User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 11:01:13 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then why does it take so much effort to teach men to overcome their desire not to kill? The Romans first instituted gladatorial contests to break down the natural revulsion to murder. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Anyone or anything that trusts to the "implicit sense of decency" is going to fail. I cant make it any clearer. You are wrong. If you arent in the monkeysphere any give a shit is a completely learned behavoir Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Nonsense on both of those issues. 1. Getting men to kill is easier than non-combat veterans like grossman would have you believe. Its getting them to know the boundaries of acceptable and unacceptable behavior that is the challenge. The largest challenge is overcoming 18 years of learned behavior to not kill. that's hard to do in a few months. But its doable. I'll give you a harder challenge; teach someone who has never learned normal behavior and get him to behave. I'll have to see a cite on the gladiator thing. Seems to me like entertainment for the masses. Interesting choice considering there is a supposed "natural" repugnance to killing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 11:04:14 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: bullshit. This is a learned behavior. Societies were constructed because leaders used fear (and slaves) to build them. The fear of god (or, if you prefer god-fearing) made the work easier. Anyone or anything that trusts to the "implicit sense of decency" is going to fail. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I think some people feel wrongs like a heavy weight in their chest, and others barely feel it, but I think most humans have an implicit sense of decency because it would have been really fucking hard to construct societies if everyone was utterly self-serving unless given perfect conditions to teach it. The ability of people to construct justifications for shitty deeds is something, but those justifications are a defense mechanism against the pangs of knowing what you're doing isn't right. bullshit. This is a learned behavior. Societies were constructed because leaders used fear (and slaves) to build them. The fear of god (or, if you prefer god-fearing) made the work easier. Anyone or anything that trusts to the "implicit sense of decency" is going to fail. the Old Kingdom Egyptians (and probably much earlier) had a concept of truth, balance, order, morality and justice called "Ma'at" which they saw as the base order of nature and society. it also looks like it could have been a precursor to many concepts which later came to be thought of as "Christian values" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maat Maat as a principleWinged Maat Maat represents the ethical and moral principle that every Egyptian citizen was expected to follow throughout their daily lives. They were expected to act with honor and truth in manners that involve family, the community, the nation, the environment, and god.[4][/url] Maat as a principle was formed to meet the complex needs of the emergent Egyptian state that embraced diverse peoples with conflicting interests.[5][/url] The development of such rules sought to avert chaos and it became the basis of Egyptian law. From an early period the King would describe himself as the "Lord of Maat" who decreed with his mouth the Maat he conceived in his heart. The significance of Maat developed to the point that it embraced all aspects of existence, including the basic equilibrium of the universe, the relationship between constituent parts, the cycle of the seasons, heavenly movements, religious observations and fair dealings, honesty and truthfulness in social interactions.[6][/url] The ancient Egyptians had a deep conviction of an underlying holiness and unity within the universe. Cosmic harmony was achieved by correct public and ritual life. Any disturbance in cosmic harmony could have consequences for the individual as well as the state. An impious King could bring about famine or blasphemy blindness to an individual.[7][/url] In opposition to the right order expressed in the concept of Maat is the concept of Isfet: chaos, lies and violence. In addition to the importance of the Maat, several other principles within ancient Egyptian law were essential, including an adherence to tradition as opposed to change, the importance of rhetorical skill, and the significance of achieving impartiality, and social justice. In one Middle Kingdom (2062 to c. 1664 BCE) text the Creator declares "I made every man like his fellow". Maat called the rich to help the less fortunate rather than exploit them, echoed in tomb declarations: "I have given bread to the hungry and clothed the naked" and "I was a husband to the widow and father to the orphan".[9][/url] To the Egyptian mind, Maat bound all things together in an indestructible unity: the universe, the natural world, the state, and the individual were all seen as parts of the wider order generated by Maat. A passage in the Instruction of Ptahhotep presents Ma'at as follows: Ma'at is good and its worth is lasting. It has not been disturbed since the day of its creator, whereas he who transgresses its ordinances is punished. It lies as a path in front even of him who knows nothing. Wrongdoing has never yet brought its venture to port. It is true that evil may gain wealth but the strength of truth is that it lasts; a man can say: "It was the property of my father."[10][/url] |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 11:09:22 AM EDT
[#3]
As I stated,
All societies. Prior to the discovery of religion, the local leader could only control that which he, or his henchman, could physically see. This inherently limited societies to not much more than familial clans and their slaves. