cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Senior Contributor

Re: Bruce et al

(Racism is obvious when your previous President is referred to as a 'black man' and his genes are 50 % white)

So your saying that Obama, whom refers to himself as black or African American, is a racist?

Honored Advisor

Re: Bruce et al

Canuck, where in the Bible does it say you are permitted to beat your slaves for no good reason and have slaves for purposes of sex?  

As far as Obama being called a "Black President", that comes from the Liberals bragging about that.  They even tried to make it out the Abraham Lincoln was the first "Black President" because he allegedly had Black ancestors, but you don`t hear anymore of that crap these days. 

Probably most Blacks have 50% White genes, but when the slave reparation checks start getting handed out, they`ll be a lot of honkies in line to get their share.  Smiley Happy

Senior Contributor

Democrats running away from Affirmative Action POTUS

https://hotair.com/archives/allahpundit/2019/08/02/o-obama-frustrated-dem-presidential-field-keeps-c...

Obama will be forced to endorse Biden soon to try to protect his "legacy".

Kurt tried to get our "cerebral" forum progressives to articulate their vision of what would make America better without any success.

Reminds me of the old saying..."takes a good carpenter to build a house, but any jackwad can knock one down."

Senior Contributor

Re: Bruce et al

where in the Bible does it say you are permitted to beat your slaves

BA you are the one that claims to believe in that book so you are the one that should know what it says, of course if you really study it and understand what it says it is hard to just believe it is anything more than a collection of old stories. So many contradictions and rules and advice we know are wrong like beating slaves

Exodus 21:20-21 New International Version (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.

And why is a person considered 'black' if they have 50%, or even more, genes from a 'white' person?

That is what you did not answer.

But the real question is why does it matter?

You segregate people into groups according to their skin colour when skin colour makes no difference in reality. 

Honored Advisor

Re: Bruce et al

Being a slave sucks, I know i`m a US taxpayer.  Every year I get beaten to the point of death and work another year to get beaten again, small beatings of sales tax and a big whammy of property tax coming due September 1 first half. 

 

Well if you breed a Angus bull to a Charolais cow and the off spring is black, they pass that off as "Black Angus".   It isn`t "me" that`s saying that the Halfican Obama is Black, everyone says "Obama is Black, he was the first Black president" Obama himself would tell you he`s Black. 

Do you blow your nose in a Kleenex or tissue?

Honored Advisor

Re: Bruce et al

Here is a commentary on that verse in Exodus some might find interesting 

https://biblehub.com/exodus/21-20.htm  

 

(20) And if a man smite his servant.--The homicide hitherto considered has been that of freemen; but the Mosaic Law was not content to stop at this point. Unlike most other codes, it proceeded to forbid the homicide of slaves. Hitherto, throughout the East, and also in many parts of the West, slaves had been regarded as so absolutely their master's property that he was entitled to do as he pleased with them. Now, for the first time--so far as we know--was the life of the slave protected. The exact extent of the protection is uncertain. According to the Talmud, the master who killed his slave was put to death; according to some modern Jews, as Kalisch, he had merely to pay a fine. In any case, the killing was an offence of which the law took cognisance. Later on it appears that even assaults on slaves, if they reached a certain intensity, were unlawful, and involved the slave's compulsory emancipation (Exodus 21:26-27).

With a rod.--The usual instrument of punishment. It would follow, as a matter of course, that if a more dangerous implement was used the master was punished with equal, or greater, severity.

