We haven't had a good historical "smash and bash" in a bit, so I figured, why not? Let's try and keep this relatively free of personal attacks.
* Did a state prior to the Civil War have a right to leave the Union?
* Assuming a state did, in the case of Tennessee, did the state legislature act inappropriately?
* Was the reason for the war "State's Rights" or "Slavery"?
* In light of Fort Pillow and other similar incidents, why does the North have the reputation of being the side of atrocity?
* Were the Confederate leaders traitors to the United States?
Pick one, throw up another related discussion ... but most important, discuss!
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
It's too late for me to write a competent argument right now, but I will take the opportunity to toss out a counterpoint... the Andersonville Prison in Georgia.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Were the Confederate leaders traitors to the United States?"
Well, by definition, yes. The real question is whether or not treason is always a bad thing.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
I should clarify. Fort Pillow was a Union held fort, occupied by pro-Union Tennessee troops (many former Confederates), and a large group of black soldiers. Gen. Forrest surrounded the troops and offered a truce. When the terms of the truce were rejected (Union reinforcements were expected at the Fort within the hour), Forrest overran the Fort, and massacred many of the surviving Union troops. From the placement of the bodies, they looked to have been executed rather than killed in combat. Also, it was later reported by a Union sympathizer that the Fort's commander had been assassinated, and not "killed while trying to escape" as the Confederates reported.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: * Did a state prior to the Civil War have a right to leave the Union?
Did a colony have the right renounce the authority of the Crown and Parliament and to leave the Empire?
quote: * Was the reason for the war "State's Rights" or "Slavery"?
State's rights with slavery as the catalyst. I'm not at home now so I can't check but didn't Lincoln say something along the lines of "If I could save the Union by freeing all the slaves I would do it, if I could save the Uniuon by freeing none of the slaves, I would do it and if I could save the Union by freeing some slaves and leavings others as they are I would do it" Which seems to imply that the welfare of African Americans wasn't exactly at the top of the US govts agenda.
Incidently, hs anyone read the excellent Battle Cry of Freedom, by James McPherson?
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:Did a colony have the right renounce the authority of the Crown and Parliament and to leave the Empire?
No.
quote:State's rights with slavery as the catalyst. I'm not at home now so I can't check but didn't Lincoln say something along the lines of "If I could save the Union by freeing all the slaves I would do it, if I could save the Uniuon by freeing none of the slaves, I would do it and if I could save the Union by freeing some slaves and leavings others as they are I would do it" Which seems to imply that the welfare of African Americans wasn't exactly at the top of the US govts agenda.
The Confederate states were motivated by what they saw as a growing movement in the North to end slavery. This included declarations in states such as Massachussets that slavery was unConstitutional.
Yes, that is a Lincoln quote.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: The Confederate states were motivated by what they saw as a growing movement in the North to end slavery. This included declarations in states such as Massachussets that slavery was unConstitutional.
Yeah, I know; just cos I'm notAmerican doesn't mean I don't know anything about the American Civil war . The Confederates were particularly worried by the Federal government limiting the spread of slavery by the Missouri compromise and other measures.
quote:Yes, that is a Lincoln quote
Yeah, looked it up when I got home; August 22, 1862.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: The Confederate states were motivated by what they saw as a growing movement in the North to end slavery. This included declarations in states such as Massachussets that slavery was unConstitutional.
Yeah, I know; just cos I'm notAmerican doesn't mean I don't know anything about the American Civil war . The Confederates were particularly worried by the Federal government limiting the spread of slavery by the Missouri compromise and other measures.
quote:Yes, that is a Lincoln quote
Yeah, looked it up when I got home; August 22, 1862.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by Snay: The Confederate states were motivated by what they saw as a growing movement in the North to end slavery. This included declarations in states such as Massachussets that slavery was unConstitutional.
Well, that's the funny thing -- approaching the issue from both directions can be considered correct. And I guess that's part of the reason why the American Civil War is such a contested issue even today.
I can point out a number of converging issues that caused the actual confict:
� The vast majority (and I do mean vast) of Southern wealth was holed up in the form of slaves by the late 1850's. I attended a lecture by Dr. James Horton a couple of weeks ago... I don't have an exact figure, but the value of the slaves, both in terms of purchase price (at the auction, for example) and in terms of labor value and output in the Old South, actually exceeded the wealth of the North. Freeing the slaves meant a huge financial loss for the South as a whole.
� In the Federal government, the Old South was the central power, especially in Congress, from the very beginning. Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe... is it any coincidence that four of the first five Presidents were Southerners? Even into the 1850's, the South controlled the vast majority of the Senate.
But... with the growing anti-slavery movement, the so-called "free" states were increasingly outnumbering the slave states. Any American student should know about the Missouri Compromise of 1820, keeping a precise and equal balance of slave and free states up until 1850, when California was admitted.
The South was increasingly marginalized, both in terms of population (outnumbered by Northerners) and in political power.
� A lot of people forget (or gloss over) the Dred Scott decision of 1858. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney was a Southerner (South Carolina, I think, though I could be wrong). If one single event outside of the actual firing of shots could be considered a cause of the war, it'd be this decision -- mainly because the Court's ruling made it an all-or-nothing deal. Basically, Taney ruled that the Federal government could not limit slavery AT ALL, anywhere in the country, because a man could not be denied his property. Of course, it was a blatantly racist argument that completely infuriated the Abolitionists and many Northern states... basically, rather than glossing over the issue or continuing a compromise, the Dred Scott decision forced a conflict then and there.
� Did anyone know that the United States was one of only THREE COUNTRIES IN THE ENTIRE WORLD in which slavery was legal in 1863? I'm not sure which were the last two, but even Russia -- Tsarist Russia, for cryin' out loud! -- had abolished slavery in 1861.
~~~~~
I could go on rambling for hours on this stuff, but I'd better stop before I get carried away. Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
I recently read that there are a few towns in Georgia that still have segregated proms. I'm not talking about there are certain proms that certain races just don't attend, I mean actual segregated proms. The US has got a long way to go to get over our racial strife.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote:Did anyone know that the United States was one of only THREE COUNTRIES IN THE ENTIRE WORLD in which slavery was legal in 1863? I'm not sure which were the last two, but even Russia -- Tsarist Russia, for cryin' out loud! -- had abolished slavery in 1861.
Only three? I knew it wasn't many but didn't know it was that few. Mind you, the Russian abolishion of serfdom wasn't entirely successful; the consequences of it played a major part in the revolution- not a good thing!!
Veers: Really? Isn't that illegal now?
