₦airaland Forum

CuteMadridista:
AwesomeJ is pretending Messi's Children and wives belong to FC Barcelona and when he leaves they'll simply take them away from him and tell him to leave

and if Messi loves his children, he'll declare openly that he loves Barcelona, his wife and children so he then becomes their property permanently

Mind you the above statement, as horrible as it sounds, is only for Hebrew slaves. non Hebrew ones are for life and don't even have the opportunity to make those declarations

Should Messi sign up a contract that sees him renouncing his rights to his wife and children to Barcelona, then legally, he has lost those rights to Barca.

About a slave declaring that he doesn't want to be free, if you could think on it with an open mind, you'd see that it's proof of how comfortable slaves could get with their masters. They were employees basically, and just as folks don't want to leave a good job nowadays, there were slaves who wouldn't want to leave their masters at the time.

Have an open mind to things bro, those folks were employees.

To buttress that, mention a portion of the old testament where any other word was used to describe long-term staff/workers.

DeSepiero:
In slavery, agreements are made between slave master and buyer. The slaves opinion doesn't really count.
Whereas, in employment, agreements are made between employee and employer.
Those are two different things.

Not quite?

If a father negotiates the terms of a job he wants to commit his 12-year old son to, would you see it as bad?

Even if he chooses to sign up to terms that the boy is much inconvenient with, do you then blame the employer.
This is a father who has said to the son, "I can't do anything at all to cater for you"
Wouldn't it be a huge favour the employer does to the son?

DeSepiero:
You should rather say that there are similarities in the relationships of Slave/Master and Employee/Employer.
The fact that someone works for me doesn't mean I own the person.

What sort of bible regulations suggests that slavery was employment?

Are you an advocate of slavery? like it happened in Libya.
Is it proper to exchange humans for money?

I have given instances of the kind of relationship that did exist between slaves and masters at those times, I can yet give you much more, all of them confirm the fact that those slaves were merely employees.

Whoever thinks otherwise should dig up any story in the Bible that portrays the slave/master relationship as anything different.
Remember, I said story.
I already gave 2 to support my position, I could give much more.

dalaman:
Shut up and stop telling lies. Footballers are NOT properties of their clubs. They can terminate their contracts anytime they feel like. Slaves in the bible could not. They are to be treatedas properties. Even their children were to be treated as properties. The relationship was inhumane because according to the bible they were not allowed to own properties, they could be branded, they were not paid any wages etc. They belonged to the master and did what ever the master told them.

Hey, mind your tone there, you wanna be rude, find some place else please.

How would you know slaves couldn't be free? You're just showing your ignorance. Depending on the type of contract a footballer signs, he may or may not be able to leave a football club whenever he wishes, so it was with the slaves of that time. there were those who could be redeemed from the slavery contract. Take note of the fact that the Bible regards the deal as a contract between two parties, wherein labour is traded for money.

Those who didn't earn wages were those who already got their wages upfront in terms of the purchase consideration. Imagine if a firm chooses to sign you up for a job. $20m for 2 years, if the $20m was paid as a lump sum on the day the contract was signed, would they yet have to pay you any more wage?

dalaman:
I am not to look at it through your own bias view.

If there is something I dislike is dishonesty. What do you mean by perhaps, when it was clearly stated that they can enslave foreigners and their children for a life time?



How do you this to be true? How did you know that they were not over powered captured and sold? The buyer did them no favor, even Yahweh their God knew that the condition the slaves were in was bad and warned them NOT to do same to their fellow Israeli brothers.



Yes, I would. If you go and buy a person today that is willing to be a slave you will be arrested. You can try it. Go to an open slave market I Libya buy anyone that was sold willingly. Bring him to Nigeria and treat him the way you would a slave openly and see if you won't be arrested regardless of the fact that he willingly sold himself to you.

No where in the bible was it stated that the foreignersgave themselves up as slaves. That is your own making. The people were to buy the slaves is what was written . Why buy something when it is given up for free? You are just trying to spin it and it's just exposing you.

Slavery is bad and the fact that a God was at the center of it all giving injunction on how it is to be conducted says it all.

