Tweet
Re: Another reason I am not a Christian
{Fledgist: He also said that he came not to bring peace but a sword. The Bible is an extraordinarily self-contradictory work. However, what bothers me, as the descendant of slaves, is that slaves are commanded to obedience. It also bothers me that people can claim that the Bible is both the eternal word of god and historically-bound.}
britisha Which slaves are/were commanded to obedience? Obedience to who? You see Fledge, as previously pointed out to you, and which you seem to refuse to admit, the Bible here is referring to the institution of slavery as practiced in the epoch of the Old Testament, and even the New. IMHO not speaking of or referring to the >400 years of slavery of black ppl.
{Fledgist: How does it neutralise it?
britisha: The quotes that you cited as being abhorrent are just that as you perceive them, [go here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14039a.htm ... and here is another quote from the same source (the Bible) that would negate that which you find abhorrent. Here is another for you.
The Spirit of God is upon me,
because God has anointed me
to bring good news to the poor
God has sent me to proclaim liberty to captives
recovery of sight to the blind,
to let the oppressed go free,
to proclaim the year of God's favour. [Luke 4:18-19]
While this is in reference to the prophet Isaias, Jesus used it again in talking to the Pharisees/Saducess and the public at large then, to demonstrate his mission and fulfilling the prophecy. His mission included teaching men/women to love and how to demonstrate human compassion, which could and should include the abominable act of enslavement of one's fellowmen.
Agen, agen, was the enslavement of blacks occurring at the time when this was written? Answer me Fledgist. The Romans had slaves, the Greeks had slaves, the Africans had slaves, mostly if not all of their own ethnicity...and while I MAY accept that the Caucasians who owned slaves, ppl of another race, might have used or did use the "obey your master" quote, they obviously in their ignorance were quoting out of context in their disillusionment and guilt.
{Fledgist: Maybe they didn't need it, but it certainly provided ideological support for social injustice. Why do you think that those 18th century planters wanted our forebears Christianised? Precisely so that they could internalise the divine commandment of obedience to even the harshest master.}
britisha: ***sigh***
Agen, these wicked slavemasters were misquoting the Holy Scriptures. I hope that you have read the link, since it explains it a little better than I could, to see that this could be in reference to a different type of slavery as condoned and practiced in bibical times.
{Fledgist: It makes plenty of sense. It is cheaper to get the slave to keep himself/herself enslaved.
britisha:...and in their ignorance they gambled and lost.
{Fledgist: That's close to what happened. The preachers came and told the slaves that there would be pie in the sky by and by, and in the meantime obey bakra massa and cut the cane.}
britisha: So now it moves from the Scriptures to the talk of the "pie in the sky." Help mi Laaawd!!
{Fledgist: Jamaica is exceptional in having a very high rate of slave revolts. You might want to consider that Christianisation was a response to slave uprisings (you might also want to consider the curious case of the mass conversion of Accompong Town), and it sought to subvert the slaves by providing an ideological justification for obedience. You might also want to consider why traditional African religious and magical practices were outlawed (and some still are). Whips and chains work, but it is much cheaper if the slave carries a slavedriver in his or her head -- one that says god with provide an eternal reward, and in the meantime this suffering must be endured.}
britisha: I am not going to refute anything that you said here in totality, for some of my views were already expressed in another thread concerning this; however, however, again, what the slavemasters did in their now-failing efforts to suppress revolts etc, has nothing to do with what was expressed in the Bible. You must remember that some slaves in other cultures couldn't enter the institution of marriage, based on their relegated lower status...so to try to embrace slaves into their religion just proves my point that the slavery of which you speak is NOT the same as that which the Bible spoke of. Why would a racist slavemaster wish the heathen slaves to pray to the same god that they pray to? Something doesn't make any sense to me. Obviously they were quoting as you are, snippets from the Scriptures to justify their own positions.
{Fledgist: Not in the least. See what I write above.}
britisha: I disagree.