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 11:16:49 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think this plays are huge role in why we had slavery in the US. People in general won't rock the boat. It is accepted slowly in society until it becomes the new norm. And 99% of the people don't take a stand. An interesting twist to this; is that while the founders were writing and signing the documents that declared "all men are created equal", and established a new country where all could come to escape persecution.... They also owned slaves! How can they do these things at the same time if they truly believed the words they were writing? As a Christian I have no justification for owning slaves, and why our founders did. And as an American that believes in the constitution, I also have no justification for their actions. I have to ask them on the other side. We had slavery in the US because the British Empire wanted tobacco, sugar, cotton, pine tar (a huge, HUGE issue in the days of sail), ship timbers and masts, etc. The British Empire enabled the production of those things by sending Irish, Gypsies, political rivals, and criminals into slavery (sentenced to be "transported" ....), and later on, the African, to work in the fields and produce those thigns, because the Native Americans: A. made poor slaves, ... B. were very prone to escape, and, .... C. had been so incomsiderate to die off (96% or so) from disease. This all took place long before there even was a "U.S,", and we are still struggling with its legacy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 11:18:39 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I love it when people try to compare their values to those who lived 100, 200 or even a 1000 years ago. I've not met a single person who said it would be ok to own another person. At what point did it become a sin to own another person? After the Emancipation Proclamation? When John Brown said so? During the first rumbles of the abolition movement? When England outlawed slavery? Fall of Rome? When Pharaoh set the Jews free? If it is sin, then it always was sin, how could such a sin exist as even remotely acceptable through the millennia of Christianity? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 11:18:45 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Nonsense on both of those issues. 1. Getting men to kill is easier than non-combat veterans like grossman would have you believe. Its getting them to know the boundaries of acceptable and unacceptable behavior that is the challenge. The largest challenge is overcoming 18 years of learned behavior to not kill. that's hard to do in a few months. But its doable. I'll give you a harder challenge; teach someone who has never learned normal behavior and get him to behave. I'll have to see a cite on the gladiator thing. Seems to me like entertainment for the masses. Interesting choice considering there is a supposed "natural" repugnance to killing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 11:21:12 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It is more than just Grossman. There is a lot of evidence about reluctance to kill from other scholars. Most successful militaries do a lot to try and condition men to get over that psychological hurdle. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Nonsense on both of those issues. 1. Getting men to kill is easier than non-combat veterans like grossman would have you believe. Its getting them to know the boundaries of acceptable and unacceptable behavior that is the challenge. The largest challenge is overcoming 18 years of learned behavior to not kill. that's hard to do in a few months. But its doable. I'll give you a harder challenge; teach someone who has never learned normal behavior and get him to behave. I'll have to see a cite on the gladiator thing. Seems to me like entertainment for the masses. Interesting choice considering there is a supposed "natural" repugnance to killing. That hurdle is there because it was ingrained since they were born by the society they live in. You think ISIS has a problem getting men to kill? Take a feral hood rat and get him to kill. You listen to scholars all you want. I'll listen to men who have emptied brain pans. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 11:22:11 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Many don't get that. They will drag OT into Christianity to justify whatever Bullshit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Exodus 11:5, God didn't even care about the slaves of Egypt's first borns....wiped 'em right out. I mean, damn, talk about a pissed off God. Anywho, I'd guess if you gave that some serious thought it might make it ok to keep one around for some farm work. Hey, at least I'm not killing the dude's kids. Funny, you quote a verse from the Hebrew Bible regarding a thread about Christians. You sir, do not understand Christianity. hint.... Jesus Christ hadn't been born when that verse was written. All of the Bible is profitable for Instruction. While Christ was not incarnate yet, He very much existed - since the begining. If you are troubled by what you read in the OT, the problem is with you. You see, God judges YOU - not the other way around. He does not have to answer to you what He does with His Creation anymore than you have to justify to your DVR why you are deleting a show from it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 11:27:09 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think the "problem" is that many Americans have a picture in their minds of slavery as Snidely Whiplash beating his slave (Uncle Tom) with a whip on a whim. Biblical slaves were more like indentured servants, working to pay off a debt. At the end of their service they were even given instructions on how to continue to work for their masters if they wanted too. Masters were not to mistreat their indentured servants and most did not. It was not as cut and dried as many think. There is some truth to this. One need only look at certain socialist and communist societies to realize that there are people out there even today who would prefer the security of servitude to the risk of freedom assuming just treatment within the bounds of servitude. Debtors' prisons and debt slavery were common practices throughout ancient history and our modern impression of slavery always assumes physical abuse etc. This is not to condone the overall practice in any way as someone will most certainly assume. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 11:29:47 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
These people used to believe that slaves werent people, they were property. Technically, tehy wre chattel. So were wives, chldren, and livestock. There were more restrictions on chattel than on real estate or non-living property. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 11:33:56 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That hurdle is there because it was ingrained since they were born by the society they live in. You think ISIS has a problem getting men to kill? Take a feral hood rat and get him to kill. You listen to scholars all you want. I'll listen to men who have emptied brain pans. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Nonsense on both of those issues. 1. Getting men to kill is easier than non-combat veterans like grossman would have you believe. Its getting them to know the boundaries of acceptable and unacceptable behavior that is the challenge. The largest challenge is overcoming 18 years of learned behavior to not kill. that's hard to do in a few months. But its doable. I'll give you a harder challenge; teach someone who has never learned normal behavior and get him to behave. I'll have to see a cite on the gladiator thing. Seems to me like entertainment for the masses. Interesting choice considering there is a supposed "natural" repugnance to killing. That hurdle is there because it was ingrained since they were born by the society they live in. You think ISIS has a problem getting men to kill? Take a feral hood rat and get him to kill. You listen to scholars all you want. I'll listen to men who have emptied brain pans. The Golden Rule exists only in places that demand it exists. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 11:38:50 AM EDT