Quite a long post on misconceived opinions.

1. quote the verse wherein it was stated that every non Hebrew slave must be owned forever.

2. For slaves who were sold by their own relatives, they're obviously better off being sold as slaves. For those captured and overpowered-those taken as plunders of war, they're still better off, because the alternative would have been death for them.

3. You're bringing legality in here, that's not what we're talking. Slavery could be illegal in Nigeria today, but it certainly wasn't I. the world of that time, because, more than anything else, it was labour sales.

4.I didn't say foreign slaves gave themselves up for slavery, I said if a man chooses to sell himself or his relative into slavery, he is the one to blame. Should that be the case, the slave masters would obviously yet pay for the slave contract.

5. You're mistaken, thinking God could ever do anything bad.
Whatever regulations you find in the Bible regarding slavery were mere the labour laws of the time.

I'll be here by 8:25pm.

CuteMadridista:
I cut out the rest cuz they're too nebulous

1. Employees in any company can walk at any time, if you work in a company you're free to resign and leave non Hebrew slaves are not allowed to leave if they want to. Big difference!!!
also slaves you bought are not to be paid any wages while employees are paid their wages, another difference!!!

2. Clubs don't just "loan out players" that's a dishonest representation of how loans are done. let me explain for the readers

a. The club tells a player say Kovačić that he's not gonna get game time in his parent club, Real Madrid

b. His agent talks with him and he looks for a club that promises his client game time

c. he finds a club and they negotiate with the parent club on the terms for the loan, who would be paying the player's wages or what percentage each team would pay and the minimum game time the player must be involved in (usually in minutes)

d. the parent club then receives an official bid from the other club, they agree to it subject to the player himself agreeing to the deal

e. the player agrees and he moves for the stipulated duration of the loan. mind you, the player can disagree with the deal at this point if he wants so the final power still belongs to the player himself


This is how loan deals work in football but the slave in the bible has no say on whether they don't want to be sold or loaned. all the power belongs to the buyer and the seller.

I find this reply of yours highly dishonest to say the least

Slaves who don't get paid, do not cos they already got their payment upfront.

By the way where did you get that slaves didn't get paid, and where did you read that all non Hebrew slaves had to be perpetual slaves?

And no matter how much fancy is put into loaning out football players, that phrase "loan out" is still in the same class as "pass down to children"

DeSepiero:
What the hell did I just read?
You awesomeJ should not resort to such dishonesty in your bid to defend bible. Sincerely, it's appalling that you'd suggest that slavery is no different from employment.

Employment is NOT same as Slavery.

The slavery that the Bible regulates on was basically employment.

Slavery had a governing contract, so does employment, and buying football players. Technically, football players are merely properties of their various clubs, yet they live more comfortably than most folks without such a contract. This should help you get the right perspectives, when the Bible says that slaves were properties of the masters. Doesn't necessarily mean the relationship was inhumane.

CuteMadridista:
Wrong!

Exodus 21:2-6 (NASB):
2 If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment. 3 If he comes alone, he shall go out alone; if he is the husband of a wife, then his wife shall go out with him.
4 If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone. 5 But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife and my children; I will not go out as a free man,’ 6 then his master shall bring him to
God, then he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him permanently.

6 years for Hebrew slaves and non Hebrews are to be passed on to children and children's children as property

Passing slaves to your children, and their own children is the equivalent of leaving a company to your kids. Your employees would become their own employees too.

Imagine someone who's not too familiar with how football clubs are run, reading that clubs loan out players. Sure, he will swear that players were being subjected to a most inhumane form of treatment. But if he pays close attention to the context, he'll know better.

Look at the few examples of relationships that were mentioned of slaves and masters in the Bible, then you'd see obviously that it's nothing short of today's employee/employer relationship.

Look at Joseph, a slave, his job description as a slave was to manage Potiphar's entire enterprise, so much so, that the man only bothered himself with his food. Talk about Joseph being a CEO.

or Look at Abraham. look at how Laban was so happy to see his slave arrive, because that slave was a loaded big boy who had arrived in their home. He was just dashing out expensive stuffs. You think that slave saw himself as being maltreated. Or you think asking him to go free would have meant anything other than a sack from a great job?

dalaman:
Again from the bible:


However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46)

Where is the stipulated time you are talking about when the bible says they are to be passed as permanent inheritance to a person's children? The slaves are bought as can be clearly seen from the verse. Is this what you are referring to as "Just employment "?

