[WARNING: Some images may disturb.] Slavery has been a part of human society since its beginning – and it continues to thrive today. This list looks at some facts about slavery that should (for the most part) be unknown to most of our readers. This is a look through history at how slavery has existed and survived through time.
Slavery was officially established in Virginia in 1654, when Anthony Johnson, a black man, convinced a court that his servant (also black) John Casor was his for life. Johnson himself had been brought to Virginia some years earlier as an indentured servant (a person who must work to repay a debt, or on contract for so many years in exchange for food and shelter – image of a contract above) but he saved enough money to buy out the remainder of his contract and that of his wife. The court ruled in Johnson’s favor, and the very first officially state-recognized slave existed in Virginia. Johnson eventually became very wealthy and began importing his own black slaves from Africa, for which he was granted 250 acres (at the time, any person importing a slave would be paid 50 acres per person). Eventually the unfortunate repercussions of this decision would come back to haunt Johnson when his land was confiscated and given to a white man because Johnson “was a Negroe and by consequence an alien.”
In the second part of the eighteenth century, slavery was beginning to disappear naturally in the United States as farmers were planting crops that required far less manual work. Many slave owners freed their slaves and it began to look like slavery would die out completely. But things were to change. In 1793, Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin (a device for processing raw cotton). This meant that a single man could process fifty times more cotton in a day than previously – making cotton a huge money making crop. This caused the almost immediate replacement of many crops with cotton, and slavery became once again firmly entrenched until its modern abolition.
The word “slave” comes to us from Byzantine Greek “sklabos” which was the name for the Slavic people. The reason for this is that the Vikings used to capture the Slavs and sell them to the Romans as slaves. The term only dates back as far as 580 AD as the Latin word “servus” was more commonly used before that for all kinds of servants – enslaved or not.
The Bible does not expressly condone or forbid slavery. In the New Testament, Jesus heals a slave and commends his owner for his faith. He does not take the time to condemn the slave owner for having a slave, nor at any point does he try to suggest that slavery is wrong. Saint Paul said this to slave owners: “Do not threaten [your slaves], since you know that He who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with Him” (Ephesians 6:9). The Old Testament goes a little further and reminds people to treat their slaves well. The most likely reason for this apparent moral discrepancy is that the Bible was penned at a time when slavery was not only widespread, but considered perfectly normal and moral – there was no reason to mention it as most people wouldn’t have considered it an issue worth thinking about. Slaves at the time were also generally treated much better than the slaves of modern times, and would usually end up being made free after a number of years servitude.
Liberia is a small nation on the west coast of Africa, surrounded by Sierra Leone, The Ivory Coast, Guinea, and the Atlantic Ocean. In 1822, Liberia was founded as a colony by American slaves who had been freed. So thankful were the slaves for the efforts of President James Monroe that they named their new capital city after him (Monrovia). The area was populated by various native ethnic groups and the American slaves had a tendency to look down on them as uncivilized. In 1847, the freed slaves declared independence and the nation was officially born. For its first 133 years, the country was a one-party state dominated by the Americo-Liberians. Ironically, the Americo-Liberians and their children were the only people considered citizens and allowed to vote. Liberia is currently the only (and first) African nation to have an elected woman (Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf) as its head. Liberian English (the official language in Liberia) is a transplanted variant of the English spoken by African American slaves in the 19th Century. The freed slaves turned Liberia into a replica of the cities they left in the United States – as can be seen by the now dilapidated Masonic Temple above which is in Monrovia.
In Africa, prior to the arrival of European slave traders, slavery was a normal part of life. The thing that makes it stand out from European style slavery was the fact that it was a sign of good reputation and honor if a slave owner treated his slaves with respect and kindness. The better treated your slaves, the more honorable and highly regarded you were. Manhandling a slave (as the Europeans were wont to do) was considered unethical and you risked your reputation if you did not feed, clothe, and provide quality surroundings for your slaves.
Charles Lynch was a farmer and American revolutionary from Virginia. During the American Revolution, he headed an irregular court which tried and punished loyalist supporters of the British. The sentences handed down were usually property seizure, flogging, or conscription into the army. After the revolution, Lynch became a member of the Virginia Senate. He is, of course, now famous for the term “lynching” or a “lynch mob”. Lynching of slaves initially started out as flogging, but within a short period of time this progressed to summary execution (usually by hanging). Lynchburg in Virginia is named for his brother John.
Slavery is an ancient practice; it is referred to in man’s earliest records such as the Code of Hammurabi (1760 BC, pictured above), the earliest known law code – from Babylon. It is mentioned in the Bible and some of the ancient philosophers (including Aristotle) believed that some men were born in a natural state of slavery – thereby making it moral to enslave that man (a nice way to justify it if ever there was one). Slavery in those days was often the punishment for debt – once the debt was repaid, the slave might be released.
