• SuddenlyBlowGreen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    “Broadly, the Biblical… equally to any other resident alien.”*

    What you forgot you mention about the wikipedia page, is that these are not facts, but quotes from a religious scholar.

    A religious scholar, who would greatly benefit from people thinking of positively of his religion.

    If google puts it on their wikipedia page that them avoiding hundreds of millions in taxes is in context a really good thing, would you believe them?

    Slavery pre-American colonial settlement is far more nuanced than people realize.

    I don’t even need to respond to it, it just speaks for itself.

    Is it though?

    Yes. It’s literally “All of you are equal, some are just more equal than others”.

    Which is to say neither men or women are above the other, they are equal to God.

    Ah, I see. “Seperate but equal”.

    True, but an employee at a large company cannot become the CEO (yes, I know it’s “technically” possible, but how often does that happen?).

    It is possible, and it does happen.

    In fact, every employee can start their own company and become its CEO.

    A more apt analogy would be, a company where white people can become managers and C-suite, but black people cannot.

    Would you support this?

    That being said, slavery in the Bible isn’t what you think it is (as I mentioned earlier in my comment). A slave would only receive such punishment if they did something extremely heinous, like murder someone.

    “The condition in which one person is owned as property by another and is under the owner’s control, especially in involuntary servitude.”

    Yep, that fits.

    I’ll never understand how people like you can sink to such levels, defending slavery.

    And again, the rampant homophobia.

    • CeeBee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      A religious scholar, who would greatly benefit from people thinking of positively of his religion.

      This assumes all religious scholars have a nefarious agenda. I don’t doubt some or many do, but no more so than the final population average. There are many who genuinely want to help others and believe in teaching and sharing peace.

      I don’t even need to respond to it, it just speaks for itself.

      Because you think “slavery” means the same thing across all time. That level of willful ignorance speaks for itself also.

      Yes. It’s literally "All of you are equal, some are just more equal than others

      No, it’s all are equal but not everyone can have the same job and responsibilities. Not everyone can be the owner of a company (unless you’re WestJet).

      Ah, I see. “Seperate but equal”.

      Just “equal”.

      In fact, every employee can start their own company and become its CEO.

      I did specify “large corporation” in my example. Thanks for ignoring that.

      Yep, that fits.

      Involuntary servitude under the law (back in the era we’re talking about) had clear definitions. It was often invoked to collect a debt and could only be held until the debt was paid off, not longer. Captured non-Hebrew enemies were also sometimes put under involuntary servitude. But they were required to either convert, at which point they would be freed. Or else sold off to a non-Hebrew.

      I’ll never understand how people like you can sink to such levels, defending slavery.

      And I’ll never understand how people can have such reductionist ways of thinking. “Slavery”, as it’s used today, is technically “chattel slavery”, which is different. They have similar letters in English, but are not the same thing. Some translations even use different terms because the modern English word “slavery” has a different meaning. Indentured and voluntary servitude were commonplace back then. Today it isn’t. Although the relationship between an employee and employer share many of the same definitions. “Slaves” under voluntary servitude were even able to “seek a new master”. Basically find a new job. Such cruelty.

      • SuddenlyBlowGreen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        This assumes all religious scholars have a nefarious agenda. I don’t doubt some or many do, but no more so than the final population average. There are many who genuinely want to help others and believe in teaching and sharing peace.

        Well, this one clearly does, as he’s trying to whitewash slavery to make his religion look better. Seems pretty nefarious to me.

        Because you think “slavery” means the same thing across all time

        They are ot free to leave, and can be abused by their masters at will. It’s close enough.

        No, it’s all are equal but not everyone can have the same job and responsibilities.

        Except the high jobs and high responsiblilities are only available to men.

        You know your arguments about this sound familiar to those used by pro-segregationits. I would say something about strange bedfellows, but since you’re agruing for thr same thing, I guess it’s not so strange.

        Involuntary servitude

        Involuntary servitude

        Of course, you forget to mention how none of this forgiveness applies to women, who weren’t freed after six years/the debt being paid off, and could instead be forcibly taken as a wife.

        And of course slaves taken from neighbouring countries weren’t to be returned or freed, they were slaves for life.

        “Slaves” under voluntary servitude were even able to “seek a new master”. Basically find a new job.

        Voluntary servitude? Maybe.

        Were they able to get a new job under involuntary servitude? No. So slavery.

        But indentured servitude with physical abuse is still slavery, and the bible supports it. No way around it.

        There’s a saying that when democracy doesn’t favour conservatives, they don’t turn from conservatism, they’ll turn on democracy. As it turns out it also applies to christans: when christians find out the bible supports slavery, they don’t turn of the bible, instead they’ll start saying slavery was actually good. And lo and behold…

        And of course the rampant homophobia.