It even says that they are oly to treat their slaves that way but not their fellow people of Israel.

This is how you should look at it:
There were those who were bought for seven years-the Hebrews.
There were those who were perhaps bought for their lifetime.
And there were those who were bought for some other time frames.

In any case, there must have been a seller for there to be a buyer.

For someone to decide to sell himself or his relative to slavery, such person's conditions must have been so terrible as to imply that the buyer probably did them the biggest favour.

Think about this. During the slave trades orchestrated by the Britons. If it was able men who chose on their own to sell themselves or their kids to slavery, would you have blamed the Britons?

CuteMadridista:
You really need to read the post you quoted again, carefully this time

there's no such thing as "Stipulated timeframe" in that verse. its written you can pass a a slave you buy to your children and children's children

Only Israelites were exempted from such so you're concentrating on the Israelites part and ignoring the slaves that are bought part

The Hebrew slaves were also bought.

The verse also didn't state whether the time of service of those slaves was infinite.

And about masters beating their own slaves.
The verse their was to just to add a note to the broader law which spells a death penalty for murder. That's a law that still holds in most societies today.

The point that was being noted there is that "attempted murder should not be judged as murder"

Look at a similar instruction. This is not even between a slave and a master, it's between two men. To show that the beating issue wasn't something unique to slaves.

The very instruction before the one you quoted in Exo 21 says:
18. When .end quarrel, and one strikes the other with a stone or his fist, and the injured man does not die but is confined to bed,
19 if he can later get up and walk around outside leaning on his staff, then the one who struck him will be exempt from punishment. Nevertheless, he must pay for his lost work and time and provide for his complete recovery.

So obviously, you see, it was the people of those times who had all sorts of funny lifestyles, and these instruction were basically to regulate their excesses as much as possible.

dalaman:
Let me drop just a few biblical verses on slavery and how slaves are to be treated to show you that it is not different from any other form of slavery.

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21)


However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46)

Slave's according to the bible were properties and could be inherited. They could be beaten and branded. They had no right to own any property. They weren't paid any wages. Their kids were also owned by their masters. How is this any different from other forms of slavery?

The slaves did have their rights until it was sold by themselves or by someone of influence over them for MONEY.

The slave masters did not kidnap those slaves, they paid to have their services for a stipulated timeframe.

How's that different from modern day employment?

You choose to give up years of your time for your employers pay. Should you then complain that you don't have the liberty to do the things you'd actually want with your time?

And in case you want to say that, at least people can resign from their jobs now, then too slaves could be redeemed. So please, have the right perspective, it was just employment.

bisiki2:
Are you Milost in disguise?? ;

Anything bad about my proposal. Leaving those stocks unsold is funny now.

CuteMadridista:
I've made another post to correct the first post, do check it out

Still, it's you saying slavery is bad, so tell me in what ways.

If you say X is bad car.
And I say X isn't.
It's you who will tell me the specific things you've seen in X that make you term it a bad car.

dalaman:
Who told you he wasnt a christian missionary? You can not separate the imperialist and the missionaries at that time because even pastors and head of churches were slave owners at that time so what are you saying? Most of them owned slaves and even those that were evengalizing were also part of the imperial structure.

Of course you can.

My MD could be a pastor in his church.

The things he does as an MD are not things you'd say he does as a pastor.

For instance, a line manager who is a Muslim could have been consistently delivering poor results on the job, and after hunting for a replacement, my MD decides to let this former manager go.

If you draw a conclusion that "A pastor fired a Muslim worker". It'd be a wrong one.

The actual happening is that " an MD fired a line manager'

dalaman:
Slavery as practiced in the bible is equally bad as any other form of slavery.

In what specific ways?