While the Catholic Church has repeatedly condemned the idea of slavery, there was a short period in the 15th and 16th centuries when it was allowed by special papal permission. The Pope who gave permission was Pope Nicholas V (pictured above) in 1452 when he issued a special bull (a formal letter issued by the Pope) allowing King Afonso V of Portugal to enslave pagans caught during wars. The pertinent text is:
“We grant you [Kings of Spain and Portugal] by these present documents, with our Apostolic Authority, full and free permission to invade, search out, capture, and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be, as well as their kingdoms, duchies, counties, principalities, and other property [...] and to reduce their persons into perpetual slavery.”
In 1537, Pope Paul III returned to the traditional anti-slavery view of the Church.
According to studies done by anti-slavery groups, there are currently more slaves today than at any time in history! Three quarters are female and over half are children. It is believed that there are around 27 million people in slavery right now. Furthermore, this number does not include people who are not technically slaves but are in a form of servitude tantamount to slavery. This is sometimes called “unfree labor”. The average slave today costs around $90 – whereas in the past they cost upwards of $40,000 (in today’s money). A study done at Berkeley University estimates that there are around 10,000 slaves in the United States at the moment. [Source]
Contributor: JFrater
“In 1822, Liberia was founded as a colony by American slaves who had been freed.”
What is not mentioned is how it came about. South Carolina had passed laws emancipating slaves at a certain age or after a certain period of service, and children born of slaves were not [automatically] to be slaves. So a group of wealthy people bought land in what is now Liberia, and offered parcels to “free” persons of African descent. Perhaps trying to stave off questions of whether such people should be given rights, etc., of other people.
isn’t everyone that has a job working for someone or corporation a slave. it usually is OK you get paid for it. but they got food and shelter by picking cotton. isn’t that the same thing we do. some laborers bust there nuts in the end its for food and shelter.
basically we all are slaves unless you work for yourself.
I’m a slave to “the man”
wackedude; But you can quit without being hunted down, flogged, and returned to servitude. Or worse. Geez.
Randall: I normally find you arrogant, insufferable, and just this side of a troll, but your post about Jesus was excellent, and pointing out the similarities between his teachings and Buddha’s made this Omnitheist’s day.
I’ve been spending most of the morning wondering what to say about Randall and his posts, then Yun comes along and says exactly what I wanted to say – except that I would add Randall’s post about slavery to the list of Randall’s excellent comments.
Many Christians would be horrified to think that Christianity was like any other teaching (and a mere “human” teaching at that), but quite clearly it is.
I’m a bit worried that this discussion has focused on the Judeo/Christian heritage’s connection with slavery when there are so many other facets to discus, but there’s time yet.
I’m surprised that this discussion hasn’t full-on exploded though.
Here are my favorite Bible verses pertaining to prejudism and slavery: (from Galatians chapter 3)
“Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus,for as many of you as have been baptised into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”
How can people call themselves Christian and still believe that racism and *****ism are acceptable? We are all equal in God’s eyes. This is the main problem I have with American Christianity. If you really follow Christ, how can you “look down upon” any group of people? How can you be filled with hatred towards others?
At least in the early part of slavery in the USA, people really believed that Black people were “lower” than white (and unfortunately some people still believe that) and that was how they justified treating slaves worse than they would treat any animal. Now in the US, I think most slaves are women, most in the ***** trade, and they, too, are looked down upon as less than human.
That is the real evil that drives slavery: to make oneself believe that others are less than human in order to satisfy one’s own greed.
I agree with you.Because generally, slavery back then was profitable due to sugar plantations, and many Europeans were looking for fast money. They knew it was wrong, but made excuses and justifications for cruel and inhumane behavior. Racism itself stems from extreme ethnocentrism aka "your skin's not my color, you don't think or act the way that I do, and you're religion's bad so I feel like it's my duty to shove my beliefs/way of life down your throat." Instead of understanding another point of view, they proceed to hugely destroy it.
- as for the part of Bible condoning slavery, since there's been so many translations from it being written so many times, people change the verses. Plus since people were writing it, they themselves didn't view slavery as evil because they were conditioned to accept it during that time. They may have been messengers of God, but as human beings weren't fully understanding His purpose.
the word “sklabos” is still used today in the spanish language.
the spanish word for slave is “esclavo” or “esclavos” in plural.
basically still the same word used in ancient times.
BooRadley, one of the problems is with christianity, is that no one follows the teaching of Jesus. They don’t sell their posessions and give away ALL their money. they go for the cop out “do unto others” and still only do that half-arsed. All in all religion is a crock and the followers who get offended at athiests like myself don’t even do what their lord asks of them. prove me wrong people! sell your items and walk in the fottsteps of jesus! don’t be afraid, the lord will guid and rpotect you. (prediction: no one will do this, thus proving my point)
Jesus commanded one *potential* follower to sell all he had and give it to the poor. He did not instruct everyone to.
Though I partially agree that many “Christians” do not follow basic teachings, like “Love one another as I have loved you”.
I would also like to thank Randall (73) for the beautiful, well-thought-out treatise on the role of Jesus in our world. You really captured what has been floating around in my brain for a while now. In the US, I am embarrassed to be associated with the “Christian Right,” because they have strayed from Jesus’s teaching that we are all the same, and should love one another as we love ourselves. Now it is just a political hate machine. I don’t want to let these people drive me away from the true message of Jesus Christ, but boy, is it hard!