[#12]
It would probably be more academically honest at least more useful to try to "reconcile" slavery with capitalist values....imo
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 11:39:56 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
1 Timothy 6:1-2 All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered. 2 Those who have believing masters should not show them disrespect just because they are fellow believers. Instead, they should serve them even better because their masters are dear to them as fellow believers and are devoted to the welfare[a] of their slaves. Pragmatism. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 11:48:47 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
At what point did it become a sin to own another person? After the Emancipation Proclamation? When John Brown said so? During the first rumbles of the abolition movement? When England outlawed slavery? Fall of Rome? When Pharaoh set the Jews free? If it is sin, then it always was sin, how could such a sin exist as even remotely acceptable through the millennia of Christianity? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I love it when people try to compare their values to those who lived 100, 200 or even a 1000 years ago. I've not met a single person who said it would be ok to own another person. At what point did it become a sin to own another person? After the Emancipation Proclamation? When John Brown said so? During the first rumbles of the abolition movement? When England outlawed slavery? Fall of Rome? When Pharaoh set the Jews free? If it is sin, then it always was sin, how could such a sin exist as even remotely acceptable through the millennia of Christianity? It is not a sin. To your modern sensibilites, and mine, the idea is abhorent. Yet you have no problem with registering for the Selective Service, or prosecuting enlisted men who refuse to deploy for combat long before their period of enlistment is up, or sentencing prisoners to prison, or parole, or work-release, or taking over half of what the average family earns as taxes, largely to give to another person who hasn't earned it. Perhaps 200 years from now, those things will be thought of the way we think of slavery today. Everything has to be viewed in its time and context. Back then, you BOUGHT your wife - sometimes by serving a period of indenture. Back then, the head of the tribe OWNED, (and could exile or kill ...) anyone in the tribe, free, servant, slave, or brother. Or, to approach it another way, it is entirely possible to be a slave owner and NOT sin, just as it is entirely possible to be a free man owning no servants and be as wicked as can be. It would have been entirely possible to free slaves that you owned, and to be doing evil by doing so. Remember, there were no EBT cards back then. So Snidely Whiplash frees his slaves. What do they eat? Where do they get shelter? Who will provide their medical care? Ditto for their children? Where do they go? What do they do? Who will pay for all of that, and how? Now put all of that in the context of Harper's Ferry and Haiti, and perhaps you can begin to understand that is wasn't just a simple matter of "free all the slaves". Slavery was a lot like riding on a tiger's back - darned hard to stop once you've started. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 11:51:21 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Pragmatism. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
1 Timothy 6:1-2 All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered. 2 Those who have believing masters should not show them disrespect just because they are fellow believers. Instead, they should serve them even better because their masters are dear to them as fellow believers and are devoted to the welfare[a] of their slaves. Pragmatism. More an explanation that Christianity is not a call for rebellion against Rome, or for a slave uprising either. It concerns itself with far more important matters. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 11:59:31 AM EDT
[#16]
I think slavery was simply an accepted fact of life until the Industrial Revolution offered a practical alternative.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 12:02:35 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Western Europe had serfdom, whihc was pretty much slavery, and more universal than race-based slavery ever was in North America. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Christian denominations varied in their support and/or opposition to slavery. I believe that one of the reasons that slavery was never terribly common in western europe (post rome) was Christian teachings. Western Europe had serfdom, whihc was pretty much slavery, and more universal than race-based slavery ever was in North America. This. Serfs were tied to the land, regardless of who owned it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 12:04:21 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Serf-dom was caused by a range of economic and social pressures, and I don't think that it's appropriate to call it slavery, in any event. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Christian denominations varied in their support and/or opposition to slavery. I believe that one of the reasons that slavery was never terribly common in western europe (post rome) was Christian teachings. Western Europe had serfdom, whihc was pretty much slavery, and more universal than race-based slavery ever was in North America. Serf-dom was caused by a range of economic and social pressures, and I don't think that it's appropriate to call it slavery, in any event. Except for the fact that you had to work for the 'Lord of the Manor' and couldn't leave the land unless your freedom was purchased |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 12:10:53 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It is not a sin. To your modern sensibilites, and mine, the idea is abhorent. Yet you have no problem with registering for the Selective Service, or prosecuting enlisted men who refuse to deploy for combat long before their period of enlistment is up, or sentencing prisoners to prison, or parole, or work-release, or taking over half of what the average family earns as taxes, largely to give to another person who hasn't earned it. Perhaps 200 years from now, those things will be thought of the way we think of slavery today. Everything has to be viewed in its time and context. Back then, you BOUGHT your wife - sometimes by serving a period of indenture. Back then, the head of the tribe OWNED, (and could exile or kill ...) anyone in the tribe, free, servant, slave, or brother. Or, to approach it another way, it is entirely possible to be a slave owner and NOT sin, just as it is entirely possible to be a free man owning no servants and be as wicked as can be. It would have been entirely possible to free slaves that you owned, and to be doing evil by doing so. Remember, there were no EBT cards back then. So Snidely Whiplash frees his slaves. What do they eat? Where do they get shelter? Who will provide their medical care? Ditto for their children? Where do they go? What do they do? Who will pay for all of that, and how? Now put all of that in the context of Harper's Ferry and Haiti, and perhaps you can begin to understand that is wasn't just a simple matter of "free all the slaves". Slavery was a lot like riding on a tiger's back - darned hard to stop once you've started. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I love it when people try to compare their values to those who lived 100, 200 or even a 1000 years ago. I've not met a single person who said it would be ok to own another person. At what point did it become a sin to own another person? After the Emancipation Proclamation? When John Brown said so? During the first rumbles of the abolition movement? When England outlawed slavery? Fall of Rome? When Pharaoh set the Jews free? If it is sin, then it always was sin, how could such a sin exist as even remotely acceptable through the millennia of Christianity? It is not a sin. To your modern sensibilites, and mine, the idea is abhorent. Yet you have no problem with registering for the Selective Service, or prosecuting enlisted men who refuse to deploy for combat long before their period of enlistment is up, or sentencing prisoners to prison, or parole, or work-release, or taking over half of what the average family earns as taxes, largely to give to another person who hasn't earned it. Perhaps 200 years from now, those things will be thought of the way we think of slavery today. Everything has to be viewed in its time and context. Back then, you BOUGHT your wife - sometimes by serving a period of indenture. Back then, the head of the tribe OWNED, (and could exile or kill ...) anyone in the tribe, free, servant, slave, or brother. Or, to approach it another way, it is entirely possible to be a slave owner and NOT sin, just as it is entirely possible to be a free man owning no servants and be as wicked as can be. It would have been entirely possible to free slaves that you owned, and to be doing evil by doing so. Remember, there were no EBT cards back then. So Snidely Whiplash frees his slaves. What do they eat? Where do they get shelter? Who will provide their medical care? Ditto for their children? Where do they go? What do they do? Who will pay for all of that, and how? Now put all of that in the context of Harper's Ferry and Haiti, and perhaps you can begin to understand that is wasn't just a simple matter of "free all the slaves". Slavery was a lot like riding on a tiger's back - darned hard to stop once you've started. So it is not a sin to own slaves today? I doubt that. I could move to the middle east and if I had the means I could buy hundreds of slaves and I would face no wrath from god as long as I feed them and provide medical care. I could start a Satellite TV ministry extolling the virtues of biblical slave owning and I would not be vilified by other Christians? Maybe I could have my slaves make T-shirts with Christian screen prints and bible verses. I'll need someone who believes it is possible to be a slave owner and not sin to show me the path because I don't see how it's done. Please elaborate on how one owns slaves and it not be sin. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 12:11:56 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think the "problem" is that many Americans have a picture in their minds of slavery as Snidely Whiplash beating his slave (Uncle Tom) with a whip on a whim. Biblical slaves were more like indentured servants, working to pay off a debt. At the end of their service they were even given instructions on how to continue to work for their masters if they wanted too. Masters were not to mistreat their indentured servants and most did not. It was not as cut and dried as many think. Further, Every 49 years, all debts where canceled and hereditary plots of land returned to the original owners family. The church in the new testament came as a spiritual movement, not a physical rebellion against the rulers and mores of the time. However, the early church marks the first time(I know of) where slaves were considered equal to their masters(w/ in the church) . It was even possible that a slave could become a deacon or bishop, and exercise authority over his civic master. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 12:15:52 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Non Hebrew slaves were usually persons who sold themseves, or were sold, into slavery because of debt. Another source of non Hebrew slaves, and young female slaves in particular(Numbers 31:18), was captivity in war. Non Hebrew slaves were considered movable property that could be inherited by the sons of the Hebrew master "as a posession forever"(Leviticus 25:46). From Civilizations of the Ancient Near East Thought I would re-post this. Slavery for a non-Hebrew slave in Israel was forever. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 12:26:11 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Man is a hairless ape without the notions society ingrains in us by fear, by force, and by religion. The Golden Rule exists only in places that demand it exists. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 12:38:57 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
................ Nonsense on both of those issues. 1. Getting men to kill is easier than non-combat veterans like grossman would have you believe. Its getting them to know the boundaries of acceptable and unacceptable behavior that is the challenge. The largest challenge is overcoming 18 years of learned behavior to not kill. that's hard to do in a few months. But its doable. I'll give you a harder challenge; teach someone who has never learned normal behavior and get him to behave. I'll have to see a cite on the gladiator thing. Seems to me like entertainment for the masses. Interesting choice considering there is a supposed "natural" repugnance to killing. That's the part that has always fascinated me.............we both know darn well that a layman like me will be apprehensive towards killing (well unless a gun is in my fucking fact), yet the military does teach them to not be hesitant, etc. I never really understood how they are able to do that but they do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 12:44:26 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's the part that has always fascinated me.............we both know darn well that a layman like me will be apprehensive towards killing (well unless a gun is in my fucking fact), yet the military does teach them to not be hesitant, etc. I never really understood how they are able to do that but they do. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