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
I think it's a tradition that they've just kept up...but I don't think that blacks would be allowed to come to a white prom, and vice versa. I know some people want to change that down in Georgia, but some don't mind...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Mabye it's just that the ENTIRE civil war was a total cluster fuck grom the word "go" and most of the generals on both sides had no place commanding a damn thing. Look up the north's biggest fuck-up, General Burns. They should have shot him and saved 12,000 lives.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
quote: WRIGHTSVILLE, Ga. -- Students at a central Georgia high school held separate proms for whites and blacks this year, maintaining a dying practice in the rural South.
"It's always been like that," said Carla Rachels, 17, a Johnson County High School senior who helped organize Friday night's whites-only prom. "We don't see it as a big deal." Parents paid for the separate proms.
Taylor County, another rural area 90 miles west of Wrightsville, held an integrated prom last year, but added a separate whites-only prom this year.
After integration in the late 1960s, separate proms were common in the rural South, but Johnson and Taylor counties are among the last to cling to the practice.
Johnson County native and former professional football star Herschel Walker urged an end to segregated proms.
"Today I wish things would change a little bit," said Walker, who visited last week when the high school football field was named in his honor. "This world is changing so much. Coming after the war we just had, I think people can see we are a country, we are together."
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
2003. Racial segregation. Apartheid. Welcome to the 21st century!
Fuck.
There are times I hope humanity never leaves this solar system.
[ May 15, 2003, 06:26 AM: Message edited by: Cartmaniac ]
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
General Burnside I think you meant to say Jason.
quote:* Did a state prior to the Civil War have a right to leave the Union?
There was, and still is, no Constitutional mechanism to deal with this issue. However, the Articles of Confederation states that the Union was a permanent thing, and the Peramble to the Constitutions referrs to a more perfect Union.
It is clear that the concept of a union between the several states as written in the Constitution comes from the Articles of Confederation and should be a permanent institution. As such, leaving a Union so constituted would, I think, require more that the vote of the state wishing to leave.
quote:* Was the reason for the war "State's Rights" or "Slavery"?
There is no single reason for the American Civil War. Both of the above were underlying causes of huge importance.
quote:* In light of Fort Pillow and other similar incidents, why does the North have the reputation of being the side of atrocity?
The North never lacked for supplies or manpower and yet many Confederate prisioners of war needlessly died in Norhtnern prision camps because their basic needs were not met.
The Union Army was an army of invasion and occupation and caused financial hardships by looting, freeing slaves, taking food and provisions, and burning Atlanta.
quote:* Were the Confederate leaders traitors to the United States?
Yes, they took up arms agains the constituted and legal government.
But it turns out that Washington and others from the Revolutionary War were traitors as well because they took up arms against the constituted and legal government. Many in the south understood the connection and lauded it.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Ah. Yes I meant Burnside (it was a late posting for me).
An equally valid question about STate's Rights ia why they still exist at all? After the war's conclusion it was very likely a touchy subject that was let slide but today those same "rights" really fuck with many laws changing from state to state.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: The North never lacked for supplies or manpower and yet many Confederate prisioners of war needlessly died in Norhtnern prision camps because their basic needs were not met.
I seem to remember that certain Confederate POW camps were somewhat less than luxury establishments; Andersonville Prison (Which MM mentioned earlier) in particular.
quote:It is clear that the concept of a union between the several states as written in the Constitution comes from the Articles of Confederation and should be a permanent institution. As such, leaving a Union so constituted would, I think, require more that the vote of the state wishing to leave.
But the US constitution also enshrines the idea that the people are the ones who decide their own destiny; surely if a majority of the population of a state votes for secession (which did NOT happen in any of the Confederate states) the the US govt, by the principles it claims to uphold, would be obliged to go with the decision?
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:surely if a majority of the population of a state votes for secession (which did NOT happen in any of the Confederate states)
Actually, Tennessee did hold a vote for the general population. However, by a margin of 10,000 they voted to remain in the Union. Not this stopped their state government from secession anyway ...
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Well, ok; none of the Confederate states had a popular vote which was actually followed.
Better Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:caused financial hardships by looting, freeing slaves, taking food and provisions, and burning Atlanta.
Waiting for supply lines was impossible for Sherman -- a quick end to the war meant ordering his troops to forage for what they needed so as to facilitate faster movements. Atlanta was a major production point for the South -- destroying it, and preventing its recapture, would cripple the Confederate war machine and bring them to their knees. When Sherman occupied Savannah on December 22nd, "mercy ships" from the North brought supplies to the populations.
When Confederate agents crossed through Canada into New York City, and deliberately fire-bombed hotels, they were knowingly targeting civilian populations for death.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:I seem to remember that certain Confederate POW camps were somewhat less than luxury establishments; Andersonville Prison (Which MM mentioned earlier) in particular.
Yes, that is true.
There is no question that Andersoville was a terrible place and its commander, who was hanged at the end of the war, bore some responsibility. But the Confederacy had terrible supply problems thoughout the war and their main focus was on maintaining a fighting force and supplying it rather than prisioners of war.
The same sort of things happened in the North only there was no shortage of supplies.
Also bear in mind that Grant and Lincoln stopped prisioner exchanges forcing the Confederates to keep prisioners they had captured casuing them to further dilute their supplies.
quote:But the US constitution also enshrines the idea that the people are the ones who decide their own destiny; surely if a majority of the population of a state votes for secession (which did NOT happen in any of the Confederate states) the the US govt, by the principles it claims to uphold, would be obliged to go with the decision?
The reason for entering into a union of the several states was for mutual protection, security, and stability. None of which could be had if, say Texas decides to leave the Union just because it wants to. The creation of the Union was not lightly debated and the delegates from the several states had to understand that they were giving up some autonomy for that collective stability and security.
The creation of the American federal system forces the states to do certain things and requires interdependence. If Texas was attacked by Mexico, California could not withold its citizens in defence.
If the Union is a permanent institution, as stated in the Articles of Confederation and as reaffirmed by the Constitution, then I don't see it as unreaslistic to require the deliberation of the several states for a state wishing to leave the Union to be allowed to do so.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I suppose it's somewhat ironic that the idea of secession was probably started, or at least helped along in the early years, by Thomas Jefferson himself.
During the bitter partisan fighting of the late 1790's, the Federalist party controlled the Presidency and both houses of Congress for four or six years. During this time the Federalists passed such wonderfully enlightened laws as the famous Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798.
In protest, Jefferson authored the Kentucky Resolutions, which got their name when they were adopted by the Kentucky state legislature. Basically, they stated that the several states had the authority and duty to declare null and void any law which was contrary to the Constitution. The possibility of secession was raised during the same crisis.