I also loved your other big treatise on slavery, Randall, and I feel that I should be paying tuition to receive such expert teaching. I think you are very funny, too, but Bucslim’s still ahead of you there. Thanks, Boo
In my country you can literally buy small kids from poor people for just a few hundreds of dollars.
From entry Number 7: “the Bible was penned at a time when slavery was not only widespread, but considered perfectly normal and moral”
So the Bible was written in a time when folks didn’t know much and weren’t very enlightened? Man, that explains allot.
Interesting
Quite horrific really
But well written
Good list x
118. Mikey – January 14th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
DiscHuker: You’re right, the Bible doesn’t specifically condemn the child ***** trade. It condones it.
Ah well… I guess ignorance (and prejudice) is bliss…
I met a man when I was living in Pittsburgh, who claimed to have worked in the British Navy or something equivalent. We got to talking about various things and eventually the topic of the Arab world came up, since he’d been there, and I’m always fascinated by other cultures.
Well, he told me that some Arabs still go raiding into Africa, along the Atlantic coast, for slaves. He also claimed to have been on a warship once, and they spotted a slaver ship heading south along the coast to get slaves, and that there was nothing they could do about it. This was because the ship was not in international waters, and certain UN charters and resolutions prevented them from interfering.
Also, I’ve read in some places where a lot of the kids who go missing in America wind up in Arab and Asian countries, usually as ***** slaves – especially the blond haired, blue eyed-girls(Arab countries) and green-eyed girls(Asian countries).
Unfortunately, at the time I read these, I was on public access computers, and broke, so I have no articles to reference back to, and after looking for a while, I can’t find. If I run across them again, and remember, I’ll save them; and then try and remember why I wanted them, lol.
blitz:
I’m reading along and all of a sudden I hit your comment… and laughed out loud. Thank you. I miss Yakov Smirnov.
I’m glad to see that Randall has stepped it up to *self*-*****ery in this here comment-section. Good for you, there is no shame in being arrogant about knowing a lot of things well. I’m also proud to announce that you’ve leveled up since you referred to yourself in the third person. Additionally, you receive bonus points for loving the Greeks (even if you prefer it between the legs, as they did, and not in the butt as true homos do).
To those of you that dislike Randall (and this seems to be when he disagrees with you)… well, I’m just going to deduce from the fact that he’s been right (2/2 so far) that you were wrong and thus just jealous of his enormous manhood, him being the gleaming beacon of knowledge that he is.
Davo, how come the first thing out of an atheists mouth is a Bible verse? I thought you didn’t give a ***** about what Jesus said. For a guy who says there is no God you seem to be well informed of His doctrines and Bible verses, so why don’t you educate Christians on how they’re supposed to follow a fake God? Got any more Bible nuggets you can put into a sermon, uh lecture?
In the mean time, I’ll read up on some Nietzshe and tell you how you’re a poor atheist.
Kazorek:
Sorry dude, but you strike me as the type who, when somebody at a party tells a funny joke and everyone else is chuckling, shouts out, “I don’t get it.”
You clearly didn’t read my lil’ treatise carefully, or you simply didn’t linger on my brilliant prose long enough to soak up the meaning–which was rather clear, I think.
“To a non-believer your argument is quite illogical.”
Was this addressed directly to me? You cited me (and others) so I assume so. Well to begin with, let’s correct your misapprehension that I was making “an argument.” No no, Kazorek–there is no “argument” here–everything I said, both regarding slavery in my first post and the big JC in the second, are FACT. I was correcting the rhetoric of others with some needed factual information. Of course, I threw in some of my opinion, as well–I’m wont do that, because I love me and hence love my own opinions. But overall the point was that people were coughing up mistaken ideas about slavery AND Jesus, and that was that.
“The idea that the bible is just being.. politically correct, I guess you could say.. is not an excuse at all;”
This is where you clearly failed, utterly, to grasp what I was saying. I was not making some half-assed argument that the Bible was attempting some form of “political correctness”; quite the contrary, in fact. The Old Testament in particular is very much a document of its times–cruelty, horror, bloodshed and nastiness reign supreme in it. Moreover, Jehovah is not a touchy-feely make-nice god in the OT. The books of the OT are rife with harshness and tough lessons.
But again–this, along with the points I was making about the nature of Jesus’ message and actions, is in keeping with the larger eastern idea of a vast tapestry that stands behind the smaller, limited veil that is the world we view around us. This is not “excuse making” by any stretch of the imagination—as is made clear in all these old texts–both the Bible, the Upanishads, the Dhammapada, Lao-Tse’s works, etc. etc., you can either find acceptance and cohabitation with the nastiness AND the beauty and sublimity of the universe and existence as they are, or you can join in the fray and fight the good fight. Either way, you’re still part of the whole. Nowhere does it say, “just allow evil to happen.” Acceptance is not the same thing, by any means, as withdrawal.
“what I mean is some suggested he “couldn’t” denounce it because it was too drastically different from societal standards.”