{Fledgist: It is not that easy to find guilty consciences among slaveowners. Towards the end, some were uncomfortable with the institution -- but not because they owned human beings -- out of fear that another Haiti might transpire.
britisha: It might not be that easy, but how do you know that it might not have been that hard? I am glad that you mention Haiti where restavecs are still held in slavery. Perchance that is the result of religion, and if so which one, Voodun or christianity? Could it be part of the legacy of the old African culture like the religion to enslave others?
Fledgist: Christianity provided a means for the slaveowner to justify his/her ownership of human beings (their 'souls' would be saved), while keeping the slave in line (after slavery on earth there would be joy in heaven).}
britisha: Wrong choice of words. Christianity did no such thing as far as my knowledge goes. Abominable slavemasers used the Word to JUSTIFY THEIR DESPICABLE ACTS...so now the onus is on you, Fledgist to show where the Scriptures said that.
{Fledgist: I am pointing out the role Christianity has played in the perpetuation of inhumanity. The Quran does not condemn slavery, indeed it permits the owner of female slaves to keep them in concubinage. That is just as reprehensible. But my forebears and yours were not hauled across the Atlantic by Muslim slave traders.
britisha: I think this is (my turn to say) dishonest of you to segregate Christianity regardless of who enslaved whom. FYI Muslims, ae still enslaving black ppl as we speak...so? Because they didn't enslave us, aren't they worthy of the same whipping that christianity is getting?
Fledgist: The Indian caste system ensures that some people have permanently degraded status. That, too, is inhuman. But the issue is not general inhumanity, it is why *I* am not a Christian.}
britisha: [img]/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] ** Waiee**
So therefore, can I infer that it is reasonable to say that that is "why you are not a Moslem" also? chuckle
Fledgist: Curious then, that those true Christians Peter and Paul had no trouble with slavery.
britisha:...and again, you MUST see things in their true context, and understand the concept of the word slavery as it was prior to the 400 years of black enslavement by white Caucasians.
If you wish to let this prevent you from being a Christian, or adhering to any religious persuasion for that matter, it is your choice, your perogerative. The bottom line is, your argument is weak. Here is another of your quote from another posting:
Who decides what is or isn't a crime? The bible? While in your mind or the minds of others that this barbaric, atrocious act is morally wrong, it is the laws of man that decides that it is a crime. The laws of God declares it a sin, there is a difference. Obviously there was NO law of man in those days to declare it a crime, so how does that grab you for shifting pseudo- morality?
Thanks for the discourse, very thought-provoking but at the same time has not changed anything on this side of the fence. Walk good. [img]/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]
-------------
...and like a tree planted by the waters, I shall NOT be moved.
Originally posted by britisha:
Fledgist, how many times are you going to rehash this topic? We've all heard what you've said ie the Bible condones slavery, and since the Bible is the foundation of Christianity, then Christianity in itself is a bad thing, because of what the Bible stated. That is logical if the Bible didn't demonstrate what Jesus the Christ stated. Love thy neighbour as thyself." We are quoting from the same source.
Fledgist, how many times are you going to rehash this topic? We've all heard what you've said ie the Bible condones slavery, and since the Bible is the foundation of Christianity, then Christianity in itself is a bad thing, because of what the Bible stated. That is logical if the Bible didn't demonstrate what Jesus the Christ stated. Love thy neighbour as thyself." We are quoting from the same source.
britisha Which slaves are/were commanded to obedience? Obedience to who? You see Fledge, as previously pointed out to you, and which you seem to refuse to admit, the Bible here is referring to the institution of slavery as practiced in the epoch of the Old Testament, and even the New. IMHO not speaking of or referring to the >400 years of slavery of black ppl.
originally by britisha:
This command alone neutralises whatever else might be stated about slaves obeying their masters. If this was a good thing, then why is it that it so abhorred as the most despicable crime that one human being can perpetrate on another?
This command alone neutralises whatever else might be stated about slaves obeying their masters. If this was a good thing, then why is it that it so abhorred as the most despicable crime that one human being can perpetrate on another?
britisha: The quotes that you cited as being abhorrent are just that as you perceive them, [go here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14039a.htm ... and here is another quote from the same source (the Bible) that would negate that which you find abhorrent. Here is another for you.