 

Verses 20, 21. - Homicide of slaves. In most ancient states the slave was the absolute property of his master, and might be ill-used to any extent, even killed, without the law in any way interfering. It is said that the state of things was different in Egypt (Kalisch); but we have scarcely sufficient evidence on the point to be certain that the slave enjoyed there any real and efficient protection. At Athens, beyond a doubt, the law protected the life of the slave; and a very moderate amount of ill-treatment entitled a slave to bring an action. At Rome, on the contrary, "the master could treat the slave as he pleased, could sell him, punish him, and put him to death" (Dict. of Greek & Roman Antiq. p. 1036). And this was the ordinary state of the law, particularly in Oriental countries. The Mosaic legislation must be regarded as having greatly ameliorated the condition of the native slave population. Hebrew bondmen it placed nearly upon a par with hired servants (Leviticus 25:40); foreign slaves, whether prisoners taken in war, or persons bought in the market, it protected to a very great extent. By the law given in verses 26, 27, it largely controlled the brutality of masters, who had to emancipate their slaves if they did them any serious injury. By the law laid down in verse 20, it gave their lives the same protection, or nearly the same, as the lives of freemen. "Smiting "was allowed as a discipline, without which slavery cannot exist; but such smiting as resulted in death was, as a general rule, punishable like any other homicide. The only exception was, if the slave did not die for some days (ver. 21). In that case the master was considered not to have intended the slave' s death, and to be sufficiently punished by the loss of his property. Verse 20. - If a man smite his servant, or his maid. "Maids" would commonly be chastised by their mistress, or by an upper servant acting under the mistress' s authority. "A man" here means "any one." With a rod. The rods wherewith Egyptian slaves were chastised appear upon the monuments. They were long canes, like those used by our schoolmasters. Under his hand. Criminals in the East are said often to die under the bastinado; and even in our own country there have been cases of soldiers dying under the lash. A special delicacy of the nervous system will make a punishment of the kind fatal to some, which would have been easily borne by others.

 

Here`s a scene from Animal House where Flounder shoots a gun in the air and the horse dies of fright. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtSPFXj_eZM

Senior Contributor

Re: Bruce et al

It seems those arguments are that because the bible tells them not to kill the slave everything is just hunky dory.

Why did they not point out that beating a person to the point that you have to wait 2-3 days to see if they die is wrong too, just as owning another human as a slave which the verses note is their property is also very wrong.

Quit trying to justify something that is wrong all the way through just because it could be worse by killing the slave.

Why did the bible not just point out what rational thinking people figured out themselves that slavery is wrong, always has been and always will be.

Honored Advisor

Re: Bruce et al

I think what is said is if someone owned slaves, they won`t be denied salvation because of it, how they treated slaves is something they will have to answer for one day.  But to understand, that was during a time when there were brutal wars, it was a struggle for food let alone having to contend with wars.  So your family is killed in battle, your home burned and now those that did that to you are now your slaves, on the best of days you aren`t going to have the best feelings towards them.  And then some refuse to work and some run away, it would be understandable that frustrations would over flow at some points.   We can criticize from our 21st century easy chairs, but we did not live during those days. 

Plenty of atheists through out history owned slaves and I`m sure they did not "spare the rod".  I think that the Western embracement  of Christianity has allowed us to evolve to where we are now having the luxury of not knowing how someone could own another human being much less beating him or her.   Had Islam won over the West, I doubt culture wouldn`t have evolved in these positive directions.   I mean look at the Christian Bible, "we gidda have slaves!! Yippeee!" ...But we say "Thanks, but no thanks We have no desire to own human beings".

Senior Contributor

Re: Bruce et al

BA, it sure seems like the progressives have "empty pockets" when it comes to ideas, outside of continually wanting to rob peter to pay paul.

Oh, and wanting to be able to kill babies in the womb, that one really gets them out in numbers.

Kurt asks a simple question, and like Bruce notices, "crickets".

Well, that and Canuck saying "the Christian God is bad". Guess what, Nuck….we get it that you don't like Christianity.....you can move on.

Honored Advisor

Re: Bruce et al

Hey Red, that is for sure.  Our ancestors by and large chose the Christianity route and we`ve been Blessed or reaped the benefits of riding piggyback on those values of the non-Christians.   When God gave us freewill, a lot of ugliness comes with that freedom.  The hope and for a while the result of freewill was to discover the right path over the centuries as we have.  Had false religions or no religion (communism) won over the west, Canuck would not be sitting so smart and happy with the right to criticize what has been a peaceful self-correcting, God fearing system.