Which is a point I would not have agreed with, and I think I also made that clear in my earlier statements. Rather, I view the mission and message of Jesus as being removed from these matters in a sense–in other words, Jesus’ whole MISSION and INTENT *obviously* said that these things (be they war, slavery, or any injustice or mistreatment of our fellow humans) are wrong–that’s inherent in his message that we are all the same, etc. But by the same token, his mission was to introduce into us this new WAY of thought–and to have focused on a laundry list of issues that would satisfy YOU, as a modern individual with your sense of morality, two thousand years later–I mean, that would have clearly brought his mission and message down to the level of the street speechmaker and reformer. Not that that’s a bad vocation for someone to follow–but it’s a vocation for a different mission. Jesus’ mission was far more broad and earth-shaking.
Remember that the Buddhist admits first that all life is suffering, and goes from there (that the cause of suffering is desire, and so on). But the point is, this is absolutely true–between wars, crime, injustice, anger, hatred, exploitation, etc. etc. our existence on this globe always turns out to be 90% nastiness and 10% occasional glory and beauty. YOU wanted Jesus to go through a list of things we should change to make this a better, utopian world. But that ISN’T what Jesus was about. In wanting this, you’re missing entirely the spiritual message underlying him, and wanting instead a hyped-up version of Ralph Nader combined with the various social reformers of the 19th and early 20th centuries. Nice, but very temporal and material. That isn’t Jesus. Nor is it the Buddha. Both said things about helping the poor, etc. and how the mistreatment of each other is bad. But these things are only one tiny facet of their overall messages.
“The simple fact is human morality was not as advanced when the bible was written,”
That’s rubbish. Morality ITSELF has not substantially changed at all, in human history. We are, and always have been, a social species with love and concern and care for one another. The difference is that the CODIFICATION and INSTITUTIONALIZATION of certain precepts and ideas have changed over time, as have certain priorities. JESUS was one of those in history–the most significant one–who codified as IDEAS what we today call “morality.” But even before him, morality had been codified in certain forms and had existed as “unwritten law” for a very long time.
It is the propagation of IDEAS and concepts about morality that has changed—but not the sense of right and wrong itself. Helping the poor, therefore, wasn’t a big priority in ancient societies, (thought it WAS at times a consideration in certain socities) until Jesus came along in the west, and prior to him, certain ideas were introduced in the east. But the natural elements that reinforce this BEHAVIOR in mankind have always been present in us. Hence slavery has ALWAYS been wrong, in a moral sense. What ancient societies failed to do, however, was accept this idea and codify it into law. The first step in said acceptance was to accept that all human beings are brothers and sisters, and hence what I do to you, I do to myself. Jesus didn’t MAKE UP that idea, because others had it before him on a small scale. But he INTRODUCED it to the western mind as an idea, like waking people up to see the truth that had been all around them, all the time, but they had been too short or cloudy of vision to see.
“Someone said Jesus didn’t denounce drunk driving and a couple other things; those things, first of all aren’t in slavery’s league of immorality,”
What IS in slavery’s league of morality, Kazorek? War? Exploitation? Did you not read the things I said about slavery, before I spoke about Jesus. YOU, Kazorek–YOU—are living on the exploitation of others RIGHT NOW. As am I. As are ALMOST ALL OF US.
You’re on a high horse that doesn’t befit you, because you’re looking at existence through narrow glasses. Take ‘em off and look around you with open eyes. THAT is what Jesus AND the Buddha were saying.
That doesn’t mean slavery is then “excused” or okay–that’s not the point. In fact it would mean that we’d realize MANY things are NOT okay or to be excused–INCLUDING slavery and countless other injustices–and maybe we could start living LIKE Jesus and the Buddha, instead of pretending that we can’t.
“secondly – they weren’t right there all around him his whole life. Slavery was a regular fact of life and Jesus probably saw and interacted with slaves daily yet he never said, “imprisoning a man who has done no wrong is sinful.””
And this is where, again, you ENTIRELY MISSED the point I was making about Jesus. In fact it seems to me you merely ignored it because it isn’t convenient for you. You want to paint it as “excusing” Jesus. It’s nothing of the kind.
WHAT IS the message of Jesus as you see it, then, Kazorek? What was he saying, as you see it? Why did he speak up? What do you think he was talking about?
Seems to me you just haven’t thought long or hard enough about this. Your first impulse is to want Jesus as a speechmaking reformer. Just as the Hebrews at the time wanted him to be the Roman-ass-kicking messiah.
You know, Kazorek, the Buddha said to his followers, “for heaven’s sake, don’t worship ME, that’s the worst thing you could–I am not a god and do not make ME yet another object of your desires.” Do you understand this message and intent of his? Do you understand that Jesus would, in essence, say the same thing? Christians think he WAS saying he was the son of god, but I think it’s obvious that rather he was saying that we can ALL be him, just as the Buddha said we could ALL find buddha consciousness. But by the same, only a reverse error–you want Jesus to have filled YOUR idea of a moralizing preacher or reformer. That’s not how it works. You think you would have been happier if Jesus had written out a whole book of do’s and don’ts for mankind–well the point of Jesus AND the Buddha, Kazorek, is that the both essentially said, “look–you people KNOW what’s right and wrong—you don’t need us to tell you what’s what. What you NEED, however, is to wake up and LIVE by what’s right and wrong–to accept it and FOLLOW it.”