The Spirit of God is upon me,
because God has anointed me
to bring good news to the poor
God has sent me to proclaim liberty to captives
recovery of sight to the blind,
to let the oppressed go free,
to proclaim the year of God's favour. [Luke 4:18-19]
While this is in reference to the prophet Isaias, Jesus used it again in talking to the Pharisees/Saducess and the public at large then, to demonstrate his mission and fulfilling the prophecy. His mission included teaching men/women to love and how to demonstrate human compassion, which could and should include the abominable act of enslavement of one's fellowmen.
by Fledgist:
Nowhere in the Bible does it say that slavery is wrong. Let's be clear on that. There are several passages which state that slaves *must* obey their masters. This puts those of our forebears who had the guts to stand up and fight their oppression in the wrong with this god of yours.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say that slavery is wrong. Let's be clear on that. There are several passages which state that slaves *must* obey their masters. This puts those of our forebears who had the guts to stand up and fight their oppression in the wrong with this god of yours.
originally by britisha:
One doesn't or didn't need the Bible to tell them that this was just pure wickedness and criminality regardless of what was stated during those times.
Who owned slaves in the Bible and in Africa and in the West? The powerful. Slavemasters didn't need the Bible to tell slaves to obey their masters. They used the whip and the chain and..
One doesn't or didn't need the Bible to tell them that this was just pure wickedness and criminality regardless of what was stated during those times.
Who owned slaves in the Bible and in Africa and in the West? The powerful. Slavemasters didn't need the Bible to tell slaves to obey their masters. They used the whip and the chain and..
britisha: ***sigh***
Agen, these wicked slavemasters were misquoting the Holy Scriptures. I hope that you have read the link, since it explains it a little better than I could, to see that this could be in reference to a different type of slavery as condoned and practiced in bibical times.
originally by britisha:
.....other methods of torture to bring slaves into submission. So the argument that slaves were cajoled or sweet-talked into obeying their masters by using bibical quotes just doesn't make any sense.
.....other methods of torture to bring slaves into submission. So the argument that slaves were cajoled or sweet-talked into obeying their masters by using bibical quotes just doesn't make any sense.
britisha:...and in their ignorance they gambled and lost.
originally by britisha:
Picture the slavemasters saying to the slaves: "Now dears, it is alright for us to hold you in bondage, for the Bible told us to tell you to obey your masters. " Laaawd; what is dis?"
Picture the slavemasters saying to the slaves: "Now dears, it is alright for us to hold you in bondage, for the Bible told us to tell you to obey your masters. " Laaawd; what is dis?"
britisha: So now it moves from the Scriptures to the talk of the "pie in the sky." Help mi Laaawd!!
by britisha:
And any slave who did believe this could have been suffering post-traumatic-stress syndrome (which many of us still are until today)
where their thinking and judgement becomes clouded to the extent that they could believe anything. Chat 'bout. Other than that, only a stupid slave would buy this, and obviously that was not the case, considering the number of slave revolts and runaway slaves.
And any slave who did believe this could have been suffering post-traumatic-stress syndrome (which many of us still are until today)
where their thinking and judgement becomes clouded to the extent that they could believe anything. Chat 'bout. Other than that, only a stupid slave would buy this, and obviously that was not the case, considering the number of slave revolts and runaway slaves.
britisha: I am not going to refute anything that you said here in totality, for some of my views were already expressed in another thread concerning this; however, however, again, what the slavemasters did in their now-failing efforts to suppress revolts etc, has nothing to do with what was expressed in the Bible. You must remember that some slaves in other cultures couldn't enter the institution of marriage, based on their relegated lower status...so to try to embrace slaves into their religion just proves my point that the slavery of which you speak is NOT the same as that which the Bible spoke of. Why would a racist slavemaster wish the heathen slaves to pray to the same god that they pray to? Something doesn't make any sense to me. Obviously they were quoting as you are, snippets from the Scriptures to justify their own positions.
by britisha:
I honestly believe that this so-called argument used by atheists and haters of christianity, christians and Jesus, is just looking a copout.