................ Nonsense on both of those issues. 1. Getting men to kill is easier than non-combat veterans like grossman would have you believe. Its getting them to know the boundaries of acceptable and unacceptable behavior that is the challenge. The largest challenge is overcoming 18 years of learned behavior to not kill. that's hard to do in a few months. But its doable. I'll give you a harder challenge; teach someone who has never learned normal behavior and get him to behave. I'll have to see a cite on the gladiator thing. Seems to me like entertainment for the masses. Interesting choice considering there is a supposed "natural" repugnance to killing. That's the part that has always fascinated me.............we both know darn well that a layman like me will be apprehensive towards killing (well unless a gun is in my fucking fact), yet the military does teach them to not be hesitant, etc. I never really understood how they are able to do that but they do. Its easy, once you understand that killing your enemy is a natural instinct for men. Feral youths are not peaceful people. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 12:45:41 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I prefer Aristotle's description of man as being between the beasts and the gods. I think it is a mistake to say that man is just a beast. Man must have an impulse to morality. Otherwise where did it come from? You can't create something from nothing. At some point a bunch of cave men were raping all the things and one of them had a thought that maybe it was wrong. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Man is a hairless ape without the notions society ingrains in us by fear, by force, and by religion. The Golden Rule exists only in places that demand it exists. Yeah. The strongest one said, "Touch my women or my shit and I will fucking kill you." Then some genius discovered that the strongest man is nothing compared to the will of God. the rest, as they say, is history. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 12:48:27 PM EDT
[#26]
I thought the Chrustians who were the folks who ultimately abolished slavery? Even so Christians are sinners too.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 12:48:47 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So it is not a sin to own slaves today? I doubt that. I could move to the middle east and if I had the means I could buy hundreds of slaves and I would face no wrath from god as long as I feed them and provide medical care. I could start a Satellite TV ministry extolling the virtues of biblical slave owning and I would not be vilified by other Christians? Maybe I could have my slaves make T-shirts with Christian screen prints and bible verses. I'll need someone who believes it is possible to be a slave owner and not sin to show me the path because I don't see how it's done. Please elaborate on how one owns slaves and it not be sin. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I love it when people try to compare their values to those who lived 100, 200 or even a 1000 years ago. I've not met a single person who said it would be ok to own another person. At what point did it become a sin to own another person? After the Emancipation Proclamation? When John Brown said so? During the first rumbles of the abolition movement? When England outlawed slavery? Fall of Rome? When Pharaoh set the Jews free? If it is sin, then it always was sin, how could such a sin exist as even remotely acceptable through the millennia of Christianity? It is not a sin. To your modern sensibilites, and mine, the idea is abhorent. Yet you have no problem with registering for the Selective Service, or prosecuting enlisted men who refuse to deploy for combat long before their period of enlistment is up, or sentencing prisoners to prison, or parole, or work-release, or taking over half of what the average family earns as taxes, largely to give to another person who hasn't earned it. Perhaps 200 years from now, those things will be thought of the way we think of slavery today. Everything has to be viewed in its time and context. Back then, you BOUGHT your wife - sometimes by serving a period of indenture. Back then, the head of the tribe OWNED, (and could exile or kill ...) anyone in the tribe, free, servant, slave, or brother. Or, to approach it another way, it is entirely possible to be a slave owner and NOT sin, just as it is entirely possible to be a free man owning no servants and be as wicked as can be. It would have been entirely possible to free slaves that you owned, and to be doing evil by doing so. Remember, there were no EBT cards back then. So Snidely Whiplash frees his slaves. What do they eat? Where do they get shelter? Who will provide their medical care? Ditto for their children? Where do they go? What do they do? Who will pay for all of that, and how? Now put all of that in the context of Harper's Ferry and Haiti, and perhaps you can begin to understand that is wasn't just a simple matter of "free all the slaves". Slavery was a lot like riding on a tiger's back - darned hard to stop once you've started. So it is not a sin to own slaves today? I doubt that. I could move to the middle east and if I had the means I could buy hundreds of slaves and I would face no wrath from god as long as I feed them and provide medical care. I could start a Satellite TV ministry extolling the virtues of biblical slave owning and I would not be vilified by other Christians? Maybe I could have my slaves make T-shirts with Christian screen prints and bible verses. I'll need someone who believes it is possible to be a slave owner and not sin to show me the path because I don't see how it's done. Please elaborate on how one owns slaves and it not be sin. Show me the Biblical prohibition on it. Show me where God (or one of His prophets), or Jesus (or one of His Desciples ...) said, "owning a slave is a sin." I don't get to claim something is a sin, just because I think it should be. I go to the text, kind of like Christians are supposed to, and where the Constitution is concerned, where Supreme Court Justices are supposed to. Is slavery worng? I certainly feel so. Should it be against the law? Yes, and it is. To the extent that Christians are supposed to obey the civil authority, one can certainly argue that trying to own a slave here and now would in fact be a sin. One cannot make the same argument for the antebellum South. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 12:55:38 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