Ironically, just a few short years later, Justice Marshall issued the decision on Marbury v. Madison and set up the entire judicial review process in a relatively short, ten-page (or so) decision. A decade later, a retired Jefferson expressed deep regret for even encouraging the concept of nullification and secession, realizing its potential for chaos among the states. It took the Civil War to finally settle the issue...
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
If the Union is a permanent institution, as stated in the Articles of Confederation and as reaffirmed by the Constitution, then I don't see it as unreaslistic to require the deliberation of the several states for a state wishing to leave the Union to be allowed to do so.
Agreed. If several parties sign a contract, no one of them can unilaterally declare the contract void, as a general rule. An ammendment to the Constitution would seem to have been in order. Which, naturally, would never have passed.
Actually, Tennessee did hold a vote for the general population. However, by a margin of 10,000 they voted to remain in the Union. Not this stopped their state government from secession anyway ...
Yeah, the Tennessee state government has a long-standing tradition of saying to its constituants, "Screw you, we'll do what we please."
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
quote: When Confederate agents crossed through Canada into New York City, and deliberately fire-bombed hotels, they were knowingly targeting civilian populations for death.
Wow and your government is still using the "Terrorists came through Canada" argument.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I knew it! It's all fucking Canada's fault! Everything is! Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
|Blame Canadaaaaaa|
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Mike (telling a joke): ...and the drunk guy says, "I can't help being an idiot, I'm Canadian!" Crow (Laughs): You're right, they're so pathetic, Mike!
(Whistle blows, Tom comes in wearing Mountie uniform)
Tom: Enough! There's been too much Canada-bashing for far too long! I say: no more! Mike: Don't you mean: "No more, eh"? Crow (Laughs): Good one, man! They are SO stupid! Tom: Stop it now! Instead, let us offer our Northern brothers and sisters this song of tribute!
(Music starts)
(Singing) Oh, I wish I was back in old Canada, A land which I never shall lampoon! How I pine for the ice covering Lake Manitoba, And the beauty that is Saskatoon!
Mike (spoken): I got one.
(Singing) Oh, I wish I was stuck in the hills of Alberta, Drinking beer with some big dumb guy trapping fur!
Tom (spoken): Hey!
Mike (singing): As he scraped and chiseled all the moose dung off his boots, I would learn that he's the Prime Minister!
Tom (spoken): Oh, stop that!
Crow (singing): Oh, I wish I was in the land gave us Peter Jennings, Alanis Morissette, Mike Myers, too!
Tom (spoken): Yeah!
Crow (singing): No, I take that back, I wouldn't go there even if you paid me, Oh, Canada, you are a place I must eschew!
Tom (spoken): Now, this is NOT in the spirit I intended! Mike: Oh, come on, give in! I mean, after all, they gave us Ed the Sock and Rush! Crow: Yeah, what are you defending? They're such feebs! Tom: Okay, I'll try! Mike: All right! Good man! Tom (singing): Oh, I wish I was blowing up Prince Edward Island, And going on to bomb Ontario! The destruction of Canada and all of its culture, Is by far my fav-o-rite scenario!
Mike (spoken): Okay, that's a little strong... Tom (interrupting, spoken): No, no, you were right, Mike, this is much more fun!
(Singing)
Just where the hell does Canada get off sharing a border With countries far superior to it?
Crow (spoken): Yikes!
Tom (singing): Why, you lousy, stinking, francophonic, bacon-loving bastards, Your country's just a giant piece of sh...(Mike leaps on Tom and covers his mouth with his hand, while he and Crow shout "Hey! Whoa! Whoa!")
Mike (spoken): I think that's enough. I think we've... Cambot, (Music stops) okay, thanks. All right. Tom (sobbing): I'm sorry! I have no sense of proportion! I'm a disgrace to my uniform! Mike: No, no, that's okay, calm down. Mustn't hate! Mustn't hate! Crow: At least so overtly. Mike: Exactly, right. Must disguise our hate, just a little. .
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I did not recall that they namechecked Ed the Sock in that song. Huh. It is a small world, pop culturally speaking.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Ed's pretty obscure, really. And he's quitting!
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
The only thing that I've ever enjoyed on Much Music are the Fromage specials.
DAMN FUCK.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
No-one is blaming Canada for the aftermath of Judeah Benjamin's schemes. It is rather a notation of how Canada was used (not in a "Gosh, wham-bam thank you ma'am" sense, but rather, "Gosh, there's a big Army here, let's go around it so we don't get shot").
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
I just find it hard to believe that Omega agrees with me on something.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Oh, gosh, look: flying pigs.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Satan called, he has ordered some big heaters....
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
And it's one of the few times he's been right about something. Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Malnurtured Snay: * Did a state prior to the Civil War have a right to leave the Union?
The so-called "States' Rights" position is based on the logically invalid position that the states themselves were the units of authority and decision-making, as opposed to individuals. This is opposed to the most fundamental logic of the founding fathers, encapsulated so clearly and so succinctly when they said:
"We The People . . ."
Similarly, someone asked if the colonies had a right to claim their liberty from the crown. Of course the colonies didn't . . . the people, however, did. Rights are not granted by anyone . . . they exist, but we must claim them. No government can do that for us, and, historically, governments are seldom interested in doing so.
quote:* Was the reason for the war "State's Rights" or "Slavery"?
The reason for war was a fundamental disagreement between the North and the South across almost every spectrum . . . the North's industrialization versus the South's agrarian society . . . the North's gradual acceptance of the idea that all men were indeed created equal, compared to the South's slavery and aristocratic leanings.
Most other nations had already recognized the illogic of slavery . . . but the South still had a use for it, and their need blinded them to the unethical nature of their position. Their desperation sent them scurrying for ways out like the States' Rights position.
And of course, with the election of Lincoln, they realized their back was against the wall.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
I could see the position of "States' Rights" as logically invalid, too - but from another point of view. Rights must be taken, that I agree with. But they don't exist independently of the act of taking. And the taking must be combined with the act of giving, or at least conceding, or it's meaningless in practice. And practice is all that matters.
In this case, the rights of the States and of their inhabitants were determined by the Constitution and the Federal organization (even if somewhat virtual) enforcing the said Constitution. Fundamentally, the rights, and the right to define and perhaps alter or revoke them, then belong to the Federal level that deals out this magnanimity - as long as this level retains the clout to withdraw the magnanimity whenever it wants to.
In short, "X saying that Y has the right" often is just saying that "X has the right to give Y the right". Or to withdraw it.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: This is opposed to the most fundamental logic of the founding fathers, encapsulated so clearly and so succinctly when they said:
"We The People . . ."