You, Kazorek, want yet another great figure to have laid out the whole thing for you in black and white. This is wrong, that’s wrong, this is bad, that’s bad… well how many times in history do you need this put on paper? How about simply practicing it and waking up to it? THAT is what we need. Not Jesus the commandment maker. We already HAD the ten commandments, and in other cultures other ideas and notions of right and wrong. How many times over did we need the same set of rules and ideas for things that were already WITHIN our being?
It’s Nietzsche, there, cheech (unless you’re referencing his proto-feminist alter-ego). Besides, Nietzsche was an awful atheist (it ties in to him being an awful philosopher), he was also an awful philosopher (by his own admission, true philosophy was never supposed to be accessible by the common, meak-minded, person; now he’s taught in most Phil 101 courses. Epic fail.)
It’s like he was the most epic chef ever, made the most epic cake ever (but it was composed of tastes never experienced before so everyone who tasted it interpreted it differently) and put a huge sign on it saying “IDIOTS ***** OFF” but then somehow all the idiots flocked to it anyway and proceeded to puke all over the cake for the next half-century (thank you Nietzsche’s sister and her NAZI buddies). That made no one want to eat the cake, until finally some crazy Europeans got hungry and went at it anyway, and, much to the world’s surprise, it was *****ing awesome. Being the communist academic hippies that they were, they let everyone have a piece and now Nietzsche’s glorious mustache graces the walls of millions of teenagers’ bedrooms worldwide.
No, poor Zarathustra, that’s not a dwarf pouring lead into your ear, it’s the common university student *****ing on your grave.
Sorry about the missing ‘c’ mouse. And it’s MISTER cheech to you.
‘Spose I should have shot for something a little easier to spell and more atheistic like S-C-H-O-P-E-N-H-A-U-E-R
BooRadley:
(I loved the Boo Radley’s back in the day, btw… another lost late 80s/90s band…)
Thanks much… but trust me, I’m every bit as funny as bucslim, and actually I’m quite confident that I’m far funnier—as I am, to him, what a New Yorker cartoon is to a Reader’s Digest joke.
bucslim, however, makes it a point to use this forum primarily as a testing ground for his stand-up routine (as well as to grind out some of the bitterness of his life) whilst I use it primarily to educate and inform the masses.
We both perform a public service; mine is merely more sublime.
Educate and inform the masses? You cannot teach anything to anyone, because you're apparently so full of yourself that you forget one of the first thing that a real teacher should learn in order to teach someone : HUMILITY. You're apparently so full of Jesus and Buddha, and still, you don't get it? Of course, you look to have a lot of knowledge, and you can make some interesting points, but it doesn't prove anything. It's the net, man, nobody knows if these thoughts are really from you, or if you ripped off someone else's work. It just prove how much arrogant and vain you are. Tons of knowledge are nothing if you don't know how to use it properly. I don't really think you're here to share your knowledge and enlight the poor stupid people that we are, you're just trying to find a scene for your ego to show-off.
Show-off is for weak people, do something more interesting with your big brain. You know, the classic :get a life….
Yun:
“I normally find you arrogant, insufferable, and just this side of a troll…”
Gee, THANKS, Yun. So nice to have all this love on my side.
and maybe you are an attention ***** too….
and if all of this is a joke, or a trollish persona you're using on the net, well, thank you for the waste of time.
It’s, okay I forgive you (I think he would, too); I just wanted an excuse to relate my favorite philosopher to cake.
-MISTER Mouse
Randall, how many times do I have to spank you before you understand? Boo was totally righteous when he said I was the funnier. You’re an after school special with Zach and Cody compared to my Carlinesque witticisms. I’m Michael Jordan, you’re that skinny kid in gym class with pee stained shorts that don’t fit with coke bottle glasses and a heat rash. I’m Curly, you’re Moe.
You’ve been bent over more times by me than a Poison groupie.
Go put your clown shoes back on. Hugs and Kisses Sweetheart!
“136. GTT – January 15th, 2009 at 7:26 am
Ah well… I guess ignorance (and prejudice) is bliss…”
Ahem, I quote:
“However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.” – Leviticus 25:44-46
You were saying something about ‘ignorance’, I believe?
And shall we forget, there are more than 50,000,000,000 nonhuman slaves right now in factory farms around the world.
Speciesism is no different than racism.
bucslim:”In the mean time, I’ll read up on some Nietzshe and tell you how you’re a poor atheist.”
Nietzsche isn’t the Lord of atheists. You’re complaining that he’s pointing out verses from the Bible while talking to Christians, as if being a Christian gives you some sort of encyclopedic knowledge of the Bible. Do you honestly believe that it isn’t possible for someone to read the Bible and come away with a criticism of it? Having a go at him for quoting the Bible in his comment is like criticising a man for reading Sylvia Plath. It’s stupid and it’s intolerant to whine about an atheist quoting the Bible.
