Empathy is the best tool

[SYZ]

...Considering God had to exist outside of space and time (the creator cannot be part of the creation) and therefore if time doesn't exist it logically follows that a 'beginning' doesn't exist.

Drinking again are we Huggy?   Tsk, tsk.

[Forever Sophist]

I love to see this community's warm empathetical embrace to Huggy's ramblings. Thank you all.

[pattylt]

I love to see this community's warm empathetical embrace to Huggy's ramblings. Thank you all.

Hi.  Welcome to the forum.  Why not give us an introduction in the introductions thread so we can get to know you!

[Thumpalumpacus]

I love to see this community's warm empathetical embrace to Huggy's ramblings. Thank you all.

I have no empathy for anyone who defends chattel slavery. I make no apology for that lack of empathy.

[Huggy Bear]

I love to see this community's warm empathetical embrace to Huggy's ramblings. Thank you all.

I have no empathy for anyone who defends chattel slavery. I make no apology for that lack of empathy.

 Not all slavery is chattel slavery and indentured servitude is not slavery. Find me an example of anyone in history giving their chattel slaves a bunch of weapons like Abraham did... do you think a southern plantation owner would have ever armed his chattel slaves?

[Rhythmcs]

There's no shortage. There were slave regiments, slave armies, they go all the way back to the beginning of the written word, and ofc the us used slaves to fight indigenous people and, later, the british.

There is no controversery about whether or not slavery was the status quo of biblical society in magic book or the authoring society irl. It was. This isn't just made obvious by the text, but by every available extrabiblical source we have. From other documents, to physical evidence including remains. This is a losers argument. You gain nothing and protect nothing by employing it.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I have no empathy for anyone who defends chattel slavery. I make no apology for that lack of empathy.

 Not all slavery is chattel slavery and indentured servitude is not slavery. Find me an example of anyone in history giving their chattel slaves a bunch of weapons like Abraham did... do you think a southern plantation owner would have ever armed his chattel slaves?

You certainly don't argue against Jews taking slaves from conquered tribes and, you know, not arming them.

You have one example, of dubious provenance, allegedly arming his slaves. Your argument is that Abraham, the father of your faith, was not as bad as others, even though we now recognize that yeah, owning human beings isn't good lemonade. You also ignore that your god commands his followers to take slaves -- not indentured servants, not debtors, but captives of war -- into slavery that is heritable for both the owners and the slaves.

And you're okay with that. You're defending that here ... whether or not you refuse to quote the verses because of some copyright bullshit you're brushing up.

[SaxonX]

 Not all slavery is chattel slavery and indentured servitude is not slavery. Find me an example of anyone in history giving their chattel slaves a bunch of weapons like Abraham did... do you think a southern plantation owner would have ever armed his chattel slaves?

 Indentured servitude is just as bad as slavery and the bible endorses slavery anyway so the point is moot also there were cultures with slave soldiers

[SYZ]

...Not all slavery is chattel slavery and indentured servitude is not slavery. Find me an example of anyone in history giving their chattel slaves a bunch of weapons like Abraham did... do you think a southern plantation owner would have ever armed his chattel slaves?

Consider these biblical examples of slavery...

The Israelites were told to make slaves
of all their enemies under threat of death
in any offensive wars (Deuteronomy 20:10-11).

"When you draw near to a city to fight against
it, offer terms of peace to it. And if it responds
to you peaceably and it opens to you, then all
the people who are found in it shall do forced
labour for you and shall serve you."

"And when the city is besieged, women and
children are again to be taken as property.
(Deuteronomy 20:14.) ...but the women and
the little ones, the livestock, and everything
else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as
plunder for yourselves."

And:  In Ephesians 6:5–8, Paul states "Slaves, be
obedient to your human masters with fear and
trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ."

[Forever Sophist]

I have no empathy for anyone who defends chattel slavery. I make no apology for that lack of empathy.

 Not all slavery is chattel slavery and indentured servitude is not slavery. Find me an example of anyone in history giving their chattel slaves a bunch of weapons like Abraham did... do you think a southern plantation owner would have ever armed his chattel slaves?

You guys are making it really hard to be empathetic when you have to do apologetics for slavery

[Mancunian]

It's more sympathy than empathy with me. I have to feel sorry for people who have been sold a bunch of lies and for what ever reason can't let them go.

[Huggy Bear]

...Not all slavery is chattel slavery and indentured servitude is not slavery. Find me an example of anyone in history giving their chattel slaves a bunch of weapons like Abraham did... do you think a southern plantation owner would have ever armed his chattel slaves?

Consider these biblical examples of slavery...

The Israelites were told to make slaves
of all their enemies under threat of death
in any offensive wars (Deuteronomy 20:10-11).

"When you draw near to a city to fight against
it, offer terms of peace to it. And if it responds
to you peaceably and it opens to you, then all
the people who are found in it shall do forced
labour for you and shall serve you."

"And when the city is besieged, women and
children are again to be taken as property.
(Deuteronomy 20:14.) ...but the women and
the little ones, the livestock, and everything
else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as
plunder for yourselves."

And:  In Ephesians 6:5–8, Paul states "Slaves, be
obedient to your human masters with fear and
trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ."

See, this is why translations matter, I'm going give the direct Hebrew translation for everything you highlighted in bold.