Similarly, someone asked if the colonies had a right to claim their liberty from the crown. Of course the colonies didn't . . . the people, however, did.
Of course, we have to define 'We The people...' in the context that the 'founding fathers' gave it; white men. Remember, more African Americans and Native Americans, along with many white colonists fought for the UK and Empire. I think I read somewhere that about the same number of colonists supported us (at least initially) as did the rebels. Now, as I understand your position any people have the right to overthrow their government if they do not have liberty, rights, etc. It's kinda ironic that the whole ethos and idea of the British Empire at the time was liberty (for Brits at least). You guys stole it off us!! Also, in a way the Confeds were being deprived of (what they say as) a freedom. The freedom to keep slaves. Also they believed that southern culture and political domination (look at the number of Southern presidents) would be destroyed by the Norths increasing population and industrialisation; they believed they would be oppressed. Or at least the more powerful landowners believed they would lose their political clout.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Fuck em'. They're hicks. Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wraith: Of course, we have to define 'We The people...' in the context that the 'founding fathers' gave it; white men.
And fortunately, that context was expanded toward its rightful meaning by Lincoln.
quote:The freedom to keep slaves.
No offense, but that is the most absurd concept I've heard all day . . . and I've heard some doozies today.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
"Freedom to keep slaves" is on the same order as "freedom to punch people in the nose". They believed it was all right to own slaves, and wanted to base their society on that idea. Nobody (at least nobody here) is saying that that's a God-given right.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Well, if we're talking about the Judeo-Christian god, it is, according to Leviticus 25.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
That's why I follow Chthulu.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Yes, but that's a different concept of slavery. The slavery as approved by God was more like setting POWs to forced labor, then releasing 'em all every so often, which is a heck of a lot nicer than even many countries today are to their POWs. That slavery was hardly the insidious race-based institution we had here.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Fuck that: slavery is slavery. Any God that is cool with that sure aint gettin' my vote. Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
So you'd be opposed to making criminals work while in prison? Or garnishing people's wages? 'Cause those are very similar concepts to what God allowed. You work for someone else until you've paid off your debt.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Um, last I heard, prisoners had rights.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
and being in debt is not being someone's property.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
For varying definitions of being property. If you don't receive compensation which would otherwise be justly yours, and you legally have no choice in the matter, what would you call it?
As for prisoners, they only have the rights allowed them by the laws of their country, much like slaves in the Old Testament had certain rights. And don't we have all those prisoners making licence plates in Florida or some other television cliche? Or for perhaps a better example, people doing community service by order of a judge? There's still forced labor in this country, under certain very limited conditions, conditions not significantly different in principle from Biblical slavery. Slavery in this country was a completely different concept.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are round about you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit as a possession for ever; you may make slaves of them, but over your brethren the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with harshness." -Leviticus 25:44-46
You're probably think ing of Hebrew slaves, who were to be released after six years of service. But that didn't apply to foreign slaves.
It seems the only "rights" slaves had were that their masters weren't allowed to kill them (unless the master beat the slave so badly that the slave died, but not for a day or two; that's okay), poke their eyes out, or knock their teeth out.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
There I would ask whether it's better to be a slave in a position where you're exposed to the word of God, rather than a free man who isn't. Obviously if you assume the Bible to be true the answer's yes. Somewhat comparable to men like Jefferson buying slaves, I suppose.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Slavery of a foreign people due to their differing religon is good with the bible. Biiig Suprise. Every religion thinks that same line of "you're being exposed to the word of God" crap to justify denying another's basic human rights and oppressing them. It's exactly the kind of thing that the Pharoah might have said about the Hebrews. "It's for their own good that we make them slaves: to show them the greatnes of Osiris" It's a justification for oppresion. The passage only states that (as usual) bad things should'nt happpen to "our" kind of people but everybody else is fair game.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I wouldn't assume the Bible to be true, though. Assuming it to be a bunch of rules that people take as immutable, however, we can see that it condones a practice which the majority of people today would consider abhorrent.
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
"...to justify denying another's basic human rights and oppressing them..."
Ah, ah, ah, GOD-GIVEN rights! My GOD is better than your GOD, therefore you are an infidel, therefore you are mine to do with as I please! It be so written in the HOLY TEXT, which is the word of my GOD, therefore it is true! YOU, HEATHEN, ARE MY PROPERTY! SUCK IT DOWN!
"...it condones a practice which the majority of people today would consider abhorrent."
If the rules were immutable, then the majority of people would in fact approbate slavery.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cartmaniac:
If the rules were immutable, then the majority of people would in fact approbate slavery. [/QB]
Not so! Religion breeds hipocracy: How many millions of gun owners attend church but would rather shoot a burglar than "turn the other cheek" and help him overcome his problems? Everyone picks and chooses what rules to abide by and what ones we ignore. "An eye for an eye" and "Turn the other cheek" are bound in the same book: That's why Christianity works so well: there's just no real way to go wrong depending on your personal interpetation. If it didint work this way, our armies could not go to war and our police could not really beat...er...protect us. It would be against their religon dontcha know? Religion is not a code of conduct but a salve against guilt. ...after all "It's God's will that we (insert any reason here)."
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
That's what the Church is for.
All Christians are supposed to listen to what their Church says about the interpretation of the Bible, rather than just find a convenient passage for whatever they want to do and use it as justification.
And I doubt that anywhere in the Bible justifies killing burglars. Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
I thought you were supposed to hand over your children to them for sexual pleasure, in hopes they went away?
The concept of "The Church" doesn't help much as long as there are sub-groups competing for the biggest capital T in the "The". Local parishes can still live by completely dissimilar rules even when within the general guidelines of a common church.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
quote:Originally posted by Timo: The concept of "The Church" doesn't help much as long as there are sub-groups competing for the biggest capital T in the "The". Local parishes can still live by completely dissimilar rules even when within the general guidelines of a common church.
Timo Saloniemi
Well, as far as I (and 1.2 billion others) are concerned, The Church is the Roman Catholic Church.
Jesus appointed Peter to be Head of The Church, and the Catholic Church is still run by his successors. It doesn't really get more authoritative than that. Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
It still boils down to who gets to call himself the Catholic Church locally. That is, who gets to decide what the Pope really said or wrote, and how it reflects on the sacral or secular lives of the local community. That's pretty much as tricky as deciding what Jesus or God really said or wrote.
Put short, if religion was something so simple it could be enforced equally on all practitioners, who'd be interested?
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
quote:Originally posted by Timo: It still boils down to who gets to call himself the Catholic Church locally. That is, who gets to decide what the Pope really said or wrote, and how it reflects on the sacral or secular lives of the local community. That's pretty much as tricky as deciding what Jesus or God really said or wrote.