More on the child ***** trade as God apparently intended:
“When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.” – Exodus 21:7-11
#149, Agreed as long as we don’t forget the billions of fruits and vegetables that we yank out of the ground just to fulfill our selfish need to eat!!!
P.S Sarcasm fully intended.
#149, way to stand up for the cows. It was very moooving.
BADOOM-TSCHH
Mikey, I’ll only being as stupid and intolerant as Davo was being. I’m sorry that Nietzsche doesn’t fit the whole ‘Lord of the Atheists’ tag, but when someone suggest that God is dead, they aren’t exactly worshipping him. He also said “Faith means not wanting to know what is true.” so I’m gonna go ahead put him in the Under Lord seat of atheists. Next time I’ll pick someone like Christopher Hitchens. Besides, the whole point of what I’m saying is why should an atheist give a ***** of how I’m interpreting a fake text and following a fake God? They should stick to what they’re good at, being all smug in their own enlightenment.
I´m still not seeing the CHILD ***** slave. Is this because he says “daughter”? I see… So once a woman reaches maturity (whatever age that may be) she is no longer considered anyone´s daughter?
An in your first quote, where the heck does he mention *****?
Your quotes are just repeats of what was said before about slavery. You cannot pick bits and pieces to fit whatever it is you want to say.
I don’t think Davo was being particularly stupid, actually. He had a point, the Bible does say “it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a ric man to enter the kingdom of Heaven”. My understanding was that he was saying that a Christian should be open to the notion of surrendering their possessions. I can understand you calling him intolerant, as he also seemed to say that all Christians are hypocrites.
I don’t want to get into a debate about Nietschze, but when he said God is dead he didn’t mean it literally and he certainly wasn’t celebrating the fact. He was claiming that religion no longer could claim the dominion over morality that it traditionally had.
There are no Lords or Under-Lords in atheism, it isn’t a doctrine or a religion and it cannot be taught… I understand you were speaking metaphorically but I feel I should point that out anyway.
“Besides, the whole point of what I’m saying is why should an atheist give a ***** of how I’m interpreting a fake text and following a fake God?”
We’re chasing our tails here. In his comment he was complaining about the Christians apparently disapproving of atheism whilst in practice being hypocritical in their own behaviour. I think you both just want the other to keep their beliefs well away, so what is the root of the problem here?
“They should stick to what they’re good at, being all smug in their own enlightenment.”
Please don’t stereotype or patronise atheists. It’s intolerant.
“I´m still not seeing the CHILD ***** slave. Is this because he says “daughter”? I see… So once a woman reaches maturity (whatever age that may be) she is no longer considered anyone´s daughter?”
GTT, don’t be coy. Do you see any age boundaries in that quote? I sure don’t. Marriage while a minor was commonplace in ancient times, so it follows that one could sell a child into ***** slavery in the same vein. Even if the quote I provided doesn’t include children, what then? Is God not still condoning ***** slavery? That’s not a big improvement.
“Your quotes are just repeats of what was said before about slavery. You cannot pick bits and pieces to fit whatever it is you want to say.”
It’s not ambiguous in the sligtest. It isn’t really open for interpretation. It’s the rules for selling your child as a ***** slave, not a parable. You’re complaining about me picking and choosing bits and pieces, like as in evidence to support my arguement? How is that fair? You clearly weren’t happy when I simply said “the Bible condones the child ***** trade” so how can I possibly get my point across?
Mikey, I got no beef with ya pal. I’m just saying and atheist telling a Christian how to live is like a fat guy telling Usain Bolt how to run.
But I’ll let it go.
Fairplay then.
# 159. Bucslim, have you checked out Usain Bolt’ coach?
http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20080603/sports/sports9.html
I believe that you agree that all atheist should be giving theology classes.
Irony: 1
Bucslim: 0
Ulmflb – Haha nice one fella
Ulmflb – That’s totally awesome! I started laughing my ass off in the office!
Now I’m sitting in a pile of my own butterscotch pudding.
I was thinking “I hope that dude doesn’t actually have a fat coach.” when I was writing my post.
OK, I’m an idiot.
Mikey:
I dont necessarily see it as a ***** slave. He´s talking about slaves, yes, but he then talks about MARRIAGE how if that were to happen the girl could no longer be treated as a slave. Now, if you go on to say that the girl didnt have a choice in the matter then I would have to say that most women didnt have a say in who they married whether or not they were slaves (pre-arranged marriages).
And the part about picking abd chosing bits was because I thought you wanted to somehow combine those two quotes into some new argument (as in, one mentions kids and the other mentions ***** ergo… child ***** slaves!) I apologize if that was not your intent.
Excellent List!
