The Fifty First State

[Ailedhoo]

I've heard the left wing argument that the bible approves of slavery, but I am not convinced that that is true.

Starters: ecomonic left or other definition?

Seconds:

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

And in relation to sex slaves...

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

And on beating...

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

 

[NickyJ]

To say slavery is not immoral is... unfounded in moral principles.

That is correct. That's why I and GhostWriter say that slavery is completely evil. Glad to see you agree with us.

Careful, some posters here claim to get their morals from the Bible.

Nothing to be careful of, since we're all in agreement that slavery is disgusting, deplorable, and downright evil.

Or do you think that it's acceptable?

 

[Ailedhoo]

That is correct. That's why I and GhostWriter say that slavery is completely evil. Glad to see you agree with us.

Then you might want to word your posts better or you may be mistaken and mocked.

 

[NickyJ]

Then you might want to word your posts better or you may be mistaken and mocked.

Show me the posts. I haven't seen any bad wording, but if there is, I shall change them.

 

[Ailedhoo]

Show me the posts. I haven't seen any bad wording, but if there is, I shall change them.

Well...

The part I highlighted largely negated everything you bolded. It was functionally the same as saying 'yeah, it's evil...'. Of course, that's a bit more obvious than subtle saying slaves weren't always abused, but it's convenient for you to ignore it altogether for the sake of bashing and whining about the actions of confederate 'traitors'

...you did not it as evil your "weren't always abushed" kinda makes me think of the evil crime known as rape. Ghost has a rather questionable notion of morality, whos "hard hearts" justification in one case it of question. Opposing slavery unless it keeps to the narrow notions. One should not try to justify their arguments by using the wrong figures. You truely oppose slavery one must denounce the upholders who forced states to accept slavery. It is intresting how the south likes to white wash its past just as the north white wash its own.

The bashing is not of whining but of observing and you might wish to observe this to be better at debates.

And while I am at it take a different idea of masculinity. "Red neck" is linked with "meat head" outside of the Southern USA. And no this is not Northern notions but from the European outlook.

 

[Borachio]

That is correct. That's why I and GhostWriter say that slavery is completely evil. Glad to see you agree with us.


Nothing to be careful of, since we're all in agreement that slavery is disgusting, deplorable, and downright evil.

Or do you think that it's acceptable?

I would sincerely hope so.

But, it's just that there are some bible passages flying around which seem to show that it was acceptable.

Don't mind me. Just more empty noise leaking out of my mouth. I can't always stop it.

 

[caketastydelish]

Care to point out any new testament verses that say slavery is ok?

 

[peter grimes]

Nothing to be careful of, since we're all in agreement that slavery is disgusting, deplorable, and downright evil.

Or do you think that it's acceptable?

I brought up the Bible because many people claim that it's the inerrant word of God, that humans can't be moral without it, that if the Bible says X then they will try to live their lives according to X. The Bible clearly has no problems with slavery, as other posters gave pointed out. So now we have a contradiction.

When it's pointed out that their same bible also includes things we now view as immoral, amoral, or downright evil; those biblethumpers will then claim that certain parts are no longer to be interpreted literally, but metaphorically; or that those rules no longer apply. No system for deciding these changes is offered.
When asked how we're supposed to determine which parts are to be read literally and which should be read figuratively, they ignore me.

 

[Ailedhoo]

Care to point out any new testament verses that say slavery is ok?

Well ok...

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

 

[Quackers]

I brought up the Bible because many people claim that it's the inerrant word of God, that humans can't be moral without it, that if the Bible says X then they will try to live their lives according to X. The Bible clearly has no problems with slavery, as other posters gave pointed out. So now we have a contradiction.

When it's pointed out that their same bible also includes things we now view as immoral, amoral, or downright evil; those biblethumpers will then claim that certain parts are no longer to be interpreted literally, but metaphorically; or that those rules no longer apply. No system for deciding these changes is offered.
When asked how we're supposed to determine which parts are to be read literally and which should be read figuratively, they ignore me.

