Slavery

[Mike_from_NJ]

I need to back up a claim to a selection of dialog so common it was given the short name Thunk?
What is it you are trying to prove?
You are now the mugwump God?

That is an unfortunately dangerous road to trod.
I saw an Indian Deli explode over who had rights to be mugwump God. Mike Hunt from the Jersey Shore bar, astronaut playboy and all, may regret going there. Your play, player.

Because they are parts of the game system you are using. Odd thing it landed on mugwump thunk, you think?

I am completely unfamiliar with whatever game system you are talking about. I did a search online and came up empty.

Now I’m not above throwing in a pop culture reference or two in my posts, I’m probably more apt to do so than most posters here. But when I do it’s either as a humorous aside or as an analogy to make a point. If it’s the latter it’s important to explain the reference, not only for the person being spoken to but for anyone else that might be viewing the thread.

In fact, it’s important to explain any type of reference made (not just pop-culture references). On CAF I’ve explained certain concepts like The Southern Strategy, a few surahs in the Quran, and numerous points regarding science.

You need to understand that this is a global message board involving people from different cultures of different ages and having different experiences. For example, sometimes non-American posters rightly have to explain to American posters of this fact. So if you want or need to refer to something then assume that you’ll need to explain it, especially since you are lobbing a very serious charge at me.

Now with that said, in plain terms what do you believe that I have plaigarized? Present it to us as though we are not familiar with what you are referencing.

Humorous? You claim to have some compassion or moral outrage and find it humorous? God allows slavery because he gave us free will and man has a hardened heart. It is this hardened heart and God’s wrath which Moses quelled identified in slavery rules. Man is not becoming like angels and your playing games with both “Thunk” and a concept as serious as slavery clarifies this aspect of the new, greater, morality that you claim.

Sometimes the best humor comes from the most dire, blackest situations. But that’s not what I find humorous. It’s the lengths pro-slavery Christians go to defend the practice, even going so far as to claim some of the worst inhumaity by man against man was allowed just to make an incredibly weak analogy.

 

[mkoopman]

In fact, it’s important to explain any type of reference made (not just pop-culture references). On CAF I’ve explained certain concepts like The Southern Strategy, a few surahs in the Quran, and numerous points regarding science.

Did I question your godlike qualities? Your prodigious knowledge likely exceeds Solomon. Are you planning for so many concubines as he took?

My references are apparently too old for the evolved race to find until enough archeology is rediscovered. That came from when non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was still normative. Now the greater morality uses proliferation of nuclear arms as a way to gain political clout. My olf feeble mind is not able to get with it like the evolved generations. Do forgive my ramblings your fatah is indulged, sir.

Sometimes the best humor comes from the most dire, blackest situations. But that’s not what I find humorous. It’s the lengths pro-slavery Christians go to defend the practice, even going so far as to claim some of the worst inhumaity by man against man was allowed just to make an incredibly weak analogy.

Your godlike qualities, again. Your blacklisting abilities and black ops nuclear armed mid east terrorists are certain evidence of the evolved greater morality. You sure do get it when it comes to that God character in those silly old grey haired washerwomen stories. You have Him down in your slick mannerisms. Shall I courtesy? What do we offer as the humble gesture? Wash your dishes at the engagement?

Can you be kind like Him and humor the old feeble minded who do not see how to get with it?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Can anybody parse what mkoopman is saying in the previous post? I’m really just looking for a straightforward answer as to what I supposedly plagairized.

With the forum back I’ll try to follow-up on the topic as soon as I can.

 

[ATraveller]

This passage (1 Tim 1:8-11, ESV) might be of relevance for discussion:

Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

 

[Lucretius]

Dear Mike of New York,

One of the most basic rights a human has is not to be killed by another without a very good reason (e.g. self-defense). Slaves did not have that right and could be beaten to death with a rod.

Then why would the master be punished for beating his slave to death?

There are no qualifications limiting when a master could beat his slave, nor limiting the death of that slave provided the death was agonizing and not quick.

There were not, except for the provision not to kill your slave. It doesn’t follow that this means that a master could just go out and beat the crap out of his slave on a whim. The Scripture clearly commands the master to love his slave, after all. God didn’t see it fit to define every possible right and wrong action regarding the treatment of slave, just as he doesn’t do so for, say, the treatment of one’s wife and child, or how one eats, etc.

Usually, when we have to start making such tiny laws to puppeteer everyone’s breathing, a culture’s moral spirit has been in steep decline.

If you think delving into those topics will justify God's actions regarding slavery, then do so. Don't expect other people to present those arguments for you.

What I’m saying is that the real issues regarding the morality of slavery stem from assumptions regarding these topics. You’re assuming things like “ancient punishments were unjust” and so forth, views I don’t see why we should accept. Just because it is harsh doesn’t mean it is unjust: sure, the punishment for slaves was harsh, but this was on par with the harshness of other ancient punishments, including the harshness of Hebrew punishments.

For the Hebrews after they were on the other end of the rod, the idea that slavery could be practiced came from God.

I don’t see any reason to think that God encouraged slavery as much as tolerated it in a similar way he tolerates divorce. The way God talks, for example, seems to imply that Israel already had slaves.

Just as a lengthy aside popes allowed for slavery from early on before there were even Muslims. More importantly, they approved of slavery for more than those captured in war. The one caveat was not to enslave Christians or Jews.

In that case, we are then discussing topics such as the justice of a child inheriting the consequences of his parents’ actions and status.

In any case, you still didn’t respond to my larger point, which is that slavery in the ancient world was largely a fact of life. Exceptions to this rule doesn’t disprove the fundamental justification for slavery in the past.

I don't see how transitioning from a master-slave society to one of employer-employee would cause society to collapse. The fact that for most of the world we have societies that allow people to have liberties without societal collapse is more than enough evidence. If you think St. Iraneuas was correct then please show evidence where people simply had to own people.

When we tried to free the slaves in America, we had the bloodiest war in American history, and in the end the formal slaves, for all practical purposes, blacks were still treated as slaves anyway, excuse me, “tenant farmers.”

Furthermore, if it wasn’t for the Northern industrial economy and the invention of the gas cotton picker shortly after the end of the war, America’s economy as a whole would have almost certainly collapsed long term without the profitablity of the plantations (this was the American economy since before the revolution, after all).

Most historians would agree that it was political and economic changes that caused the dying of slavery in the Medieval period, with no small help from the influence from the Church.

With that we know that enslaving another person is wrong

And with what I know, words like “enslave” and “wrong” here are vague. The Catechism doesn’t say that owning a person is inherently wrong, nor does the thirteenth commandment, as I pointed out earlier.

You believe God allowed slavery to set up a multi-millennium analogy to show the power difference between God and man is similar to that of master to slave?

No, God allowed slavery so that the Israelites would remember somewhat (Israelite slaves were treated better than Egyptian slaves) what it is like to be a slave and that God freed them from such a status.

Christi pax.