That's what the Catechism's for. Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Timo: Put short, if religion was something so simple it could be enforced equally on all practitioners, who'd be interested?
Timo Saloniemi
The Pope sure would!
So...Jesus put Peter in charge of the Church?! Pre or post-mortem? If "Pre" it shows a huge ego on Jesus' part to think that there would be anything after him but a few deciples spreading his "word". Did "Church" as a word even exist as a word before Christianity came to power in Rome?
Seems iffy: If a cult leader was just killed and his right hand man suddenly announced that he was chosen as sucessor, I'd see it as a attempt to seize/ maintain power before the movement fell apart.
From my detached POV mind you.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Aren't there levels of laws in the Bible? Whatever came first was superceded by Mosaic Law, then Mosaic Law was superceded by Christianity? Since the Mosiac Laws were ment for the Jews, pre conversion, and after the conversion they went with the New Testement?
Also, how accurate is the Bible, with they way it was decided which books were to be included. Being rushed for time they included the present books, dropping the debates of the others that could have been included.
Slavery of a foreign people due to their differing religon is good with the bible.
If a) prisoners of war, which we've covered, or b) already slaves. Actually enslaving random foreigners isn't permissable. So again, which would be better: slaves to a pagan or slaves to someone who will expose you to the truth?
I wouldn't assume the Bible to be true, though.
Of course, but since I'm the one trying to justify this of stuff, I think I'm allowed to make what assumptions I please. Unless you can disprove them, of course.
we can see that it condones a practice which the majority of people today would consider abhorrent.
Which practice, exactly? The practice of keeping prisoners and making them work? I've got no problem with that. The practice of buying someone who's already a slave, placing them in circumstances that make thier lives better? Some have problems with that, but just what are you suggesting should have been done otherwise?
Religion breeds hipocracy
Humanity breeds hipocracy, or at least lack of understanding. It's like a bunch of the kids I know, for an example. They can be mean, inconsiderate and rude, but it's not because they're hypocrites, as if they're telling people to stop being mean and inconsiderate and rude. They just honestly don't get that they're not supposed to be that way. Ignorance and weakness the problem, not hypocracy.
"An eye for an eye" and "Turn the other cheek" are bound in the same book
Ah, but if you actually read that book, you'll see that they were addressed to two different groups of people. Case in point, no teaching of Christianity involves "an eye for an eye" except to say "screw it".
And I doubt that anywhere in the Bible justifies killing burglars.
Depends on what they're gonna do if you don't kill 'em, of course. The one rule of Christianity is "Love everyone", where love so far as I can tell is defined as doing what's best for them. This leads to some rather extreme pragmatism: based on whatever information you have on hand, you must always do what you think is best for everyone else. If it's a choice between killing one person and letting others die, then you kinda have to kill 'em. It's what's best for the greatest number of people. So no, killing a burgler for nothing but trying to steal your laptop would probably not be justified. Wounding him, though, I'd say would be.
Jesus appointed Peter to be Head of The Church
I must have missed that verse. In fact, I'm rather sure that Paul said that Christ himself was the head of the church. Heck, read Acts. If anyone, James seemed to have local authority over the church in Jerusalem, not Peter.
If "Pre" it shows a huge ego on Jesus' part to think that there would be anything after him but a few deciples spreading his "word".
While I don't agree that Christ put anyone in charge of the church on earth, I think the living incarnation of God would be allowed to assume certain things about the future, wouldn't you say? Were he a human being, of course, you're right, but there are other options.
I thought you were supposed to hand over your children to them for sexual pleasure, in hopes they went away?
If that's a reference to Lot, nobody ever held up Lot as a paragon of virtue.
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
Sweet motherfucking jesus.
quote:If a) prisoners of war, which we've covered, or b) already slaves. Actually enslaving random foreigners isn't permissable.
Ah, so it's OK to take slaves in the name of god as long as they worship another deity?
quote:So again, which would be better: slaves to a pagan or slaves to someone who will expose you to the truth?
Would YOU want to be "exposed" to someone elses' "truth", zealot?
quote:Of course, but since I'm the one trying to justify this of stuff, I think I'm allowed to make what assumptions I please.
In other words, pulling shit out of your ass that fits your interpretation.
quote:The practice of buying someone who's already a slave, placing them in circumstances that make thier lives better?
Oh yes, forcing your beliefs on people is BOUND to make their lives better.
quote:Humanity breeds hipocracy, or at least lack of understanding.
More than a fair share of which is contributed by religion.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
[quote] quote:Humanity breeds hipocracy, or at least lack of understanding. More than a fair share of which is contributed by religion. <\quote]
I know a lot of people that aren't religious that are hypocitical in the extreme, so I would call it more than a fair share.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
"Hipocracy," of course, being a form of government where power is entrusted to the Fonz.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Sweet motherfucking jesus.
An amusing juxtaposition, given what Catholics believe about the nature of Jesus' mother.
Would YOU want to be "exposed" to someone elses' "truth", zealot?
Now see, this is our whole problem here. When making all these points, I'm operating on the assumption that what the Bible says is correct. If you deny that assumption, then the discussion has no point at all. Mind you, you're welcome to accept or deny whatever assumptions you please, but trying to argue that God's laws are wrong while simultaneously claiming that they're not God's laws at all is kind of stupid. My point is that IF they are God's laws, they do make sense in the context in which they were given to the people to which they were given.
Ah, so it's OK to take slaves in the name of god as long as they worship another deity?
You're oversimplifying. Assuming your people are ruled exclusively by God, and that you only go to war when He tells you and not just because you WANT some slaves, then yeah, turning prisoners of war into slaves would be fine. Back to the uber-pragmatism: name the better option. It's not as if you can just let the enemy army go intact, at least not in those days, so you either kill 'em or render 'em neutral. Keeping them in a pen would be a drain on resources with no return, resources that might not be available. Thus, slaves. It was the best option available at the time for all concerned, including the slaves. Yet another reason why slavery in America was a totally different institution from slavery in biblical Israel.
In other words, pulling shit out of your ass that fits your interpretation.
Specific examples, please?
Oh yes, forcing your beliefs on people is BOUND to make their lives better.
You can't force beliefs on people. For example, that statement makes me believe that you're a moron, but no matter what I could hypothetically do to you, you'd never understand why. I can't force that belief on you either.
More than a fair share of which is contributed by religion.
How can a lack of understanding regarding religion be caused by religion? I mean, if you've got a religion where only a select few people have access to the basic tenets, perhaps, but that's not the case with any major religion I know of. Apparently, I'm not the one pulling things out of my proverbial ass.
