ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Why do you still not answer my question?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Christians who reject the old testament and slavery
- Thread starter serp777
- Start date
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
No, it’s not. Yes, we have the texts. But we also have commentaries on those texts, plus extra-biblical documents from church leaders and theologians. And what do you suppose Christians before there was a “bible,” hmm? There was no Bible for the first 450 years of the church’s existence, plus, most people couldn’t read. We had oral teachings, IOW, tradition.
Your friend may avoid meat, but unless he identifies as a Vegetarian, he’s not a Vegetarian. I have a friend who helps the poor, lifts the downtrodden, feeds the hungry — all those things Jesus told us to do. By your logic, he would be a Christian. But he’s an atheist. It isn’t an objective, outside definition of “Christian” that makes us “trademark Christian.” It’s how we choose to identify. If someone identifies as Christian, guess what? She’s a Christian! No matter what “criteria” you set; you have no authority to make that determination. The “defined term” is “how do I identify?” Then if the person doesn’t waddle and quack like a Christian, those in ecclesial authority make the determination.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It was a No True Scotsman fallacy and your error was explained to you. What part of the explanation did you not understand?
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
That’s already been done by church leaders.
How do you know this? Have you interviewed every single person? What makes you think that “trusted Jesus for salvation” is the lynchpin attribute? What about people who trust God for salvation? You have an idea of the qualifications, but does the community as a whole share that idea? YOu don’t get to dream up qualifications and then impose them on everyone else.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It says that as much as anything else. The problem is that you believe a myth but you won't even admit that.
And that could apply to you as well as to any other that claims to be a Christian, after all you claim that God is a liar.
And yet no Christian group or individual can seem to do that to the satisfaction to other Christian groups or individuals.
Actually it is. You are still making the same error. But you simply won't let yourself understand at best.
MJFlores
Well-Known Member
Because the Bible answered your question and the Bible defended itself from unfounded allegations as evidenced by our posts.
If I answered things on my own, my answers would mean nothing but I showed you the chapters and the verses from the book - and wallah! Even I am surprised me self - it was very educational for me too and not to mention it strengthen my faith in the Bible.
What really puzzles me is the contradiction. Namely the contradiction of advertizing objective morality while assuming relative morality. Or, god forbid, utilitarianism. I believe Christianity must assume utilitarianism to justify what we read there.
For, if owning other people can be justified by cultures and situations, for the common good (common not including slaves), then how is that different from relativism?
So, you are right. There is no way to resolve this without massive cognitive dissonances and contradictions. For, when the basis that justifies all your prophecies and stuff is riddled with moral commandments that would make the talibans morally indistinguishable from Mother Teresa, how do you intend to spread the “good” news to rational people?
You can’t. And that is why probably some early Christians thought that Jesus God has nothing to do with the Jewish God. They did not survive, but they clearly saw the problem, as well.
Ciao
- viole
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
But it didn't. And there do not appear to be any unfounded allegations. When it comes to slavery the Bible is as immoral as the Old South. Perhaps you would like to try again without the excessive green ink:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Green_ink.
MJFlores
Well-Known Member
I wouldn't embroil myself with an endless
It was a beautiful exchange and it uncovered many truths:
- That Slavery existed even before the Bible was written https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery
- That the Bible did not promote Slavery and in fact ordered freeing of Hebrew slaves Jeremiah 34:9
- That Slavery was formally ended by the world powers in the 1800s
- Slavery is still practiced today in countries which do not believe in the Bible https://www.wonderslist.com/10-countries-with-most-slaves/
- That the Bible teaches the right conduct of a true Christian person when he finds himself as a slave or a master of a slave Colossians 3:22-25 Ephesians 6:9
- That the Bible is not for slave traders 1 Timothy 1:9-11
It was terrific and I thank you!
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You are still ignoring several facts. The Bible supports slavery by telling the Hebrews who they could keep slaves from. And only male Hebrew slaves were to be released. Not foreign slaves, they and their children were the property of the owner and could be passed on to the next generation. Female Hebrews were also sold into lifelong slavery. And a smart slave owner could even trick his fellow Hebrews into lifelong slavery. The slavery in the Old South of the U.S. was not nearly as bad as biblical slavery.
That's one hell of a rant, but you have definitely deserved the creative frubal!