........... Its easy, once you understand that killing your enemy is a natural instinct for men. Feral youths are not peaceful people.  http://youtu.be/bH9l1Cko0Ps
Yes, I guess that's it...........just always fascinated at the ability of the military to teach men to "turn the page and don't hesitate" so well. You know I would flinch or pause..........but a typical military person would not do that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 1:01:12 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, I guess that's it...........just always fascinated at the ability of the military to teach men to "turn the page and don't hesitate" so well. You know I would flinch or pause..........but a typical military person would not do that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
........... Its easy, once you understand that killing your enemy is a natural instinct for men. Feral youths are not peaceful people. http://youtu.be/bH9l1Cko0Ps
Yes, I guess that's it...........just always fascinated at the ability of the military to teach men to "turn the page and don't hesitate" so well. You know I would flinch or pause..........but a typical military person would not do that. I don't give a fuck who you are, first firefight you are always a little goofed up. No matter how much you trained. But a real man quickly figures is out. The trick is surviving that first fight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 1:02:34 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
............... I don't give a fuck who you are, first firefight you are always a little goofed up. No matter how much you trained. But a real man quickly figures is out. The trick is surviving that first fight. Makes sense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 1:18:32 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You need to remember that Uncle Tom's Cabin was written by a person who had never been to the South, nor met an actual slave, and relied on second and third hand accounts of from abolitionist materials. I wouldn't consider it historical in anyway, shape, or form. It's like reading a summation of the Bush administration by the editorial staff at the Huffington Post. Stowe specifically mentions that she regularly met with slaves who had escaped and also witnessed slave trade in the border states. You're making it sound like slavery was just peachy keen and no big deal. Even if I go with your premise doesn't change the fact that people were reduced to mere chattel at best, and abused or killed at worst. Why do I think Stowe's work isn't fiction? Easy: We have plenty of evidence throughout history about how humans act towards those they consider as less-than-human. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 1:32:38 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So it is not a sin to own slaves today? I doubt that. I could move to the middle east and if I had the means I could buy hundreds of slaves and I would face no wrath from god as long as I feed them and provide medical care. I could start a Satellite TV ministry extolling the virtues of biblical slave owning and I would not be vilified by other Christians? Maybe I could have my slaves make T-shirts with Christian screen prints and bible verses. I'll need someone who believes it is possible to be a slave owner and not sin to show me the path because I don't see how it's done. Please elaborate on how one owns slaves and it not be sin. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I love it when people try to compare their values to those who lived 100, 200 or even a 1000 years ago. I've not met a single person who said it would be ok to own another person. At what point did it become a sin to own another person? After the Emancipation Proclamation? When John Brown said so? During the first rumbles of the abolition movement? When England outlawed slavery? Fall of Rome? When Pharaoh set the Jews free? If it is sin, then it always was sin, how could such a sin exist as even remotely acceptable through the millennia of Christianity? It is not a sin. To your modern sensibilites, and mine, the idea is abhorent. Yet you have no problem with registering for the Selective Service, or prosecuting enlisted men who refuse to deploy for combat long before their period of enlistment is up, or sentencing prisoners to prison, or parole, or work-release, or taking over half of what the average family earns as taxes, largely to give to another person who hasn't earned it. Perhaps 200 years from now, those things will be thought of the way we think of slavery today. Everything has to be viewed in its time and context. Back then, you BOUGHT your wife - sometimes by serving a period of indenture. Back then, the head of the tribe OWNED, (and could exile or kill ...) anyone in the tribe, free, servant, slave, or brother. Or, to approach it another way, it is entirely possible to be a slave owner and NOT sin, just as it is entirely possible to be a free man owning no servants and be as wicked as can be. It would have been entirely possible to free slaves that you owned, and to be doing evil by doing so. Remember, there were no EBT cards back then. So Snidely Whiplash frees his slaves. What do they eat? Where do they get shelter? Who will provide their medical care? Ditto for their children? Where do they go? What do they do? Who will pay for all of that, and how? Now put all of that in the context of Harper's Ferry and Haiti, and perhaps you can begin to understand that is wasn't just a simple matter of "free all the slaves". Slavery was a lot like riding on a tiger's back - darned hard to stop once you've started. So it is not a sin to own slaves today? I doubt that. I could move to the middle east and if I had the means I could buy hundreds of slaves and I would face no wrath from god as long as I feed them and provide medical care. I could start a Satellite TV ministry extolling the virtues of biblical slave owning and I would not be vilified by other Christians? Maybe I could have my slaves make T-shirts with Christian screen prints and bible verses. I'll need someone who believes it is possible to be a slave owner and not sin to show me the path because I don't see how it's done. Please elaborate on how one owns slaves and it not be sin. Is it more moral that Isis buys the slaves? Is it more moral for Stiglitz to purchase them, provide for their needs, teach them a trade, and provide them way to freedom; or are they to die of prolapses and genital rot? Is it more Christ like to purchase an unfortunate individual from a terrible situation, or leave them to suffer every evil devised by man. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 1:42:11 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yeah. The strongest one said, "Touch my women or my shit and I will fucking kill you." Then some genius discovered that the strongest man is nothing compared to the will of God. the rest, as they say, is history. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 1:45:00 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Show me the Biblical prohibition on it. Show me where God (or one of His prophets), or Jesus (or one of His Desciples ...) said, "owning a slave is a sin." I don't get to claim something is a sin, just because I think it should be. I go to the text, kind of like Christians are supposed to, and where the Constitution is concerned, where Supreme Court Justices are supposed to. Is slavery worng? I certainly feel so. Should it be against the law? Yes, and it is. To the extent that Christians are supposed to obey the civil authority, one can certainly argue that trying to own a slave here and now would in fact be a sin. One cannot make the same argument for the antebellum South. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 1:45:21 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's an overly reductionist view of ethics. I don't think man is entirely a beast. We are more than a shaved ape. Shaved apes don't write Mozart. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Yeah. The strongest one said, "Touch my women or my shit and I will fucking kill you." Then some genius discovered that the strongest man is nothing compared to the will of God. the rest, as they say, is history. shaved apes don't make death camps, either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 1:48:24 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: shaved apes don't make death camps, either. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Yeah. The strongest one said, "Touch my women or my shit and I will fucking kill you." Then some genius discovered that the strongest man is nothing compared to the will of God. the rest, as they say, is history. shaved apes don't make death camps, either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 1:54:25 PM EDT
[#37]
The attempt, by some of the membership here, to justify slavery is sickening.
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 1:54:54 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That proves my point. Men are capable of moral and immoral acts which are beyond those of mere beasts. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yeah. The strongest one said, "Touch my women or my shit and I will fucking kill you." Then some genius discovered that the strongest man is nothing compared to the will of God. the rest, as they say, is history. shaved apes don't make death camps, either. We are discussing inherent morality, not inherent intelligence. the ability to write music is no more an endorsement of morality than claiming a mockingbird shares the same instinct. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 1:57:15 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Its easy, once you understand that killing your enemy is a natural instinct for men. Feral youths are not peaceful people. Every time I see you enter the fray on a topic like this, it's like I hear a voice in the back of my mind saying "here comes Sylvan of Afghanystan, he whose worldviews were formed in those dark caves full of dark purposes, hassassins, djins, and throatcutters" 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 1:59:08 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We are discussing inherent morality, not inherent intelligence. the ability to write music is no more an endorsement of morality than claiming a mockingbird shares the same instinct. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 1:59:39 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Stowe specifically mentions that she regularly met with slaves who had escaped and also witnessed slave trade in the border states. You're making it sound like slavery was just peachy keen and no big deal. Even if I go with your premise doesn't change the fact that people were reduced to mere chattel at best, and abused or killed at worst. Why do I think Stowe's work isn't fiction? Easy: We have plenty of evidence throughout history about how humans act towards those they consider as less-than-human. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: You need to remember that Uncle Tom's Cabin was written by a person who had never been to the South, nor met an actual slave, and relied on second and third hand accounts of from abolitionist materials. I wouldn't consider it historical in anyway, shape, or form. It's like reading a summation of the Bush administration by the editorial staff at the Huffington Post. Stowe specifically mentions that she regularly met with slaves who had escaped and also witnessed slave trade in the border states. You're making it sound like slavery was just peachy keen and no big deal. Even if I go with your premise doesn't change the fact that people were reduced to mere chattel at best, and abused or killed at worst. Why do I think Stowe's work isn't fiction? Easy: We have plenty of evidence throughout history about how humans act towards those they consider as less-than-human. And I'm trying to argue things from a historical standpoint, but your editing down of my reply makes me sounds like I love slavery. If you're gonna quote me, put the whole thing up there. By saying I, like most people who studied the Civil War at the collegiate level, don't believe that the slavery portrayed in Uncle Tom's Cabin is completely accurate is miles away from saying slavery was peachy keen. Being owned by another person was not good and I never claimed it was. I was merely attempting to answer your question, which appears now was not a question at all. You appear to be looking for confirmation that slaveowners were in fact horrible Christians. Which is an opinion you are more than welcome to have. But first hand, historical accounts with those same people show that they very much believed they were good, God-fearing Christians. They raised families, went to church, and gave money to the poor, all the while keeping other men in bondage. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 2:00:04 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is it more moral that Isis buys the slaves? Is it more moral for Stiglitz to purchase them, provide for their needs, teach them a trade, and provide them way to freedom; or are they to die of prolapses and genital rot? Is it more Christ like to purchase an unfortunate individual from a terrible situation, or leave them to suffer every evil devised by man. So if I purchased slaves from ISIS, even though my sole intent is to prevent them from a life of misery, and cared for them as if they were my own children, but would not let them leave and made them work for me because I spent money on them, no one would condemn me for that? I take that story to churches and regale my tales of rescuing poor condemned souls, but then I don't free them, what Christian anywhere would say "Hugo is a good biblical slave owner"? Let me know where that church is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 2:05:21 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Every time I see you enter the fray on a topic like this, it's like I hear a voice in the back of my mind saying "here comes Sylvan of Afghanystan, he whose worldviews were formed in those dark caves full of dark purposes, hassassins, djins, and throatcutters"