"shall do forced labour for you and shall serve you" Hebrew translation = shall be placed to you under tribute and serve you

trib·ute
/ˈtribyo͞ot/
noun
noun: tribute; plural noun: tribute
historical
payment made periodically by one state or ruler to another, especially as a sign of dependence.

"to be taken as property" is something you added to poison the well, it simply states take them as plunder. Answer this question, you just went to war with another faction and killed off all the men and all that is left is women and children, what do you do?

"Slaves, be obedient to your human masters

Ephesus was part of the Roman empire, Rome had lot's slaves and some slaves converted to Christianity Jesus said be good to those who despitefully use you, how is what Paul said any different? As a Christian, God controls ones destiny, as long as you keep his commandments. Joseph went from Egyptian slave to having more authority than the Pharoah (when not on the throne) all because he was a righteous person.

Keep in mind there has been only ONE successful slave rebellion in all of human history, so what did you think Paul should have said to the Christian slaves?

[Huggy Bear]

 Not all slavery is chattel slavery and indentured servitude is not slavery. Find me an example of anyone in history giving their chattel slaves a bunch of weapons like Abraham did... do you think a southern plantation owner would have ever armed his chattel slaves?

You guys are making it really hard to be empathetic when you have to do apologetics for slavery

Do you support reparations for slavery?

[SaxonX]

Huggy's endless quest to pretend the bible isn't pro-slavery continues .....lol

[SaxonX]

Do you support reparations for slavery

It depends.


- If it involves asking an entire race of people to pay, then no, as it unfairly targets a group for something beyond their control.


- If it’s about asking families that owned slaves to pay, does that include Black families or families that married free Black individuals?


- If it’s about holding the government accountable for creating and upholding slavery laws, then I lean yes, as it addresses a persistent legal entity rather than individuals. Now the question arises of how it will be paid for, as asking taxpayers to foot the bill seems unfair, especially if their families had no connection to slavery.  


- If it targets corporations that still exist as distinct entities and benefited from slavery, then I lean yes, as this holds a persistent legal entity accountable instead of individuals.


- Then there’s the question of who receives the money—will we require documented proof, DNA tests, or similar methods to connect descendants of slaves with their ancestors?


- Do you support the idea that African nations should have to pay to for selling blacks into chattel  slavery in the first place?


Overall, while I agree with the concept, there are questions about how to conduct this fairly.

[Rhythmcs]

Do you support reparations for slavery?

OFC.  Been a long damned wait for those mules and acres, eh? Never going to happen, obviously.

[Huggy Bear]

Do you support reparations for slavery?

OFC.  Been a long damned wait for those mules and acres, eh?  Never going to happen, obviously.

Some actually received 40 acres before the order was reversed. My great-grand parents on my mothers side received land in Mississippi, so there's clear precedent set. What make you think it's never going to happen?

[SaxonX]

Well, it's a potentially commendable idea, but convincing Americans to foot the bill for it would be nearly impossible.

[Huggy Bear]

Well, it's a potentially commendable idea, but convincing Americans to foot the bill for it would be nearly impossible.

Trump is kinda proving that the US President has more power than previously thought. Besides, do you think Americans wanted to give black people civil rights? There's a reason the parties flipped.

[Paleophyte]

Well, it's a potentially commendable idea, but convincing Americans to foot the bill for it would be nearly impossible.

Trump is kinda proving that the US President has more power than previously thought. Besides, do you think Americans wanted to give black people civil rights? There's a reason the parties flipped.

If you think some rich white boy is likely to start handing out money to black people then you are dumber than even we suspected. That's military-grade delusion there.

[Rhythmcs]

Some actually received 40 acres before the order was reversed. My great-grand parents on my mothers side received land in Mississippi, so there's clear precedent set. What make you think it's never going to happen?

The Whites won't allow it.  How is that even a question?

I'm not saying it makes sense, mind you, because any reparations paid would immediately end up where money always does, but there's just no path from here to there and it would suffer endless and difficult legal challenges if it weren;t for the social ones. Let me put it to you this way. I think that we'll see single payer healthcare, free college, and a universal basic income, before we see reparations. The mind wonders whether anyone would still be talking about it then, and, ofc, almost everyone would likely be eligible for it, by then.

[SaxonX]

Trump is kinda proving that the US President has more power than previously thought.

Not really, since most of his actions have been legally challenged or blocked. The only reason he’s managed to achieve anything is because the opposition lacks courage, his party acts like a cult, and the Supreme Court refuses to enforce the law, bowing to actions that are constitutionally questionable at best. Honestly, who wants a president with nearly unlimited power?

Besides, do you think Americans wanted to give black people civil rights? There's a reason the parties flipped.

Yeah, that’s a bit different from demanding taxpayers hand over money to Black people. I can already imagine the right-wing outrage over this.

[Rhythmcs]

It'd be bipartisan. You get the odd accelerationist who champions the idea solely based on the notion that it would breed even more magats and other assorted haters. They're right, too.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Trump is kinda proving that the US President has more power than previously thought.

He still doesn't have the power to apportion that much money. That would need an act of Congress, I think.

That also assumes he would want to do that, which is very questionable.

[Rhythmcs]

The whole idea of thinking about trump and reparations is choice. Maybe presidents do have more power. Maybe they're fucking genies. Donald Trump, though, would absolutely never do such a thing. He's more into executing black people than paying them out. The Whites didn't crown him by accident.