That's pretty good too. I'm at a loss for words.
MJFlores
Well-Known Member
Uh huh.
Hebrew masters could keep Hebrew slaves for housekeeping.
American rednecks kept N slaves to plant and harvest cotton and others to make big bucks.
If the other is humane over the other, suit yourself.
It was truly enlightening and ....
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Amazing ignorance at best, but more likely rampant dishonesty. There was nothing that limited Hebrews to housework. And I already admitted that MALE Hebrews had a limited term, much like indentured servants in colonial America. Female Hebrew slaves were for life. Foreign slaves were slaves for life. They were property. If they had children they were property. Just like the Old South.
But here is a chance for you to redeem yourself . How could a slave owner trick a fellow Hebrew into being a slave for life?
MJFlores
Well-Known Member
"Fancy ladies"
A little-discussed but important aspect of slavery in the United States is that owners of female slaves, including children (the sale of a 13 year old "nearly a fancy" is documented,[55] Zephaniah Kingsley, Jr. bought his wife when she was 13,[56]:191 and Thomas Jefferson's relation with Sally Hemings began when she was about 15), could freely and legally use them as sexual objects. (Homosexual use of male slaves may well have existed, but no evidence has come to light.) They had no more rights than cows did. This follows free use of female slaves on slaving vessels by the crews.[57]:83 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States#Slave_codes
Furthermore, females of breeding age were supposed to be kept pregnant[], producing more slaves to sell. The variations in skin color found in the United States make it obvious how often black females were impregnated by whites.[58]:78–79 For example, in the 1850 Census, 75.4% of "free negros" in Florida were described as mulattos, of mixed race.[59]:2 Nevertheless, it is only very recently, with DNA studies, that any sort of reliable number can be provided, and the research has only begun.
"Fancy" was a code word that indicated the girl or young woman was suitable for or trained for sexual use.[60]:56 Light-skinned girls, who contrasted with the black field workers, were preferred.[55][61]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States#"Fancy_ladies"
William Wells Brown, who escaped to freedom, reported that on one plantation, slave men were required to pick 80 pounds per day of cotton, while women were required to pick 70 pounds; if any slave failed in his or her quota, they were subject to whip lashes for each pound they were short. The whipping post stood next to the cotton scales.[114] A New York man who attended a slave auction in the mid-19th century reported that at least three-quarters of the male slaves he saw at sale had scars on their backs from whipping.[115] By contrast, small slave-owning families had closer relationships between the owners and slaves; this sometimes resulted in a more humane environment but was not a given.[116]
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You do realize that by using excessive green ink that you admitted that you lost the argument.
Female salves could be sex slaves in the Bible it is clear from the verses that you did not understand.
You could beat a slave to death in the Bible, as long as it took them more than a couple of days to die.
And unlike the south where white people could not be made slaves for life one could make a fellow Hebrew a salve for life if one knew how to trick him. And of course there was no need to trick slave fellow Hebrew girls. They were simply slaves for life.
MJFlores
Well-Known Member
The treatment of slaves in the United States varied by time and place, but was generally brutal and degrading. Whipping and sexual abuse, including rape, were common.
Teaching slaves to read was discouraged or (depending upon the state) prohibited, so as to hinder aspirations for escape or rebellion. In response to slave rebellions such as the Haitian Revolution, the 1811 German Coast Uprising, a failed uprising in 1822 organized by Denmark Vesey, and Nat Turner's slave rebellion in 1831, some states prohibited slaves from holding religious gatherings without a white person present, for fear that such meetings could facilitate communication and lead to rebellion.
Slaves were punished by whipping, shackling, beating, mutilation, branding and/or imprisonment. Punishment was most often meted out in response to disobedience or perceived infractions, but masters or overseers sometimes abused slaves to assert dominance. Pregnancy was not a barrier to punishment; methods were devised to administer lashings without harming the baby. Slave masters would dig a hole big enough for the woman's stomach to lie in and proceed with the lashings.[1]
The mistreatment of slaves frequently included rape and the sexual abuse of women. The sexual abuse of slaves was partially rooted in historical Southern culture and its view of the enslaved as property.[2] After 1662, when Virginia adopted the legal doctrine partus sequitur ventrem, sexual relations between white men and black women were regulated by classifying children of slave mothers as slaves regardless of their father's race or status. Particularly in the Upper South, a population developed of mixed-race (mulatto) offspring of such unions, although white Southern society claimed to abhor miscegenation and punished sexual relations between white women and black men as damaging to racial purity.