          • SuddenlyBlowGreen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You really should listen to Dan Carlin’s podcasts. (Even if it’s not for the sake of this discussion, his content is unmatched)

            I really don’t care about your religious podcast, especially one that tries to whitewash slavery.

            It’s not like it comes with more pay like a job. It’s basically just more work.

            It does come with pay, as well and power and influence.

            Because that’s what you’re choosing to hear. You’re ignoring all the other things I’ve said.

            I’m hearing reality and ignoring the delusional falsehoods you’re saying, yes.

            You’re also ignoring the part where women slaves could be forced to marry their masters, where men could not.

            But they were completely equal, right?

            Anything with abuse is abuse and is abhorrent. The Bible says as much.

            I didn’t say that for the part where it says how you can beat your slave.

            It didn’t say that for the part about dashing babies into rocks.

            It didn’t say that for child murder.

            No, the Bible records it. The Bible also places a huge emphasis on showing love to your neighbour and your enemy.

            Oh, I see. When something supports agenda then it’s the bible’s core message, but when something doesn’t look to good for it, then it’s just recorded in it, and also out of context.

            How convenient.

            If you haven’t noticed, the bible frequently contradicts itself.

            No one here ever said slavery of any kind was good. Not in the slightest. You might be confusing your preconceptions for something I said.

            Huh, so this wasn’t a quote used by you?

            “In fact, there were cases in which, from a slave’s point of view, the stability of servitude under a family in which the slave was well-treated would have been preferable to economic freedom.”

              • SuddenlyBlowGreen@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                LMAO! Dan Carlin is far from religious, and the last thing he does is whitewash anything. In fact, the stuff he talks about is blood curdling and may even make you vomit everywhere.

                Sure bud, I’ll rephrase. I really don’t care about your totally non-religious podcast, especially one that tries to whitewash indentured servitude.

                If you’re referring to those mega churches and people like the Duggars, then ya. I agree with you there and agree that’s wrong.

                Them too. But you only need to look at how the christian churches protect pedophiles and abusers, help them escape the law and reoffend again to see how much power and influence they get.

                Plus, the catholic church alone is worth billions, with land holdings, historical artifacts, etc.

                Becoming a high-ranking member grants you influence over your underlings and delusional people, food and shelter for the rest of your life, etc.

                You know well that this is about judicial punishment. If a slave murders someone, for example

                Feel free to quote the verse where it says you can only beat slaves as judicial punishment.

                No. It’s a reality and a fact that not every single word in the Bible is a commandment. There has to be context and even just basic information about events, people, cultures, etc.

                And that context just happens to be in form of direct commandments. Oops.

                Is it a good thing that people go on welfare, or is it preferable to starving? Again, this is where we get into the definition of the word. Think about it, how would it be preferable to be mistreated, beaten, and abused?

                I think plenty of people would prefer to be poor and free then to be fed and a slave.

                But if you think otherwise, would you be in favor of putting all homeless and poor people in involuntary servitude? Since it’s preferable to welfare and starving, according to you.

                And then of course there’s all the homophobia in the bible, but that seems to be a positive to people such as you who support sex based discrimination.

                  • SuddenlyBlowGreen@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    All of this is true. Hence why the “children” (these acts of abuse) of Babylon the Great (false religion) need to be dashed against a wall.

                    Of course.

                    And when the bible says all homosexuals must be killed, what metaphor is that? Or is it missed context?

                    You have staked your arguments to be the complete opposite of what I have to say.

                    I tend to do that when the person I’m arguing against supports such despicable things.

                    The fact that you immediately dismissed Hardcore History as a “religious podcast” and still maintain that it “whitewashes” anything, all without even looking up the podcast

                    I looked up dan carlin and he has a some christian podcast called Word Christian Fellowship podcast. But sure, not religious or bias.

                    telling that you are unable to be objective in the slightest in this discussion.

                    Unable to be objective by agreeing with you that slavery was a good thing? Are you listening to yourself?

                    (which tops Podcast charts in multiple categories, primarily history)

                    Are you his publicist or something? You’re trying really hard so sell his stuff.

                    It seems your forgot to answer this:

                    Is it a good thing that people go on welfare, or is it preferable to starving? Again, this is where we get into the definition of the word. Think about it, how would it be preferable to be mistreated, beaten, and abused?

                    I think plenty of people would prefer to be poor and free then to be fed and a slave.

                    But if you think otherwise, would you be in favor of putting all homeless and poor people in involuntary servitude? Since it’s preferable to welfare and starving, according to you.

                    And then of course there’s all the homophobia in the bible, but that seems to be a positive to people such as you who support sex based discrimination.