Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

CT GAMER wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Wow, yes so much wrong with that, so close to a riot.
1. Attacking Christianity (and badly)
2. Intentionally throwing out the slave thing in that community.
Where's the New Black Panthers when you need them?

Directly quoting someone/something is an attack?

It is when you use things that they actually said / done to make them look bad... Get on with the times CT!

If you have said or do e something bad (or continue to support someone/something bad) then it is YOU that have made yourself look bad.

It is not my responsibility to hide your badness.

As for you ludicrous example Frazz, it is flawed because doing so would be largely perceived as a statement of belief on my part as opposed to an illumination of an existing thingwhich the billboard was.


Regardless my question was asking if quoting someone is an attacking principile?

What ludicrous example? South Park? They say fanatics never have a sense of humor...

LoneLictor wrote:

No atheists don't have one major organization. They have very small, insignificant groups of people, but not one big organization (like Catholics and the Catholic Church). And, if people stereotype your religion, you should just do what I do and get all uppity until everyone stops talking to you. Don't just take it lying down and then use it as an excuse to stereotype others later.

How about...Freedom From Religion Foundation or http://www.atheistalliance.org/ or The council for secular humanism http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php Will any of those do?

The U.S. Supreme Court cited Secular Humanism(I.E. Atheism) as a religion in the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins (367 U.S. 488).

Also I find it interesting that renowned athiests are having a "reason rally" on the national mall this weekend. http://reasonrally.org/ Doing rallies at the national mall is hardly insignificant.

Since I live in MD now, I may saunter on down there to see the spectacle.

GG

Polonius wrote:I suppose I'd more generally call it a creed than a religion.

Absense of belief can't really have a creed.

Anti-theism, now that can be a creed.

Medium of Death wrote:http://i.huffpost.com/gen/531825/thumbs/r-ATHEIST-SLAVERY-BILLBOARD-large570.jpg

I think the Image gives it a bit more context.

Well, considering that the Bible condones slavery, the context does make a little more sense, but it's still a stupid billboard.

The Year of the Bible apparently.

In the United States, 1983 was designated as the national Year of the Bible by President Ronald Reagan by Proclamation 5018, made on February 3, 1983 at the annual National Prayer Breakfast. President Reagan was authorized and requested to so designate 1983 by Public Law 97-280 (Senate Joint Resolution 165], 96 Stat. 1211) passed by Congress and approved on October 4, 1982.

The law recited that the Bible "has made a unique contribution in shaping the United States as a distinctive and blessed nation and people" and that, quoting President Jackson, the Bible is "the rock on which our Republic rests". It also acknowledged a “national need to study and apply the teachings of the Holy Scriptures.” “Can we resolve to reach, learn and try to heed the greatest message ever written, God’s Word, and the Holy Bible?” Reagan asked. “Inside its pages lie all the answers to all the problems that man has ever known.”

On January 30, 2012, Pennsylvania state lawmakers declared 2012 the "Year of the Bible". The Resolution passed by the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, HR 535, has faced resistance from atheist groups. In response, an atheist group, American Atheists, paid for the placement of a billboard in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania that protests the bill.

Seriously? Jesus fething Christ.

It's like nobody cares that the founding father's of the US were mostly Deists. Or that the US was found on secular values, especially the separation of Church and State.

Why learn history when I can opine my own?

Fafnir wrote:

Polonius wrote:I suppose I'd more generally call it a creed than a religion.

Absense of belief can't really have a creed.

Anti-theism, now that can be a creed.

You can call it whatever you want, but rarely is atheism defined as the complete absence of belief. Even http://atheists.org/atheism says this:

Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, which implies that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own.The following definition of atheism was given to the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S. Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d (MD, 1963), to remove reverential Bible reading and oral unison recitation of the Lord's Prayer in the public schools:

“Your petitioners are atheists and they define their beliefs as follows. An atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An atheist believes that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth for all men together to enjoy.

An atheist believes that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it, and enjoy it.

An atheist believes that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment.

He seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god. An atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man.

He wants an ethical way of life. He believes that we cannot rely on a god or channel action into prayer nor hope for an end of troubles in a hereafter.

He believes that we are our brother's keepers and are keepers of our own lives; that we are responsible persons and the job is here and the time is now.”

I quoted things that at least one athiest group thinks atheists believe in.