I honestly believe that this so-called argument used by atheists and haters of christianity, christians and Jesus, is just looking a copout.
britisha: I disagree.
originally by britisha:
If one asks me, slavemasters used that line about obeying their masters, to satisfy a guilty conscience. They knew it was wrong but to alleviate their guilt, they focused on it, rather than taking personal responsibility for their reprehensible wickedness.
If one asks me, slavemasters used that line about obeying their masters, to satisfy a guilty conscience. They knew it was wrong but to alleviate their guilt, they focused on it, rather than taking personal responsibility for their reprehensible wickedness.
britisha: It might not be that easy, but how do you know that it might not have been that hard? I am glad that you mention Haiti where restavecs are still held in slavery. Perchance that is the result of religion, and if so which one, Voodun or christianity? Could it be part of the legacy of the old African culture like the religion to enslave others?
Fledgist: Christianity provided a means for the slaveowner to justify his/her ownership of human beings (their 'souls' would be saved), while keeping the slave in line (after slavery on earth there would be joy in heaven).}
britisha: Wrong choice of words. Christianity did no such thing as far as my knowledge goes. Abominable slavemasers used the Word to JUSTIFY THEIR DESPICABLE ACTS...so now the onus is on you, Fledgist to show where the Scriptures said that.
originally by britisha:
You still haven't addressed slavery under Moslem religion, or modern day slavery in Africa among many who are not christians; black on black slavery. Why not? Is it so ingrained in the culture that it is impossible to eradicate, or the slavemasters are too powerful? Why haven't you addressed the caste system in India? Is this of christian origin? Although this is not tantamount to slavery as experienced by blacks across the diaspora, it is IMHO a social outrage, which is embodied in old culture the way bibically described slavery was.
You still haven't addressed slavery under Moslem religion, or modern day slavery in Africa among many who are not christians; black on black slavery. Why not? Is it so ingrained in the culture that it is impossible to eradicate, or the slavemasters are too powerful? Why haven't you addressed the caste system in India? Is this of christian origin? Although this is not tantamount to slavery as experienced by blacks across the diaspora, it is IMHO a social outrage, which is embodied in old culture the way bibically described slavery was.
britisha: I think this is (my turn to say) dishonest of you to segregate Christianity regardless of who enslaved whom. FYI Muslims, ae still enslaving black ppl as we speak...so? Because they didn't enslave us, aren't they worthy of the same whipping that christianity is getting?
Fledgist: The Indian caste system ensures that some people have permanently degraded status. That, too, is inhuman. But the issue is not general inhumanity, it is why *I* am not a Christian.}
britisha: [img]/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] ** Waiee**
So therefore, can I infer that it is reasonable to say that that is "why you are not a Moslem" also? chuckle
By britisha:
If you wish that your argument to appear unbiased and impartial, then you cannot negate that these must appear in the big picture...and last but not least if one is a true christian....here goes that word again, one who sees God in his fellowmen, as the Bible teaches, then there is no way in hell that he/she/they would enslave others. One either is or isn't. In the same way that you say that some Christians are hypocrites, then I am saying that any slave master who owned slaves while masquerading as a christian is/was a bloody hypocrite.
If you wish that your argument to appear unbiased and impartial, then you cannot negate that these must appear in the big picture...and last but not least if one is a true christian....here goes that word again, one who sees God in his fellowmen, as the Bible teaches, then there is no way in hell that he/she/they would enslave others. One either is or isn't. In the same way that you say that some Christians are hypocrites, then I am saying that any slave master who owned slaves while masquerading as a christian is/was a bloody hypocrite.
britisha:...and again, you MUST see things in their true context, and understand the concept of the word slavery as it was prior to the 400 years of black enslavement by white Caucasians.
If you wish to let this prevent you from being a Christian, or adhering to any religious persuasion for that matter, it is your choice, your perogerative. The bottom line is, your argument is weak. Here is another of your quote from another posting:
I am hardly in the dark, I'm not defending the endorsement of a criminal practice.
Thanks for the discourse, very thought-provoking but at the same time has not changed anything on this side of the fence. Walk good. [img]/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]
-------------
...and like a tree planted by the waters, I shall NOT be moved.
Comment