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
If you deny that assumption, then the discussion has no point at all.
In that case, why don't you yield?
...trying to argue that God's laws are wrong while simultaneously claiming that they're not God's laws at all is kind of stupid.
I'm not arguing they aren't god's laws here, unless you can provide a quote to the contrary, of course.
It was the best option available at the time for all concerned, including the slaves.
Let me guess: no-one asked the slaves for their opinion.
Yet another reason why slavery in America was a totally different institution from slavery in biblical Israel.
A prison with diamond bars and walls of gold is still a prison.
You can't force beliefs on people.
And yet, christianity did a pretty good job at it during the first, oh, seventeen centuries A.D. Y'know, convert or die, and all that.
For example, that statement makes me believe that you're a moron, but no matter what I could hypothetically do to you, you'd never understand why. I can't force that belief on you either.
Well, since you've already made up your mind...
How can a lack of understanding regarding religion be caused by religion?
I was referring to hypocrisy. But, re: how religion can breed a lack of understanding between humans: do I really need to cite examples of *that*?
[ May 27, 2003, 01:47 AM: Message edited by: Cartmaniac ]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Jesus appointed Peter to be Head of The Church"
"I must have missed that verse."
I believe the passage usually interpreted this way is the one where he nicknames Simon "Rocky" and tells him he's going to build a church on him.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: You can't force beliefs on people.
Really? Christians abducted Africans, never allowed them to practice their native religons, denied their children the chance to even learn for generations and forced them to participate in ritualized christianity. In fact, the white slavers made their participation in church services the only non-degrading part of their lives. Today (200 years later) people of African desent no longer even know what god or gods their ansestors worshipped and attend church services becaue it's all they've ever known. Slavery in the name of the Judeo/Christian god destroyed their religion. But you defend it by saying it "improved their lives by exposing them to the truth"? Sounds like it improved their white christian master's lives to me.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
In that case, why don't you yield?
"Screw oncomming traffic", that's my motto.
I'm not arguing they aren't god's laws here, unless you can provide a quote to the contrary, of course.
Okay, "Would YOU want to be "exposed" to someone elses' "truth"?" It's implicit that God's laws as stated in the Bible are not necessarily the truth, which is the assumption I'm making.
Let me guess: no-one asked the slaves for their opinion.
Well, if they wanted to die instead of being slaves THAT badly, they could have, oh, attacked their owner, run away, or just refused to move from the spot they were standing. Assuming, of course, you still don't have a third option for what Israel could have done with a captured enemy army.
A prison with diamond bars and walls of gold is still a prison.
Again, you seem to be implying that all forced labor is wrong regardless of circumstances. Obviously this is false, given examples that I've already shown. It's a question of the circumstances and the alternatives.
And yet, christianity did a pretty good job at it during the first, oh, seventeen centuries of this millennium. Y'know, convert or die, and all that.
...which is not forcing beliefs on people, it's forcing actions on people.
Today (200 years later) people of African desent no longer even know what god or gods their ansestors worshipped and attend church services becaue it's all they've ever known.
You're saying that slaveholders two hundred years ago forced Christianity on people of today? That's reaching, and you know it.
Slavery in the name of the Judeo/Christian god destroyed their religion. But you defend it by saying it "improved their lives by exposing them to the truth"?
Did I say that with regards to African slaves in this country? Sorry, must have missed that...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Any time you enslave a people and supress or destroy their culture for your own ends you are a evil fucking bastard. Any God that says this is okay is an evil bastard as well. You are confusing "forced labor" of prisoners with slavery in many of your defenses: Prisoners have comitted crimes against their societies and serve a sentence. A prisoner works untill he has paid for his/her crimes: their children are not bound by this. Slaves are captives forced to be another's property forever as well as their children after comiting no crime other than being of another race or creed. It all comes down to those in power being too damn lazy to work for themselves and opressing others by force of arms. Re-read that bible passage and see if you can tell the diffrence now.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Slaves are captives forced to be another's property forever as well as their children after comiting no crime other than being of another race or creed.
Say it with me, Jason: in our society. We are NOT talking about our society. In the time period in question, the slaves we seem to have reduced our discussion to were a) existing slaves that were bought from people passing through, or b) prisoners of war. Slaves that were bought from foreigners passing through the country were better off with a Hebrew master than with their foreign master, so buying one would actually be a good thing for them. As for prisoners of war, again, what alternative for them would you propose? (Always under the assumption that all wars are just, which was the assumption that the law was given under.)
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: [QB] Slaves that were bought from foreigners passing through the country were better off with a Hebrew master than with their foreign master, so buying one would actually be a good thing for them.
Who says? You? What foreigners? Why were they sold? You're assuming a heck of a lot. You really think slaves were treated well? Slaves were not treated well (historically) by anyone. Ever.
You really think that just because the new owners of thsese slaves were Hebrew that they were better off? Hebrews back then make today's most extreme Islamic fundamentalist look like Martha Stewart.
There were indentured servants in the far east that were treated well to be certain, but we're talking about the middle east. Biiiig diffrence. I made the alalgy with America;s slavery of Africans because they used that same bible to justify all their brutality.
And as you pointed out: God would know whats going to happen, so why give slavery of any kind the big thumbs up?
If Buhddaists came and enslaved your family, then sold you to Islamists, what would you say? It's OK'd by your god after all. You were sold to your new masters by your former owners so it's alright....right? That is what the passage says after all: it does'nt specify a time limit. ...or does that passage only apply to "foreigners". You would be a forigner to the people the passage was written for after all.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
martha stewart is very nearly as mean as an islamic fundamentalist.. and her shoe bombs would be better made (and better accessorized)
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
It's implicit that God's laws as stated in the Bible are not necessarily the truth, which is the assumption I'm making.
Who says there is only one Truth?
...which is not forcing beliefs on people, it's forcing actions on people.
Actions that led to beliefs.
You're saying that slaveholders two hundred years ago forced Christianity on people of today? That's reaching, and you know it.
No, it's a DIRECT CONSEQUENCE of converting a people by force.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
You really think slaves were treated well? Slaves were not treated well (historically) by anyone. Ever.
That's... and amazing display of ignorance.
You really think that just because the new owners of thsese slaves were Hebrew that they were better off?
Spiritually, yes. Physically, probably. Israel was for a time a very rich country, and at the very least they'd have a guarentee of not being beaten to death.
I made the alalgy with America;s slavery of Africans because they used that same bible to justify all their brutality.