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Its easy, once you understand that killing your enemy is a natural instinct for men. Feral youths are not peaceful people. Every time I see you enter the fray on a topic like this, it's like I hear a voice in the back of my mind saying "here comes Sylvan of Afghanystan, he whose worldviews were formed in those dark caves full of dark purposes, hassassins, djins, and throatcutters"
It certainly affected my opinion on a few subjects. But it wasn't the Afghans who did it, it was my fellow americans. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 2:08:14 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, the argument has expanded to whether men are anything more than mere beasts. Mere beasts don't write mozart. Mere beasts don't make the stand of the 300 at Thermopalye. Mere beasts don't dedicate themselves to moral crusades like abolitionism. Humanity is something more, and our innate sense of right and wrong is part of that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
We are discussing inherent morality, not inherent intelligence. the ability to write music is no more an endorsement of morality than claiming a mockingbird shares the same instinct. What you are describing is a 10,000 year experiment with ethereal reward and punishment. You cannot judge the million years before then because it is, literally, pre historic. But what history there is is littered with examples of brutality that would be shocking to any modern westerner unknowingly insulated from the realities of the world. You must choose between Hobbes and Rousseau. They are mutually exclusive viewpoints. spoiler alert. Rousseau is wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 2:08:22 PM EDT
[#45]
Quoted:
I've been wondering about this: While many peoples throughout history have practiced slavery (and some still do), it seems that slavery is incompatible with Christianity in particular. How else does one interpret the commandment to love one another and to treat your neighbor as yourself? Yet even the early Christian church did not speak out against slavery and obviously scores of good, God-fearing people somehow managed to go to Church and live a Christian life while accepting slavery as an institution. Does anyone know of a scholarly article that deals with this? I don't know of any scholarly article, but I don't think there is any doubt that slavery was never acceptable before God. The Bible does acknowledge slavery existed, but it was never upheld as a good practice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 2:10:09 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Doesn't the bible at some point speak of the need for a slave to be respectful, obedient, and subservient to his master, and vice versa? It does, but not because slavery is OK. The Bible tells people how to deal with a lot of situations that are terrible by nature. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 2:12:49 PM EDT
[#47]
Who is the abnormal character? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 2:19:55 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're thinking about the institution in the abstract. Slavery required brutality to work. Whippings, beatings, rape, public torture and execution, children ripped from their mother's breast and sold away - all these things are clearly not how a Christian should act. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Show me the Biblical prohibition on it. Show me where God (or one of His prophets), or Jesus (or one of His Desciples ...) said, "owning a slave is a sin." I don't get to claim something is a sin, just because I think it should be. I go to the text, kind of like Christians are supposed to, and where the Constitution is concerned, where Supreme Court Justices are supposed to. Is slavery worng? I certainly feel so. Should it be against the law? Yes, and it is. To the extent that Christians are supposed to obey the civil authority, one can certainly argue that trying to own a slave here and now would in fact be a sin. One cannot make the same argument for the antebellum South. 1. ALL those things are sins regardless if they occur within the context of slavery, or without. 2, No, slavery didn't *require* that list. It was sometimes coincident with it - see point 1 above. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 2:22:09 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The attempt, by some of the membership here, to justify slavery is sickening. Where? Was it typed in invisible ink? I see no such thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 2:24:51 PM EDT
[#50]
Here's my take.
First, Christians are not to desire power over others, so Christians should not seek to purchase slaves. And yet slaves were sold and bought openly as frank property items by people who thought of themselves as Christians to the bone and operating in a cultural and social environment completely soaked by Christianity. On the other end of the equation, if you own slaves when you convert (i.e., you bought them while not a Christian), treat your slaves kindly because God sees no difference between master and slave--both are sinners in His eyes (Ephesians 6:9). Furthermore, if you own slaves when you convert and your slaves are Christians, treat them not as slaves but as brethren. In fact, if they escape, let them go and receive them as your brothers in Christ as Paul instructed Philemon to treat Onesimus (Philemon) If they escaped ...? Why not afford them the same freedom of the body as that of the spirit, wouldn't that have been the Christian thing to do. Some Christians seemed to think so, but not all. Jesus did not say much about people owning other people because Christians are not to place their focus on or live their lives for things on this earth. Instead, they are to see everything in terms of the spiritual. When you do that, you understand that there is no difference between master and slave because both are sinful men in need of Christ (Galatians 3:28). Well, that's the perennial double edged sword isn't it. It's what charlatan shaman-divine kings-popes have always preached for the masses "don't worry about your suffering , your exploitation and your miserable lot in this life because everything is going to be shiny in the next. Streets paved with gold, many mansions, etc, etc." Again, don't take my argument as an assault on Christiantiy, I'm just critiquing "Churchianity", while the truth of the Gospels stands or falls on its own merits. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