Randall:
I wasn’t talking specifically to you, you just seem to be the ring leader and I’ve had short discussions with you in the past. And I don’t want it laid out. I feel entitled to no moral guidance from anyone else. Jesus, Buddha, whoever. What exactly does Buddha have to do with anything anyways? You keep Buddha-izing Jesus, its not a good comparison (unless you believe god is “the truth”). Buddhism has very little in common with christianity. I’m not supernatural in my belief at all, but I do think Buddha has a lot to offer as far as philosophy goes. Jesus on the other hand, hasn’t ever done much for me (even growing up catholic). He’s perfect. A life of virtue and righteousness- perfect… blah blah, what would jesus do bracelet bull*****; its superman. In reality he has much more in common with Muhammad (superman to the muslim world – arch enemy and evil to most of you) in the way he “messiah’ed.” You may think I’m that guy that tells any unfunny joke, but what I really am is the atheist in a thread full of christians – it can have the same effect. My post was a little vague and scatter-shot, and yes you tightened up a couple of ambiguities that you probably understood despite their “vagueness,” but it wasn’t missing any point. I don’t think Jesus was the man you describe, I don’t think Christianity is based on those principles. They are based on servitude to God, and thats what Jesus preached. It wasn’t perfect. Thats all. There you go. Email me if you decide to convert/denounce.
that was a stupid post. its just frustrating to know you can’t hear me. from an objective viewpoint the bible has a lot of depth, a lot of junk, a lot of good, a lot of psychobabble, and overall its… interesting and inspired… and grand – but not great. mostly fairy tales. it will say whatever you want it to if you talk long enough, including the claim that somewhere it expresses slavery is wrong.
randall: while i didn’t really want to get into a full fledged biblical debate with you, i do have to take you aside with the following quote from 141…
“Christians think he WAS saying he was the son of god, but I think it’s obvious that rather he was saying that we can ALL be him, just as the Buddha said we could ALL find buddha consciousness.”
i don’t know if it was you or not but i am pretty sure that i have had this discussion with others before on LV. to state it plainly, Jesus WAS saying He was the son of God. John 10:30 “i and the Father are one”. the leaders of the day were under no confusion about what he was saying. in john 5:18 “this was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabath but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God”.
if you want to say that he couldn’t be God that is one thing, however Jesus was very clear on the issue. this is one of the main theological distinctives of CHRISTianity. this is a foundational issue.
“I dont necessarily see it as a ***** slave. He´s talking about slaves, yes, but he then talks about MARRIAGE how if that were to happen the girl could no longer be treated as a slave. Now, if you go on to say that the girl didnt have a choice in the matter then I would have to say that most women didnt have a say in who they married whether or not they were slaves (pre-arranged marriages).”
If they weren’t being sold as ***** slaves, then why were they only talking about daughters? Why not sons too?
Even if this passage isn’t condoning ***** slavery, it is at least condoning slavery… which brings us back to “doh”.
“Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. “Why have you let all the women live?” he demanded. “These are the very ones who followed Balaam’s advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD’s people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.”
- Number 31:14-18
The final sentence in that passage sounds a lot like child ***** slavery to me.
One thing you left off your list is the interesting tidbit that in the South during Slavery, that their were Black Slaveholders…indeed, I believe about 2000 of them ended up fighting for the South during the Civil War…
And you should have pointed out that the founder of the ‘religion of peace’ Muhammed, himself owned slaves and tragically islam has been happily dealing in and with slavery upto the present..
You will NEVER see a Wilberforce in Islam since slavery is built into its ideology, if not explicitly certainly implicity…..it doesn’t help that the founder himself owned slaves I guess…
In giving this a bit of thought there are some people who could be better off being a slave. Under an individual who takes care of his property. Three hots and a flop for a decent days labour. No stress. No decisions that they aren’t really qualified to make. I know a couple of people that would be very content in that situation.
A thought, how many african americans would want their ancestors not to be brought to the colonies and made slaves if they realized that they would have been born in africa as a result.
wtf, they erased my yakov smirnoff joke.
wonder why, oh well, here it is again:
IN SOVIET RUSSIA,
SLAVE OWNS YOU!!!!!!
the last picture is beautifully taken..
two list for yesterday?
Kazorek:
I frankly despair of getting through to you, since you seem to be one of these people who is convinced they KNOW what they’re talking about, when in fact it’s painfully clear that they most desperately don’t.
“I don’t want it laid out.”
Well I beg to differ. I think you very much do. You just won’t recognize the fact. To you, Jesus inadequately spoke out against the evils of his day. Instead of me further haranguing you on this point, I recommend that you instead take some time and THINK seriously about it.
“What exactly does Buddha have to do with anything anyways? You keep Buddha-izing Jesus, its not a good comparison”
I’m quite frankly shocked that anybody could say this, but it’s obvious, then, that you haven’t studied the matter at all, let alone carefully.
I don’t wish to embarrass you, Kazorek, but in point of fact the parallels between the teachings of Jesus and the Buddha are extremely well known and documented. As figures their messages are in fact nearly identical, though presented in entirely different idioms. I stress, again, that this point is not unique to me nor am I by any means the first to make it or recognize it. It’s been talked about for at least a century, in fact, and probably much longer than that in eastern circles. I could recommend any number of books that illustrate the parallels and which would clearly indicate that this is no mere matter of interpretation. In fact there is a whole school of historical theory today, devoted to trying to uncover some evidence or indication that Jesus in fact may have formed his philosophy after exposure to Buddhist teachings in the east. Even the Catholic church readily admits that there are clear parallels between the teachings of the two figures, Christ and Buddha.