Hmm... so your chain of reasoning is something like: American slavery claimed it was based on Hebrew slavery; American slavery was wrong; therefore Hebrew slavery was wrong. The problem is that your reasoning is based on the idea that American slaveholders were correct when they claimed their breed of slavery was the same as the Hebrew kind of slavery. I'm arguing that it's not.
And as you pointed out: God would know whats going to happen, so why give slavery of any kind the big thumbs up?
Depends on what would have happened otherwise, yes?
If Buhddaists came and enslaved your family, then sold you to Islamists, what would you say? It's OK'd by your god after all.
Not unless I was a POW in a war my God told them to start. You're missing the circumstances under which slaves could be taken.
Who says there is only one Truth?
Logical laws against contradiction?
Actions that led to beliefs.
So you're saying that by making people go to church, you make them believe what they hear there? Somehow I doubt the slaves were that weak-minded.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: You really think slaves were treated well? Slaves were not treated well (historically) by anyone. Ever.
That's... and amazing display of ignorance.
Site some examples of when a person is enslaved and is better off than them being free. Plaese.
quote:You really think that just because the new owners of thsese slaves were Hebrew that they were better off?
Spiritually, yes. Physically, probably. Israel was for a time a very rich country, and at the very least they'd have a guarentee of not being beaten to death.
Spiritually? How so? Slaves were not going to be free to follow their own beliefs and worship openly. Your argument is biased on your own beliefs that the hebrew God is the truth.
quote: I made the alalgy with America's slavery of Africans because they used that same bible to justify all their brutality.
Hmm... so your chain of reasoning is something like: American slavery claimed it was based on Hebrew slavery; American slavery was wrong; therefore Hebrew slavery was wrong. The problem is that your reasoning is based on the idea that American slaveholders were correct when they claimed their breed of slavery was the same as the Hebrew kind of slavery. I'm arguing that it's not.
That is your argument, but you still can't explain how being opressed in any way (slavery being the most extreme case) is better than being free to prusue your own goals and beliefs.
quote:And as you pointed out: God would know whats going to happen, so why give slavery of any kind the big thumbs up?
Depends on what would have happened otherwise, yes?
They would have maintained their own culture and they and their children would have lived free? It's not as though all POW's were either enslaves or killed in that region: the Greeks kept slaves but allowed POW's to swear an oath of fealty to them and then released them. That was over 1000 years prior to mono-theism.
quote:If Buhddaists came and enslaved your family, then sold you to Islamists, what would you say? It's OK'd by your god after all.
Not unless I was a POW in a war my God told them to start. You're missing the circumstances under which slaves could be taken.
If your God is the only god then all wars that are said to be the will of god are endorsed by your god. Islamic jihad as well.
quote:Who says there is only one Truth?
Logical laws against contradiction?
Burden of proof is on those trying to prove something's exixtance (in this case your God). Scientifically, you can't prove a negative: you can't prove you're not in a coma dreaming all this, for example.
quote: Actions that led to beliefs.
So you're saying that by making people go to church, you make them believe what they hear there? Somehow I doubt the slaves were that weak-minded.
Not weak minded: Just exposed to only one sourse for spirituality over 200 years. Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
Logical laws against contradiction?
See, THAT statement makes ME believe you're an ignorant bigot who can't think outside his christian box of self-righteousness. Please prove me wrong, Logic Boy.
Do you concede the possibility that 1) The Whole Truth comprises more than one Truth, and if so, that 2) christianity does not hold The Whole Truth?
Hint: don't answer "no" to question #1.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Here it comes...
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Site some examples of when a person is enslaved and is better off than them being free. Plaese.
It was stated that slaves have never been treated well, which I responded was not true. Your question is not related to that.
Spiritually? How so? Slaves were not going to be free to follow their own beliefs and worship openly. Your argument is biased on your own beliefs that the hebrew God is the truth.
Which, again, is the basis of my entire argument. Please pay attention.
That is your argument, but you still can't explain how being opressed in any way (slavery being the most extreme case) is better than being free to prusue your own goals and beliefs.
I'm not arguing that. I've pointed out multiple times that freedom was not an option for those foreigners the Hebrews took as slaves.
If your God is the only god then all wars that are said to be the will of god are endorsed by your god.
That was... again, utterly moronic. Just because I SAY a war is the will of God doesn't mean it IS.
Burden of proof is on those trying to prove something's exixtance (in this case your God).
Again, wasn't the question. The question was why there couldn't be more than one truth, not one of whether mine was the one truth.
Do you concede the possibility that 1) The Whole Truth comprises more than one Truth, and if so, that 2) christianity does not hold The Whole Truth?
For varying definitions of a truth. In the context of the discussion, I assumed you meant religious truth, in which event the truth of Hindu, say, and the truth of Christianity would be mutually contradictory and can not both be true.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
This is almost interesting, if it wasn't so pointless.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"In fact, the white slavers made their participation in church services the only non-degrading part of their lives."
Being forced to follow someone else's religion seems pretty degrading to me...
"Slaves that were bought from foreigners passing through the country were better off with a Hebrew master than with their foreign master, so buying one would actually be a good thing for them."
This is the same as saying that the man who tortures someone slightly less painfully than the previous torturer is doing something good for his victim.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
You shall not wrong or oppress a resident alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt.
When you buy a male Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, but in the seventh he shall go out a free person, without debt. (7) If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's and he shall go out alone. But if the slave declares, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out a free person, then his master shall bring him before God. He shall be brought to the door or the doorpost; and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; (8)
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out (9) as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed; (10) he shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people since he has dealt unfairly with her. If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish the food, clothing, or marital rights of the first wife. (11) And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out without debt, without payment of money.
(This one sucks) When a slaveowner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner's property.
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
They all suck.
For varying definitions of a truth. In the context of the discussion, I assumed you meant religious truth, in which event the truth of Hindu, say, and the truth of Christianity would be mutually contradictory and can not both be true.
No, I meant The Whole Truth, which has ONE definition but consists of multiple individual Truths. Re-read.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
This is the same as saying that the man who tortures someone slightly less painfully than the previous torturer is doing something good for his victim.
Yes, it is. But what if the new owner can't afford to release the slave, due to the loss of capital it would represent? Buying the slave and treating him well might simply be the best he can do for them.
I meant The Whole Truth, which has ONE definition but consists of multiple individual Truths.
*blink blink*
What, you're asking whether Christianity coveres general relativity? I'd say that's a dumb question.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Well, since we're heading into a mad discussion hinging on the definition of "THE TRUTH," I thought I'd drop in and offer:
First of Two's Incontrovertible Maxims Regarding "THE TRUTH (all caps.)"
#1. I don't know what "THE TRUTH" is.
#2. You don't, either.
