean by the term in this question.

​

The ANE definition is composed of chattel slavery.

But hey, as long as you're ok with enslaving people.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

My god, the problem with slavery is not the conditions of the slave, IT'S THE FACT THAT THEY ARE A SLAVE IN THE FIRST PLACE! A house ****** was just as much a slave as a field ******! Why?? Because they were deemed to be less than a fully actualized human! That's the whole point of the UDHR! Everyone is a human and deserves basic human rights, including the right to be no one else's property! We're all on the same level in that regard! So saying biblical slavery was ok because they weren't treated like modern slaves is not only historically dubious, but misses the point of emancipation entirely! If you, as a human being, can be sold, it doesn't matter what conditions you're being sold into, it's still wrong! It doesn't matter is the slave was given an higher standard of living than a free man, it's the fact that he/she is deemed a commodity and not a human being. shyt, there are dogs who live better than a lot of people!

@Dafunkdoc_Unlimited needs to read this.

But then again, vile pieces of shyt are hopeless.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Thats because it has stood the test of time:


Listen to the facts Dr. Voddie Baucham, Jr., presents,




You do not have understanding....

The length of time of an idea does not validate the idea.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

No, you're supposed to ignore it when it inconveniently contradicts the moral superiority Christians want to claim for themselves. But then you are supposed to support it and quote it and study it and live by the parts that AREN'T abhorrent to our human sensibilities.

God being a Christian must suck, walking around 24/7 with raging cognitive dissonance

they don't even know any better

 

[joeychizzle]

Another instance of the bible proving itself to be a self sufficient system of reinforcing the slave mentality. You don't even have to do shyt.. just let the blind followers cape for their masters

So apparently slaves in ancient times were treated like family huh? Like Master Wayne treats Alfred huh? They had days off and paid holidays and benefits huh?

Any god of any religion that condones or condoned slavery in any form, is a malevolent powerless c*nt. I still can't understand how black people pray to a god that actively imprisoned them for centuries.

 

[joeychizzle]

The length of time of an idea does not validate the idea.

fukk yeah it does apparently. If I went back in time and buried the Harry Potter books while removing the modern parts people would be practicing witchcraft like it was completely normal

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Not everyone has those affinities to an extent such that they seem incapable of condemning a single thing in the Bible even when they aren't Christian.

My rebuttals have all been due to poor textual critiques that have been refuted several decades/centuries ago but, due to the Internet, cats keep thinking they're 'new'. It's retarded to criticize history when you can't change it which is why I see no point in condemning the text unless it is used against me. I do see a point in understanding where others are coming from and don't mind engaging in healthy dialogue about it, but this place is not conducive to that type of activity in any way, shape or form.
​

This is the heart of what I was referring to. It's clear to anyone thinking objectively that the Bible is full of flaws when it comes to what it specifically endorses. Yet while you claim not to be a Christian, I have never heard you condemn even one thing in the book, while we all know you defend it at every turn. Naturally, that kind of biased behavior is cause for suspicion.

This criticism has been leveled more than a couple times and my response has been the same: Religion is 'Black' peoples' best weapon against 'White Supremacy'. Other than that, getting an understanding of my own families' beliefs lead me to study what their beliefs were. End result: I know the text. My rebuttals take the form of textual criticism ONLY, not theological as I refuse to engage in that type of discussion. It gets nowhere. As far as bias goes, everyone has theirs. My condemnation is simple and I've repeated it often: 'G-d' is a meaningless term. I need say nothing more than that.
​

Maybe you do, but I think your attachment to religion's practical aspects has distorted your historical understanding.

Someone tried to use a parable in the text as a criticism. The distortion is not mine and my historical understanding is unfazed.
​

I know that chattel slavery was not the only form of slavery in the ANE. That doesn't mean the similarities are superficial.

The similarities ARE superficial, though.​

Again, every major historical or sociological survey on slavery includes the institutions in the ANE AND chattel slavery under a single banner, even while acknowledging their differences. You have yet to refute that point (it's a pretty obvious empirical one). As such, we have to ask why those institutions are all lumped together. There are excellent analytical reasons to do so- they are similar enough to be regarded that way, even if they have significant differences, too.

If you'd like a refutation, no problem: There was no 'institution of slavery' in the Ancient Near East. There were various forms of free and un-free labor along with chattel slavery and indentured servitude mixed-in with (for lack of a better term) 'social programs'.
​

The point of my argument is that it doesn't matter what else it included as long as forced labor and trafficking were involved. And let's not forget nonconsensual sex. Those features are sufficient to condemn it.

That is sufficient to condemn chattel slavery and (to a lesser extent) indentured servitude, the only forms those activities appeared in, however, there was no 'institution of slavery' to condemn like in North America and that is MY point.
​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

I'm bored with the simple back-and-forth now. It was truly a waste of time.

@Napoleon , I'm done talking to you. Don't bother trying to get my attention anymore. You're now on ignore and will remain that way. Your thread didn't yield the result you thought it would since you're a mental midget with about as much common sense and tact as a salt crystal.

@The Real, cool chat as always but I'm not going to change my view and I know I won't change yours, but a non-combative dialogue is necessary since religion isn't going away.

​

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

I'm bored with the simple back-and-forth now. It was truly a waste of time.

@Napoleon , I'm done talking to you. Don't bother trying to get my attention anymore. You're now on ignore and will remain that way. Your thread didn't yield the result you thought it would since you're a mental midget with about as much common sense and tact as a salt crystal.

@The Real, cool chat as always but I'm not going to change my view and I know I won't change yours, but a non-combative dialogue is necessary since religion isn't going away.

​

Whether or not religion is going away has no validity on the legitimacy of religious claims

Not to mention, you have no problem with the enslavement if your ancestors.

 

[Anti-Anime]

Another L for these abrahamic cults

 

[10:31]

Young Nap went midevil on @Dafunkdoc_Unlimited ass





Take your stupid docile ass to the root with that Jesus shyt