I'm not sure what I'd call a list of shared beliefs instead of a creed.

They seem to be twisting an ankle tap dancing around saying that they believe that there isn't a god.

Seriously? Jesus fething Christ.

It's like nobody cares that the founding father's of the US were mostly Deists. Or that the US was found on secular values, especially the separation of Church and State.

Why learn history when I can opine my own?

Well... it's a bit more complicated than that. They were diests, but most would still consider the Bible to be incredibly important books.

Fafnir wrote:
Well, considering that the Bible condones slavery, the context does make a little more sense, but it's still a stupid billboard.

So where does the Bible condone slavery again?
Where does the Bible say go out and get slaves?

Passages in the Bible explain what to do in regards to slaves. In fact slaves were to be released after 7 years. The problem is the misunderstanding of what slavery was in the past and how it was practiced in the past when trying to compare it to recent times. In fact the Bible explicitly forbad the "manstealing" type of slavery which we saw practiced during the african slave trade.

There were times in the past where it was lawful for people to go into "indentured servitude" which is to say they traded themselves for a time being to work for someone until a debt was paid off or some other such thing. They did the same thing back in the Bible days and were called slaves.


GG

generalgrog wrote:
The U.S. Supreme Court cited Secular Humanism(I.E. Atheism) as a religion in the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins (367 U.S. 488).

Secular humanism isn't necessarily atheistic.

Secular doesn't mean "atheist".

Fafnir wrote:

Polonius wrote:I suppose I'd more generally call it a creed than a religion.

Absense of belief can't really have a creed.

Anti-theism, now that can be a creed.

What you'll find, Fafnir, is that many (most) atheists are just as guilty of butchering the set of implications provided by the absence of belief in God/god, as many (most) theists are of doing the same regarding the belief in God/god.

generalgrog wrote:There were times in the past where it was lawful for people to go into "indentured servitude" which is to say they traded themselves for a time being to work for someone until a debt was paid off or some other such thing. They did the same thing back in the Bible days and were called slaves.


GG

Oh, you mean interns.

generalgrog wrote:Passages in the Bible explain what to do in regards to slaves. In fact slaves were to be released after 7 years. The problem is the misunderstanding of what slavery was in the past and how it was practiced in the past when trying to compare it to recent times. In fact the Bible explicitly forbad the "manstealing" type of slavery which we saw practiced during the african slave trade.

There were times in the past where it was lawful for people to go into "indentured servitude" which is to say they traded themselves for a time being to work for someone until a debt was paid off or some other such thing. They did the same thing back in the Bible days and were called slaves.

GG

Quick side question, feel free to PM me the answer. Where in the Bible does it refer to the 7 years thing? Or that its references to slavery are referring to indentured servitude instead of slavery? Honest question, I just want to know. Thanks.

IcyCool wrote:

generalgrog wrote:Passages in the Bible explain what to do in regards to slaves. In fact slaves were to be released after 7 years. The problem is the misunderstanding of what slavery was in the past and how it was practiced in the past when trying to compare it to recent times. In fact the Bible explicitly forbad the "manstealing" type of slavery which we saw practiced during the african slave trade.

There were times in the past where it was lawful for people to go into "indentured servitude" which is to say they traded themselves for a time being to work for someone until a debt was paid off or some other such thing. They did the same thing back in the Bible days and were called slaves.

GG

Quick side question, feel free to PM me the answer. Where in the Bible does it refer to the 7 years thing? Or that its references to slavery are referring to indentured servitude instead of slavery? Honest question, I just want to know. Thanks.

Deuteronomy 15:12-15 (KJV)
The Sabbatical Year

12And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee.
13And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty:
14Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the LORD thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him.
15And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt, and the LORD thy God redeemed thee: therefore I command thee this thing to day.


Also for clarity on "manstealing"
Exodus 21:16

King James Version (KJV)
16And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.
GG

Of course that only applied to other hebrew slaves.

Leviticus 25:44-47
44Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

45Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

46And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour

there's a reason not a lot of christians look to leviticus for moral guidance.

Just go with that carpenter guy. He's a cool cat who had his *^( together.

Polonius wrote:Of course that only applied to other hebrew slaves.

Leviticus 25:44-47
44Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

45Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

46And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour

there's a reason not a lot of christians look to leviticus for moral guidance.