#3. Anybody who claims to know "THE TRUTH," probably wants something from you. If you're lucky, it will only be your money. They are probably a con artist. Worse, they could be a "true believer." Shoot first.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: [QB] This is the same as saying that the man who tortures someone slightly less painfully than the previous torturer is doing something good for his victim.
Yes, it is. But what if the new owner can't afford to release the slave, due to the loss of capital it would represent? Buying the slave and treating him well might simply be the best he can do for them.
Wow. I'm sure jesus would be down with that. Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Seeing as the one commandment of Christianity is "Love everyone", I believe Jesus would be down with someone doing the best they can for all involved. A man was supposed to love his slaves as anyone else, and releasing a slave would obviously be good for the slave under most circumstances, but the owner is also supposed to love his family. What if by releasing the slave he condemns his family who he also loves to starve to death? He has to find a balance between doing what's good for the slave and doing what's good for his family, all of them being people he loves.
As for First's observations, if you don't know the truth, how can you state that I don't? You have no basis for comparison. And I want nothing from you, I want good FOR you. But why do you want us to shoot you?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I can't imagine that Jesus would have said a person whould keep his slaves just because they would starve otherwise. He was an unemployed drifter himself, after all.
Besides, if the slaveowner would get off his lazy ass and do some work himself, he wouldn't starve.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Yes! This thread has gotten to the "What would Jesus Do?" point. All we need is a Hitler argument now and we'll be rid of it Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
I can't imagine that Jesus would have said a person whould keep his slaves just because they would starve otherwise.
That wasn't the scenario. The scenario was of a man's family starving. Significantly different.
Besides, if the slaveowner would get off his lazy ass and do some work himself, he wouldn't starve.
Well that depends on how the slaveowner and his family get their food, now wouldn't it?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
It's just occured to me that this has reached a point where you are justifying slavery. At this time, I'm going to stop even dignifying it w/ an arguement.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Ah, so instead of actually giving thought to a legitimate issue, i.e. whether slavery in ancient Israel was inherently different from slavery in the United States, and whether those differences kept slavery from being an abhorrent institution in ancient Israel, you choose to simply say that anything that has the label of slavery must be evil simply because of the label and not necessarily due to the nature of the practice itself.
Duely noted.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Thus you all have discovered why have said that this is pointless.
Group A is saying slavery is a bad thing, which it is.
Omega is saying that slavery in anceint Israel was different than the slavery in the old south, which it was, since there seemed to be laws giving some semblence of protection to the slaves, unlike the old south. If you give credence that people were more apt to be religious then and followed the laws of God.
So, while slavery sucked, in any terms and any way, being a slave in ancient Israel was different than those that were slaves in the old south.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
But that brings us back to the religous implications of a God that allow slavery in any form in the first place.
This sums it up for me:
Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally. - Abraham Lincoln Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
since there seemed to be laws giving some semblence of protection to the slaves, unlike the old south
That and the way the slaves became slaves to begin with. That's what I'm seeing as the most important difference.
As for trying slavery on me because I'm arguing for it, well, you'd have to put me in a situation where I'm a POW in a war specifically ordered by God, and my only other option is death. That's the whole point.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
No, the whole point is that you're defending slavery if it's n a "war that God ordered", but we're all saying that's a cop-out excuse used to justift enslaving people. Anybody can announce that "god ordered me to do it" and commit any crime. If you were the son of someone that was one of thsse supposedly justly captured "POW slaves" then you'd also deserve to be a slave? And you'd be "better off". That is what you're arguing you know.
Yet you still consider one form of slavery diffrent tahn another! Slavery is slavery no matter what excuse is used to justify it weither it be "negros are less than white people and it's for their own good" or "we're showing them the way of God so it's all for their own good". It's all evil lazy bastards enslaving others to do their work and make them profit.
Posted by TheWoozle (Member # 929) on :
I look at it this way, if you justify it, then if you where on the receiving end of that situation, would you still feel that it's okay? or would you do ANYTHING to be free? or would you accept your new position in life?
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Really, the arguement about whether the two types of slavery were different or not is really irrelevant- the verses were interpreted as meaning any slavery by many people and this was believed by many people at the time. So they believed they had a God given right to keep slaves.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
No, the whole point is that you're defending slavery if it's n a "war that God ordered", but we're all saying that's a cop-out excuse used to justift enslaving people.
And I'm saying repeatedly that this is all predicated on the assumption that Jewish law did, in fact, come directly from God, as theoretically their dictates for war would have been had they followed said law. It's just that nobody seems to be listening.
if you where on the receiving end of that situation, would you still feel that it's okay?
If you could convince me that God wanted me enslaved, yeah, I'd go along with it. I can't imagine how you'd convince me of that, but hypothetically speaking I'd do it, no complaints.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
I have half a mind to register the username "God" and start issuing some proclamations. A third testament is way overdue.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
The "NEW New Testament?" The "Even Newer Testament?"
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
"Spankin' New Testament" "Bible Three: The Search For Jesus" "New Testament Two: The Search For More Money" "The Bible: Reloaded" "Big Trouble in Little Jeruselem" "Even more reasons we're right and everyone else is wrong"
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
The Book of Mormon.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
You added a second "m" by mistake.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Now that book's some fun stuff. The story about The Brother of Jarod is almost Pythonesque.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
And yet, people believe in it as faithfully as you believe in the Bible. A telling comparison, I'd say.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Group pressure and carefully directed paranoia can make people rationalize anything, destroy their own innermost convictions, especially the truthseekers, desperate to find something to believe in. Just look at the scientologists.
Though I must say, for a christian you've come a long way in your rationalizations lately, O.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
And yet, people believe in it as faithfully as you believe in the Bible. A telling comparison, I'd say.
There are a lot of belief systems that are total ripoffs of Christianity and the Bible. Just because some, many, or most systems of some certain type are absurd doesn't mean they all are. Analyze each one before you draw conclusions.
Though I must say, for a christian you've come a long way in your rationalizations lately, O.
I'm not quite sure how to take that. But for what it's worth, this is all me, I've never even heard another Christian discuss this issue.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: There are a lot of belief systems that are total ripoffs of Christianity and the Bible. Just because some, many, or most systems of some certain type are absurd doesn't mean they all are. Analyze each one before you draw conclusions.
It's a copyright minefield, this religion, isn't it? And I happen to agree with you about Moronism . He just happened to find these gold plates which no one else ever saw and which haven't been seen since.. yeah, right. Also they baptised Hitler, which does tend to undermine any religion's credibility. Especially as they did it after he died.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
. The Confederates were particularly worried by the Federal government limiting the spread of slavery by the Missouri compromise and other measures.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)