Arkansas State Rep: ‘If Slavery Were So God-Awful, Why Didn’t Jesus Or Paul Condemn It?’

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Jesus condemned the attitudes and income disparities intrinsic to slavery as well as to much of modern day economic realities, especially those near and dear to the likes of Romney. "Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye so even unto them"! "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of the needle than for a rich man to enter heaven." Jesus admonished his would-be followers to give away all that they had to the poor. Mormonism helps to give Romney cover by shifting the focus from the clear and un-ambiguous messages of Jesus Christ in the gospels to the more wealth sympathetic writings of the Mormon church prophet.

I give this moron from the GOP credit for at least being willing to verbalize publicly that which so many of them support privately. He is just too stupid to understand that it is unseemly to actually acknowledge it for the record!

So how would you feel about guys like this running your health care?

[decocker 7,198]

So how would you feel about guys like this running your health care?

guys like what? christians?

it sucks but what can i say, they ain't going anywhere.

[HeatDeath 430]

A little historical context is required here:

If slavery as it existed in the American South had existed in the Roman empire, Jesus and Paul would have condemned it loudly and persistently. The institution of slavery as implemented by the Romans provided rights and privileges to the slaves that the slaves of the American South couldn't possibly have imagined. The earlier Hebrew implementation of slavery was even more humane than that.

The slave owners of the American South fell so far short of the Biblical standards for care of their slaves that it is deliberately misleading to use the same word to describe both institutions. There is simply no basis for comparison.

What happened in the South wasn't slavery [in the Roman sense, let alone the Biblical sense], it was merely a pre-industrial concentration camp.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

A little historical context is required here:

If slavery as it existed in the American South had existed in the Roman empire, Jesus and Paul would have condemned it loudly and persistently. The institution of slavery as implemented by the Romans provided rights and privileges to the slaves that the slaves of the American South couldn't possibly have imagined. The earlier Hebrew implementation of slavery was even more humane than that.

The slave owners of the American South fell so far short of the Biblical standards for care of their slaves that it is deliberately misleading to use the same word to describe both institutions. There is simply no basis for comparison.

What happened in the South wasn't slavery [in the Roman sense, let alone the Biblical sense], it was merely a pre-industrial concentration camp.

[james&olya 1,121]

I could imagine a lot of reactions to that post but I never would have guessed yours!

[Danno 1,228]

A little historical context is required here:

If slavery as it existed in the American South had existed in the Roman empire, Jesus and Paul would have condemned it loudly and persistently. The institution of slavery as implemented by the Romans provided rights and privileges to the slaves that the slaves of the American South couldn't possibly have imagined. The earlier Hebrew implementation of slavery was even more humane than that.

The slave owners of the American South fell so far short of the Biblical standards for care of their slaves that it is deliberately misleading to use the same word to describe both institutions. There is simply no basis for comparison.

What happened in the South wasn't slavery [in the Roman sense, let alone the Biblical sense], it was merely a pre-industrial concentration camp.

And according to Obamas buddy Henry Lewis Gates, the slaves in this country had it better than the slaves imported to South America and all across the Caribbean due to the fact that slaves cost more to replace up here.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I could imagine a lot of reactions to that post but I never would have guessed yours!

How else should one respond to an obviously unsupported statement? I am curious how many chattel were fed to the lions in the American south?

[^_^ 5,021]

How else should one respond to an obviously unsupported statement? I am curious how many chattel were fed to the lions in the American south?

You could have made that point to begin with so the rest of us could actually follow your train of thought

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

You could have made that point to begin with so the rest of us could actually follow your train of thought

I will leave a trail of bread crumbs next time.

[HeatDeath 430]

The vast majority of Roman slaves were agricultural workers (like those in the American South, only with significantly more civil protections against abuse [which is to say, any]) or personal servants (who had even more civil protections). While some gladiators (but not all) were slaves, the vast vast majority of Roman slaves never got within 10 miles of an arena unless they were carrying their master's personal effects. The poor souls dropped into no-win situations against predatory animals in the arena were virtually always political prisoners [i.e. Christians or captured foreign soldiers], not slaves. Slaves were private property, and a good slave was worth a non-trivial amount of money. Even the maddest emperors wouldn't waste slaves willy-nilly unless they had committed some crime or there was something else wrong with them [like publicaly disbelieving in the divinity of the Emperors, for example].

Seriously, read some history. It turns out watching the Bugs Bunny cartoon with Yosemite Sam as a Roman centurion does not give you a balanced picture of life in the Roman empire.

Edited October 10, 2012 by HeatDeath

[^_^ 5,021]

Is that the smell of pwnage in the air?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The vast majority of Roman slaves were agricultural workers (like those in the American South, only with significantly more civil protections against abuse [which is to say, any]) or personal servants (who had even more civil protections). While some gladiators (but not all) were slaves, the vast vast majority of Roman slaves never got within 10 miles of an arena unless they were carrying their master's personal effects. The poor souls dropped into no-win situations against predatory animals in the arena were virtually always political prisoners [i.e. Christians or captured foreign soldiers], not slaves. Slaves were private property, and a good slave was worth a non-trivial amount of money. Even the maddest emperors wouldn't waste slaves willy-nilly unless they had committed some crime or there was something else wrong with them [like publicaly disbelieving in the divinity of the Emperors, for example].

Seriously, read some history. It turns out watching the Bugs Bunny cartoon with Yosemite Sam as a Roman centurion does not give you a balanced picture of life in the Roman empire.

Sounds like someone has some "romantic" ideas about the Roman Empire. However, even a cursory examination of ancient history would prove you wrong. GIYF

Arguably, the Negro slaves of the southern US, had it better, than the urbanized workers in the northern US, in the early days of the Industrial Revolution, certainly better than the Catholics did in Belfast, and under British rule in general. The cradle to grave concept is one born from slavery. Economically, it makes more sense to pay subsistence wages only to people capable of work, and leave the rest to fend for themselves, something a good Christian slave owner would consider barbaric.

Edited October 10, 2012 by The Patriot

[HeatDeath 430]

Sigh. I know I'm feeding a troll here, but:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome

There was nothing in the institution of slavery as practiced in the American South that even slightly resembled the advantages high-status and literate slaves enjoyed in the Roman empire. Not even slightly.

And before you make cracks about how wikipedia is untrustworthy, peruse the vast array of real, proper, academic sources cited at the bottom of the article.

Edumacation: learn you a book.

<sarcasm>

But obviously, of course, this is completely unnecessary. The entire history of slavery in the Roman empire is obviously just a conspiracy to make the South look bad so the Yankees, led by the King Yankee Obama and the Democrats look good by comparison. And since the Democrats are the definition of human evil, anything that even indirectly makes them look even accidentally good or correct must, by definition, be false.

</sarcasm>

And I say this as a Republican. Sigh.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I know I'm feeding a troll here

I take umbrage at your statement.

[Pooky 3,833]

I take umbrage at your statement.

I'd take the free feed, instead.