Slavery was part of the economic system of the times, often times the slaves were poor people that slavery was an option to keep them from starvation. I.E. it wasn't necessarily immoral, when you look at the context of the times.

It became immoral during the context of the african slave trade because Europeans and Americans tried to use this passage and others to justify the african slave trade. This is not the same thing as what was done in ancient Israel.

GG

Without the transatlantic slave trade, there might well be openly held slaves in the West today and little moral repugnance to go along with it. As things are, we have a lot of arrangements that seem similar to slavery in the ancient world as I understand it. Probably more restrictive than that, actually.

generalgrog wrote:
Slavery was part of the economic system of the times, often times the slaves were poor people that slavery was an option to keep them from starvation. I.E. it wasn't necessarily immoral, when you look at the context of the times.

It became immoral during the context of the african slave trade because Europeans and Americans tried to use this passage and others to justify the african slave trade. This is not the same thing as what was done in ancient Israel.

Yes, I'm sure people were enslaved out of benevolence. That must be it.

You could at least attempt at the "new covenant" argument, its better than trying to hand wave Leviticus alone.

Manchu wrote:Without the transatlantic slave trade, there might well be openly held slaves in the West today and little moral repugnance to go along with it. As things are, we have a lot of arrangements that seem similar to slavery in the ancient world as I understand it. Probably more restrictive than that, actually.

Slavery in the new world was tied to race in a way that it rarely was in other areas.

It's an institution that changed dramatically over the millenia.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote:
Slavery was part of the economic system of the times, often times the slaves were poor people that slavery was an option to keep them from starvation. I.E. it wasn't necessarily immoral, when you look at the context of the times.

It became immoral during the context of the african slave trade because Europeans and Americans tried to use this passage and others to justify the african slave trade. This is not the same thing as what was done in ancient Israel.

Yes, I'm sure people were enslaved out of benevolence. That must be it.

Probably not, but like a lot of things, at a time when execution for debt was a possiblitiy, slavery does look benevloent.

I mean, if you're a nomadic people, you have no way to collect a debt once they leave.

Exodus 21:7-11 (NLT)
7 “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. 8 If she does not satisfy her owner, he must 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. 9 But if the slave’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave but as a daughter. 10 “If a man who has married a slave wife takes another wife for himself, he must not neglect the rights of the first wife to food, clothing, and sexual intimacy. 11 If he fails in any of these three obligations, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.

Exodus 21:20-21 (NIV)
20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.


Hmmm... selling your daughter into the sex trade and beating slaves to within an inch of their life is totally acceptable. What about forcably taking slaves?

Numbers 31:7-18 (NIV)
14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle. 15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the LORD in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the LORD’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.


Wow. So, you can forcably take female slaves, but only if they're virgins. Otherwise, you should just kill them (and all the boys). Seems a little extreme. How about we ask Jesus?

Luke 12:47-48 (NIV)
47 “The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.


So, it's okay to severely beat a slave who didn't do what you want. But, make sure to ease up a bit on the slaves who didn't know what you wanted.

Polonius wrote:
Probably not, but like a lot of things, at a time when execution for debt was a possiblitiy, slavery does look benevloent.

I mean, if you're a nomadic people, you have no way to collect a debt once they leave.

That reads to me as a choice between attempting to prevent future transactors from defaulting, and getting the value of the debt from the debtor.

The desire to not kill, or injure, may have played a role, but I doubt it was a big one.

dogma wrote:

Polonius wrote:
Probably not, but like a lot of things, at a time when execution for debt was a possiblitiy, slavery does look benevloent.

I mean, if you're a nomadic people, you have no way to collect a debt once they leave.

That reads to me as a choice between attempting to prevent future transactors from defaulting, and getting the value of the debt from the debtor.

The desire to not kill, or injure, may have played a role, but I doubt it was a big one.

I don't think benevolence has anything to do with it, but I don't think benevolence is a reason for much.

Grakmar wrote:Exodus 21:7-11 (NLT)
7 “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. 8 If she does not satisfy her owner, he must 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. 9 But if the slave’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave but as a daughter. 10 “If a man who has married a slave wife takes another wife for himself, he must not neglect the rights of the first wife to food, clothing, and sexual intimacy. 11 If he fails in any of these three obligations, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.

Exodus 21:20-21 (NIV)
20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.