“Buddhism has very little in common with christianity.”
Actually, except for the prosyletizing nature of Christianity, the two are in fact very similar in general philosophy. The primary difference is that Christ is the central figure, as deified figure, in Christianity, while the Buddha is merely the teaching figure in Buddhism. The moralistic points of Christianity are in fact derived from earlier Hebrew tradition for the most part–but if you know anything about Buddhism (I sense that you do not) you know that Buddhism, in turn, also issues from an earlier tradition–namely the Hindu–and that there are moralistic points threaded through it from that tradition as well. The only other difference being that Buddhism does not stress a dichotomous morality, as Hinduism in large part did not either.
But the central message of Jesus has little to do with the moralistic, proselytizing aspects of Christianity. Christianity and Buddhism, therefore, do indeed differ on several points of outward practice and even inward philosophy. But at heart, leaving aside the outward aspects, they in fact parallel each other quite closely, and the parallels are even more obvious when one examines Christ and the Buddha together as figures, rather than focusing on the structure that followed in their wake—Christianity and Buddhism.
“I’m not supernatural in my belief at all, but I do think Buddha has a lot to offer as far as philosophy goes.”
I’d be interested to hear how this is so, since to me you don’t seem to have a great command of either, to make said judgement. I personally draw from both. They have their differences, much of which is nuance.
“Jesus on the other hand, hasn’t ever done much for me (even growing up catholic). He’s perfect. A life of virtue and righteousness- perfect… ”
Hmm. It’s interesting to hear that you admit you were Catholic. It seems that Catholicism either grabs people for good, or drives them directly away.
Part of what you’re saying is a problem of interpretation, I feel. The dominant paradigm in Christianity is as you say–Jesus as the deified figure. But this is, again, a very limited and flat view. You seem to be focusing on what was said OF Jesus rather than what was said BY him, to make just one point.
“In reality he has much more in common with Muhammad”
Well I’m afraid this absurd. Again, I get the strong sense here that you are speaking wildly about things which in fact your knowledge of is very limited.
“I don’t think Jesus was the man you describe,”
Well I very much beg to differ. But again this is the problem with Catholicism–it sometimes indoctrinates without encouraging independent thought. But the mind always seeks to be independent. Some people, then, delve deeper in their own religion to find the truth—other people find their independence by running away from what they see as ties that bind.
On the other hand, the problem with Protestantism is that it replaces the mysteries of ritual–as a means of finding a way at the truth–with zeal and over-arching earnestness.
I submit to you, Kazorek, that there’s a third way. Countless people have seen it. Not just me.
“I don’t think Christianity is based on those principles. They are based on servitude to God, and thats what Jesus preached.”
I hardly think so. You really have no back up for making this statement. The Christian religion in large part, perhaps does preach a kind of servitude to god, but Jesus himself didn’t.
I think, Kazorek, that you have the same kind of bitter bias against your own (former) background religion that I’ve seen in a LOT of Catholics. It’s sad. And I can’t blame you. I don’t see it as your fault. But if you go back and re-evaluate matters, you might see some of the veil being lifted.
Forget about Christianity; it is, as you say, very flawed. I’m just saying, if you go back and re-examine ONLY Jesus to begin with, you may see a lot there, of what I’ve been saying. Certainly others have.
And bear in mind–Jesus or the Buddha, I don’t prefer one to the other. To me they’re the same.
I have a very detailed family history, which goes back to before the Revolutionary War; names, dates, marriages, children, everything…so one of the things I know is that I had a whole bunch of relatives fighting in the Civil War.
500 for the Confederacy.
250 for the Union.
While the family had started down from New England, they first settled in Virginia, but by 1850 were all living in one county in Tennessee.
Makes you wonder about family get-togethers like Thanksgiving and Christmas after the war.
The Muhammad and Jesus thing was pretty dumb. They were very different. They we just both like “hey god told me to tell you…” but they were very different. For instance Muhammad was a man, Jesus was “perfect.” If you don’t believe he was you are indeed, NOT a Christian. He was completely and utterly sinless for he was god. Too idealized for my taste. And as for your question pertaining to Buddha, who doesn’t think Buddha has philosophic qualities to his writings? Or are you asking me what I like about him? Well I’m partial to existentialism and he appeals to that side of philosophy pretty heavily. I know Buddhism expanded out from Hindu, whatever that has to do with anything. And dare I say it Randall, but I think you’ve gotten sucked into a rant. I said some stupid things and admitted it, hope you had fun ripping them up anyways; but apparently Jesus didn’t get through to the writers of the bible effectively enough and the message comes across that slavery is okay. Maybe you should start your own religion based on Jesus quotes, but christianity (“the bible,” regardless of what christianity has become today) is not like Buddhism, and its sort of like the Qur’an. I challenge you to find an atheist or non-christian that thinks Jesus/Buddha comparisons are relevant to anything beyond arbitrary factoids and making Jesus look good.
It seems like I ignored a lot of the things you said. Its because you said so much and most of it was just twisting my words around or taking them in with pretenses or maybe using false pretenses in you post. (sorry about the gap, had to snuggle with my girlfriend for a few minutes)