Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (3916)	4/28/2010 11:13:19 AM
From: Solon	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

"I provided evidence that slavery was quite profitable right up to the end so pretending it would have died without the anti-slavery movement doesn't wash. Now you are putting an entirely new construct on EVERYTHING! The issue was the support of slavery by Christianity and the difficulty free thinkers, humanists, rationalists, and various religious persuasions (including Christian sects such as Unitarians, Mennonites, and Quakers) had in bringing down this inhuman institution. Somewhere (in one of a particularly long resource I appended), you culled a reference to profitability being a factor (and this included the changing dynamics of legalities as well as ubiquitous social changes and slave economics being impacted by revolts, sabotage...and many other factors). You made a capital issue out of that tiny aside and I cooperated in your desire to "argue". It certainly made and makes no difference to me whether it "would have died" without process. If you had read some of the information both posted and available otherwise you would realize that Southern Slavery for the Christians had to do with much beyond profit. You could start with googling "southern slavery +christian +honor +dogma +sin". I am sure you will come up with ample study material along the lines of Christians pridefully stating that Southern Slavery was Conscientious Christianity as preached and commanded in GOD'S WORD. Did I think that this was going to die out because it was dying out in parts of the world and slaves themselves were fighting for freedom? Eventually, yes--in due process. Did I repeatedly mention that it only died out after the bloodiest family feud in history with 92,000,000 dead? And does this last have anything to do with your misconception that someone was "pretending it would have died without the anti-slavery movement"?? Profitability had NOTHING to do with our core discussion. It was an aside that you culled out (I believe it was one sentence in an essay, wasn't it?) and proceeded to beat with a stick. I have already confessed that I disagreed with your "evidence" and that I consider the issue of profitability very involved and academically certainly still on (and likely to remain on) the table. DONE. "Its that fallenness thing." I don't know what you mean. "A freethinker might decide there was nothing wrong with him doing anything he can get away with." I suppose it might be possible, although you must realize that an informed and rational person of 1861 (and unencumbered by religious dogma or superstition) can hardly be compared to someone from an ancient culture where it actually was considered moral by the vast majority of freethinkers. "My kingdom is not of this world." He was either here to teach and guide in godly principles or he was not. If he was not a reliable moral guide then I hope your preacher or priest is. "Now you will damn him for what you say you fail to find in his teachings. Did he speak of every example of human sin? Then he must have been indifferent, perhaps even immoral. Let me help you out: There's no passage where he tells people not to beat little children, therefore beating little children was okay with him. There's a new argument for you." My wife is clambering for her laptop back. This last is so absurd that I will address it in another post. Lord love a duck...

To: Brumar89 who wrote (3916)	4/28/2010 11:54:08 AM
From: Solon	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

"Now you will damn him for what you say you fail to find in his teachings. Did he speak of every example of human sin? Then he must have been indifferent, perhaps even immoral. Let me help you out: There's no passage where he tells people not to beat little children, therefore beating little children was okay with him. There's a new argument for you." You are trivializing the brutal and entirely inhuman institution of slavery--undoubtedly the most vile immorality that has sullied the hands and hearts of humanity since we first crawled out of the oceans. The contemptible and inhuman institution of slavery is not some trivial "every example of human sin". One would expect a great deal more than tacit support (or a great deal less) from a decent person whether that person was a moral guide or just a useless wanderer with nothing important to say. Jesus DOES speak about slavery. He counsels the slave to remain a slave. When he speaks to a gentile (to cover some more of your post) he only consents to heal her child when she admits that her race is like a dog begging for crumbs. In both slavery and racial value Jesus COULD have demonstrated moral guidelines. Instead he gives tacit support to the brutal policy of enslaving human beings. Then Paul goes on to confirm that policy...and after 2000 MORE years of torture, abuse, and brutal enslavement and inhumanity) 92,000,000 more people lose their lives in a bloody war to do the right thing. I'm sorry...telling me that this supposed paragon of moral perfection and godly qualities was busy with other matters just doesn't cut it. He took the time to say many times to Honor your parents (although he never did himself and had real contempt for families)--but he had no time to say that slavery was inhuman and must be stopped?? But time to turn over the tables of the "evil" money changers. OH, YES! And time to throw a fit of pique at a fig tree. OH, YES! You are right. As a moral guide he had NOTHING to offer. As a person of common decency he had NOTHING to offer. "Not of this world"?? Yeah...that sounds about right, too...