Brutality
According to historians David Brion Davis and Eugene Genovese, treatment of slaves was harsh and inhumane. During work and outside of it, slaves suffered physical abuse, since the government allowed it. Treatment was usually harsher on large plantations, which were often managed by overseers and owned by absentee slaveholders. Small slaveholders worked together with their slaves and sometimes treated them more humanely.[5]
Besides slaves' being vastly overworked, they suffered brandings, shootings, "floggings," and even worse punishments. Flogging was a term often used to describe the average lashing or whipping a slave would receive for misbehaving. Many times a slave would also simply be put through "wanton cruelties" or unprovoked violent beatings or punishments.[6]
Punishment and abuse
Slaves were punished by whipping, shackling, hanging, beating, burning, mutilation, branding and imprisonment. Punishment was often meted out in response to disobedience or perceived infractions, but sometimes abuse was performed to re-assert the dominance of the master (or overseer) over the slave.[35] They were punished with knives, guns, field tools and nearby objects. The whip was the most common instrument used against a slave; one said "The only punishment that I ever heard or knew of being administered slaves was whipping", although he knew several who were beaten to death for offenses such as "sassing" a white person, hitting another "negro", "fussing" or fighting in quarters.[36]
Slaves who worked and lived on plantations were the most frequently punished. Punishment could be administered by the plantation owner or master, his wife, children or (most often) the overseer or driver.
Slave overseers were authorized to whip and punish slaves. One overseer told a visitor, "Some Negroes are determined never to let a white man whip them and will resist you, when you attempt it; of course you must kill them in that case."[37] A former slave describes witnessing females being whipped: "They usually screamed and prayed, though a few never made a sound."[38] If the woman was pregnant, workers might dig a hole for her to rest her belly while being whipped. After slaves were whipped, overseers might order their wounds be burst and rubbed with turpentine and red pepper. An overseer reportedly took a brick, ground it into a powder, mixed it with lard and rubbed it all over a slave.[36]
A metal collar was put on a slave to remind him of his wrongdoing. Such collars were thick and heavy; they often had protruding spikes which made fieldwork difficult and prevented the slave from sleeping when lying down. Louis Cain, a former slave, describes seeing another slave punished: "One ****** run to the woods to be a jungle ******, but massa cotched him with the dog and took a hot iron and brands him. Then he put a bell on him, in a wooden frame what slip over the shoulders and under the arms. He made that ****** wear the bell a year and took it off on Christmas for a present to him. It sho' did make a good ****** out of him."[36]
Slaves were punished for a number of reasons: working too slowly, breaking a law (for example, running away), leaving the plantation without permission or insubordination. Myers and Massy describe the practices: "The punishment of deviant slaves was decentralized, based on plantations, and crafted so as not to impede their value as laborers."[39] Whites punished slaves publicly to set an example. A man named Harding describes an incident in which a woman assisted several men in a minor rebellion: "The women he hoisted up by the thumbs, whipp'd and slashed her with knives before the other slaves till she died."[40] Men and women were sometimes punished differently; according to the 1789 report of the Virginia Committee of the Privy Council, males were often shackled but women and girls were left free.[40]
The branding of slaves for identification was common during the colonial era; however, by the nineteenth century it was used primarily as punishment.[41] Mutilation (such as castration, or amputating ears) was a relatively common punishment during the colonial era and still used in 1830. Any punishment was permitted for runaway slaves, and many bore wounds from shotgun blasts or dog bites used by their captors.[41]
In 1717, Maryland law provided that slaves were not entitled to a jury trial for a misdemeanor, and empowered county judges to impose a punishment of up to 40 lashes.[42] In 1729, the colony passed a law permitting punishment for slaves including hanging, decapitation, and cutting the body into four quarters for public display.[28]
In 1740, South Carolina passed a law prohibiting cruelty to slaves; however, slaves could still be killed under some circumstances. The anti-cruelty law prohibited cutting out the tongue, putting out the eye, castration, scalding, burning and amputating limbs, but permitted whipping, beating, putting in irons and imprisonment.[43]
Work Cited: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatment_of_slaves_in_the_United_States
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Excessive green ink is a rather rude way of admitting defeat.