Hmmm... selling your daughter into the sex trade and beating slaves to within an inch of their life is totally acceptable. What about forcably taking slaves?

Numbers 31:7-18 (NIV)
14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle. 15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the LORD in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the LORD’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.


Wow. So, you can forcably take female slaves, but only if they're virgins. Otherwise, you should just kill them (and all the boys). Seems a little extreme. How about we ask Jesus?

Luke 12:47-48 (NIV)
47 “The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.


So, it's okay to severely beat a slave who didn't do what you want. But, make sure to ease up a bit on the slaves who didn't know what you wanted.

As usual context is forgotten.

Where does it say the daughter is a sex slave? In fact it talks about the slave marrying the slave owners son? if you had a sex slave would you want her to marry your son?

If you are going to quote exodus please quote it in context.
Exodus 21:18-21
18 If men contend with each other, and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist, and he does not die but is confined to his bed,
19 if he rises again and walks about outside with his staff, then he who struck him shall be acquitted. He shall only pay for the loss of his time, and shall provide for him to be thoroughly healed.
20 And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished.
21 Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property.

Look at the context of the punishment for physical harm between two men fighting, and what to do when one or the other recovers or not, to the situation between a master and slave when the master punishes their slave. Using this verse to say that the Bible condones beating slaves is like saying the bible condones fighting and beating each other up.

Also the quote from Jesus's parable and trying to say that Jesus is agreeing with the beating is just laughably out of context.

GG

@Grakmar: That's a terrible reading of the parable.

Frazzled wrote:Just go with that carpenter guy. He's a cool cat who had his *^( together.

Jeshua, if he existed, was said to work with his hands. No one knows if this meant carpentry, stone mason, ditch digger, etc.

Best,

generalgrog wrote:Slavery was part of the economic system of the times, often times the slaves were poor people that slavery was an option to keep them from starvation. I.E. it wasn't necessarily immoral, when you look at the context of the times.

Came to see someone defend slavery, leaving satisfied.

Dakka OT, you so crazy.

Good hell, what were they thinking, putting up a billboard like that?
I don't think many black people seeing that thing would get much past the slave picture and the comment about obeying masters before they were reaching for an axe to take the thing down with.
I can just picture the conversation that would have gone on if the designer of that thing were trying to outline the thing face to face with some of the blacks I know:

Board designer, "I've got a great idea for a bill board"

Black man, "What's that?"

Board designer, "It's a picture of a black slave, wearing a collar with a biblical statement telling slaves to obey their masters. It then includes a "

Smash! Bam!Crunch!

Board designer, "Oh God, help me please!"

Ouze wrote:

generalgrog wrote:Slavery was part of the economic system of the times, often times the slaves were poor people that slavery was an option to keep them from starvation. I.E. it wasn't necessarily immoral, when you look at the context of the times.

Came to see someone defend slavery, leaving satisfied.

Dakka OT, you so crazy.

Same reason I looked.

But honestly I see nothing wrong with this billboard

dogma wrote:
What you'll find, Fafnir, is that many (most) atheists are just as guilty of butchering the set of implications provided by the absence of belief in God/god, as many (most) theists are of doing the same regarding the belief in God/god.

Many people feel the need to resign themselves to some set of belief or creed, even if it isn't a god. Dogma is the problem, not belief or lack-thereof.

Fafnir wrote:

dogma wrote:
What you'll find, Fafnir, is that many (most) atheists are just as guilty of butchering the set of implications provided by the absence of belief in God/god, as many (most) theists are of doing the same regarding the belief in God/god.

Many people feel the need to resign themselves to some set of belief or creed, even if it isn't a god. Dogma is the problem, not belief or lack-thereof.

You've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything!

The idea of a 'Year of the [X]' is pretty slowed anyway.

I guess there could be a reasonable assumption that many people who have heard about this incident are having these same discussions - looks like the billboard was a good thing after all.

@generalgrog: From what I can see there that verse only condemns beating a slave to death, not just beating them.

GG: Defending slavery since at least 2012.

Really, it's not that bad, guys. And you have to free your slave after seven years. Oh wait, no, that's only if he's of your tribe. Oh, and the Bible doesn't condone beating slaves; oh no, wait, it totally says it's fine to do that unless the victim dies in less than a day or two. Then you overdid it.

The billboard was kind of a dick move, but it did provoke some discussion, at least.