Maybe slavery is moral according to the Lord?

 

[Borachio]

When asked how we're supposed to determine which parts are to be read literally and which should be read figuratively, they ignore me.

Now, why would they do that do you think?

 

[NickyJ]

Well...



...you did not it as evil your "weren't always abushed" kinda makes me think of the evil crime known as rape.

In my opinion, "abused" was referring to whippings and beatings.

Ghost has a rather questionable notion of morality, whos "hard hearts" justification in one case it of question. Opposing slavery unless it keeps to the narrow notions. One should not try to justify their arguments by using the wrong figures.

He wasn't justifying slavery. As he said, it is evil, but he was pointing out the common mistake of people thinking that most slave owners beat or whipped there slaves, or otherwise physically maltreated them. (Slavery being excluded, of course.)

You truely oppose slavery one must denounce the upholders who forced states to accept slavery. It is intresting how the south likes to white wash its past just as the north white wash its own.

I suppose so, but then we would also be denouncing the leaders who gave us our independence in the first place, because many of those leaders owned slaves. The fact that they owned slaves is definitely regrettable, but the other parts of their lives should be recognized as well.

The bashing is not of whining but of observing and you might wish to observe this to be better at debates.

Most of what's in this thread has been widely whitewashing and bashing all the things CSA as being racism, which is not correct. Slavery played a part, but the South had other things that seceded for. Plus, the North had their own problems with slavery, which is often overlooked.

And while I am at it take a different idea of masculinity. "Red neck" is linked with "meat head" outside of the Southern USA. And no this is not Northern notions but from the European outlook.

In the U.S., it refers more to people who live and manage on their own. They're popularly considered stupid, but are actually smart in their own ways.

All that said, I can see now that my post could be easily misinterpreted. Because of that, I think I'll just scrap it for being not salvageable.

 

[Ailedhoo]

In my opinion, "abused" was referring to whippings and beatings.

How about shooting slaves running away? It was common to beat slaves that ran away.

He wasn't justifying slavery. As he said, it is evil, but he was pointing out the common mistake of people thinking that most slave owners beat or whipped there slaves, or otherwise physically maltreated them. (Slavery being excluded, of course.)

I was not on about Ghost's comment on slavery alone. His other posts in the forum are... questionable.

I suppose so, but then we would also beaf denouncing the leaders who gave us our independence in the first place, because many of those leaders owned slaves. The fact that they owned slaves is definitely regrettable, but the other parts of their lives should be recognized as well.

There was a effort after the war of indepedence to cease slavery. At last it failed...

Most of what's in this thread has been widely whitewashing and bashing all the things CSA as being racism, which is not correct. Slavery played a part, but the South had other things that seceded for. Plus, the North had their own problems with slavery, which is often overlooked.

The North was racist, especilly to the Irish. I am aware of this. That is not to stop the notion that the mear concept of slavery is of consideration and the law of abolisation came not from the South.

In the U.S., it refers more to people who live and manage on their own. They're popularly considered stupid, but are actually smart in their own ways.

"Live and manage on their own?"

Define, because this could lead to the construction of another thread and constructing stuff is in consideration...

All that said, I can see now that my post could be easily misinterpreted. Because of that, I think I'll just scrap it for being not salvageable.

Anything and everything can be misinterpreted, true. I understand from a lecture on how properganda works. That said it is rather difficult to get away with misinterpretation on a forum without massive fires.

 

[Save_Ferris]

Careful, some posters here claim to get their morals from the Bible.

Once again it is the liberals who actually bring the Bible into the discussion.

 

[caketastydelish]

Well ok...

I think those quotes are saying violence is not an acceptable means to escape slavery. They are not saying slavery is ok.

 

[peter grimes]

Once again it is the liberals who actually bring the Bible into the discussion.

Yes, I did.

I routinely do.

There is no shame, I think, in calling out hypocrisy, irrationality, and outmoded ways of thinking.