Do do you think that you can reply properly and politely?
MJFlores
Well-Known Member
Slave codes
Main article: Slave codes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_codes
The slave-owning colonies had laws governing the control and punishment of slaves which were known as slave codes.[46] South Carolina established its slave code in 1712, based on the 1688 English slave code in Barbados. The South Carolina slave code was a model for other North American colonies. In 1770, Georgia adopted the South Carolina slave code and Florida adopted the Georgia code.[46] The 1712 South Carolina slave code included the following provisions:[46]
- Slaves were forbidden to leave the owner's property unless accompanied by a white person, or with permission. If a slave left the owner's property without permission, "every white person" was required to chastise them.
- Any slave attempting to run away and leave the colony (later, the state) received the death penalty.
- Any slave who evaded capture for 20 days or more was to be publicly whipped for the first offense; branded with an "R" on the right cheek on the second offense; lose one ear if absent for thirty days on the third offense, and castrated on the fourth offense.
- Owners refusing to abide by the slave code were fined and forfeited their slaves.
- Slave homes were searched every two weeks for weapons or stolen goods. Punishment escalated from loss of an ear, branding and nose-slitting to death on the fourth offense.
- No slave could work for pay; plant corn, peas or rice; keep hogs, cattle, or horses; own or operate a boat; buy or sell, or wear clothes finer than "Negro cloth".
- No slave could be taught to write, work on Sunday, or work more than 15 hours per day in summer and 14 hours in winter.
- The willful killing of a slave was fined £700, and "passion" killing £350.
- The fine for concealing runaway slaves was $1,000 and a prison sentence up to one year.
- A fine of $100 and six months in prison were imposed for employing a freeman or slave as a clerk.
- A fine of $100 and six months in prison were imposed for selling (or giving) alcoholic beverages to slaves.
- A fine of $100 and six months in prison were imposed for teaching a slave to read and write; the death penalty was imposed for circulating incendiary literature.
- Freeing a slave was forbidden except by deed (after 1820, only by permission of the legislature; Georgia required legislative approval after 1801).
- Slaves were prohibited from possessing weapons.
- Slaves were prohibited from leaving their owner's plantation without permission.
- Slaves were prohibited from attacking a white person, even in self-defense.
- A runaway slave, refusing to surrender, could be killed without penalty.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
So sad that you keep admitting that you are wrong.
Can you debate properly and politely? Your posts keep telling us that you are wrong without even reading them.
I can help you with the parts of the Bible that are too difficult for you to understand.
MJFlores
Well-Known Member
View attachment 23382
Living conditions
An 1850 publication provided slaveholders with guidance on how to produce the "ideal slave":[4]
- Maintain strict discipline and unconditional submission.
- Create a sense of personal inferiority, so that slaves "know their place."
- Instill fear.
- Teach servants to take interest in their master's enterprise.
- Deprive access to education and recreation, to ensure that slaves remain uneducated, helpless, and dependent.
Brutality
According to historians David Brion Davis and Eugene Genovese, treatment of slaves was harsh and inhumane. During work and outside of it, slaves suffered physical abuse, since the government allowed it. Treatment was usually harsher on large plantations, which were often managed by overseers and owned by absentee slaveholders. Small slaveholders worked together with their slaves and sometimes treated them more humanely.[5]
Besides slaves' being vastly overworked, they suffered brandings, shootings, "floggings," and even worse punishments. Flogging was a term often used to describe the average lashing or whipping a slave would receive for misbehaving. Many times a slave would also simply be put through "wanton cruelties" or unprovoked violent beatings or punishments.[6]
Humane treatment
After 1820,[7] in response to the inability to legally import new slaves from Africa following prohibition of the international slave trade, some slaveholders improved the living conditions of their slaves, to influence them not to attempt escape.[8]
Some slavery advocates asserted that many slaves were content with their situation. African-American abolitionist J. Sella Martin countered that the apparent contentment was a psychological reaction to dehumanizing brutality, such as witnessing their spouses sold at auction or their daughters raped.[9]
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatment_of_slaves_in_the_United_States#Sexual_relations_and_rape