I will stop invoking the bible when it is no longer invoked to justify morality. It is not a moral document, it is not a historical document, it is not a scientific document. I simply point this out when the opportunity arises, since it seems that most people who hold the bible in high regard get confused about this.

Notice that I'm not referencing the I Ching or Bhagavadgita or the thousands of other 'holy' texts humans have invented. But be assured that as soon as people start citing those texts as justification for whatever morality* is en vogue then I will.

If you don't want morality and such to be about the bible, then by all means join us non-christians in calling out christians when they try to use the bible to justify stuff! Nothing is stopping you - but don't be surprised when we non-christians use the same techniques the believers use.

*especially if that 'morality' is centered on living but not letting others likewise live. If you think it's moral to wear a turban in order to show deference to pixies, I won't say a word. But my stance changes when you say that I must wear a turban in order not to offend your pixies... for which there is not an iota of evidence for existence.

 

[Farm Boy]

Eh. You still earn a hurrumph.

 

[Save_Ferris]

Yes, I did.

I routinely do.

There is no shame, I think, in calling out hypocrisy, irrationality, and outmoded ways of thinking.

I will stop invoking the bible when it is no longer invoked to justify morality. It is not a moral document, it is not a historical document, it is not a scientific document. I simply point this out when the opportunity arises, since it seems that most people who hold the bible in high regard get confused about this.

Notice that I'm not referencing the I Ching or Bhagavadgita or the thousands of other 'holy' texts humans have invented. But be assured that as soon as people start citing those texts as justification for whatever morality* is en vogue then I will.

If you don't want morality and such to be about the bible, then by all means join us non-christians in calling out christians when they try to use the bible to justify stuff! Nothing is stopping you - but don't be surprised when we non-christians use the same techniques the believers use.

*especially if that 'morality' is centered on living but not letting others likewise live. If you think it's moral to wear a turban in order to show deference to pixies, I won't say a word. But my stance changes when you say that I must wear a turban in order not to offend your pixies... for which there is not an iota of evidence for existence.

Is that a promise?

 

[NickyJ]

How about shooting slaves running away? It was common to beat slaves that ran away.

I don't have any statistics on it, but I doubt very many slave owners exercised that option.

I was not on about Ghost's comment on slavery alone. His other posts in the forum are... questionable.

If it's not related to the conversation, then I don't really know why it got mentioned here. Anyway...

There was a effort after the war of indepedence to cease slavery. At last it failed...

But did many, if any, of the founding fathers support that effort?

The North was racist, especilly to the Irish. I am aware of this. That is not to stop the notion that the mear concept of slavery is of consideration and the law of abolisation came not from the South.

True, but supporting abolition in every country except yours (this is under the assumption that the CSA was another country) is rather hypocritical. As such, it's annoying to always hear people who even point it out are "traitors", etc.

"Live and manage on their own?"

Define, because this could lead to the construction of another thread and constructing stuff is in consideration...

I suppose you're right. I retract the statement.

Still, most people consider them stupid, but they are usually smart in their own ways.

 

[Ailedhoo]

I don't have any statistics on it, but I doubt very many slave owners exercised that option.

Such things do not come in information across the pound without a common notion.

If it's not related to the conversation, then I don't really know why it got mentioned here. Anyway...

It was just political advice, similiar how one would not be adviced to linked themselves to MisterCooper. Politics is a personal, personal thing.

But did many, if any, of the founding fathers support that effort?

Granted his denouncement of slavery came in later life but still it is of consideration that the great inventor's observations...

True, but supporting abolition in every country except yours (this is under the assumption that the CSA was another country) is rather hypocritical. As such, it's annoying to always hear people who even point it out are "traitors", etc.

Understood. To confess I am speaking as a Brit. We are a odd lot us Brits.

I suppose you're right. I retract the statement.

But I was looking forward to talk about definitions!

Still, most people consider them stupid, but they are usually smart in their own ways.

Alas we Brits tend to have a... how best to describe it... a biologist approuch to studying American society. There was a funny map I remember on comparing how America views Europe and then how Europe views America.