CuteMadridista:
Start by defining the core features of slavery which makes it bad and how those "features" are not shown to be encouraged in the Bible

I want to avoid too much derailing and clutter, that's why I'm making it to be amongst the four of us who were on that thread

Don't forget bro, your side is "it's bad" my side is "it isn't".
So, obviously, it should be you mentioning why it's bad.

dalaman:
Mr man dont be dishonest. You sent a link about Christian missionaries and the link clearly talked about some of the missionaries that were sent by Portugal to Africa and acknowledged that some of them were oppressors and imperialist. It is well known and documented that many missionaries came to steal and exchange what they stole with the Christian culture. What ever it was they gave the people they made sure they took 10 times from them.

People like Bishop Desmond Tutu of south Africa have openly stated that many of the missionaries that came to Africa only came to steal resources. It was from one of his videos that I got to know about the slave ship called the Good ship Jesus that took slaves and left Africa that the captain was a Christian Zealot.

I didn't give any link. I just made comment on a statement you highlighted.

Surely, there could have been Christian missionaries with ulterior motives. But that doesn't imply in any way that Christianity is out to promote those silly motives. If it were, we Christians of today would have had to do the same silly stuff to meet up with the standards. But Alas, we're not even close to wanting them silly stuffs.

Pastor....
Please do well to not litter this thread with your filthy photos. They are totally unrelated to the scope here, so you may want to open for yourself a new thread.

@mynd44, Seun, please help us take them photos out.

CuteMadridista:
That is noted but please this thread is between the four mentioned in the title

thanks for your cooperation

First, I think we should welcome views from anybody else.
It should just be that these four of us commit as much as possible to seeing that we have a sound debate.

So let's start by defining the core features of slavery which makes it bad.

I put it to you that slavery as practised in the Bible is devoid of these features.

dalaman:
You clearly know nothing about the conquistadors.

I said even your Wikipedia link acknowledge that some missionaries were oppressors and imperialist.

"The Portuguese sent missions into Africa. These are some of the most well-known missions in history. While some of these missions were associated with imperialism and oppression, others (notably Matteo Ricci's Jesuit mission to China) were relatively peaceful and focused on integration rather than cultural imperialism."

You can not separate the missionaries from the imperialist because they were one and the same.

This one above for instance.
The statement is "Portuguese sent missions to Africa"

Your conclusion is "The missions were Christians on a christian missionary agenda"
Come on!

So when Nigeria sent Soldiers to Liberia, the fact that they were referred to as the Nigerian mission means in your own mind that they were christian missionaries?

Come on man!

kolaish:
I am not leaving, Is it by force to leave Japaul

On a serious note, I want to see the end of this Milo (or is it bournvita) issue with Japaul. I have nothing to loose because I bought at 35k, the money must reach to chop nkwobi or else I will not sell.

You really think it will reach 1.40?
Why not sell and wire me the cash now. I'll return to you the exact number of units when the stock hits 1.40 since that's the only price you'd reckon with.

But if price remains sub 1.40, then I'll hold on perpetually to the dough.

CuteMadridista:
You can do the honours of opening the thread too

Don't do much of thread opening, I've only ever had one-for Seun. But make a mention, I'll be there.

CuteMadridista:
let's talk about it on another thread, are you game? me, you, Dalaman and spartan117

just the four of us

Looking forward.

CuteMadridista:
anytime you're ready holla my monicker and I'll attend if or when I'm online

I'll be there too. Spartan, please make a mention.

spartan117:
According to Wikipedia conquistadors is the term used to refer to soldiers and explorers of the Spanish empire. They were not referred to as Christian missionaries. Why are you the only one calling them that?
I would highly recommend that you read this link again so that you are able to grasp the proper definition of a Christian missionary
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mission

You"re obviously one of the brightest minds I've ever met on this forum. God will continually make his wisdom abound to you.
Instead of the dalaman guy to just admit his ignorance, he keeps making baseless arguments.

CuteMadridista:
The bible was never against slavery though

let's talk about slavery here

https://www.nairaland.com/3508437/god-jesus-didnt-forbid-slavery

https://www.nairaland.com/4405316/thank-god-slavery


so we don't derail this thread too much pleasw

Slavery was basically the equivalent of modern day employment in those times. Would you expect the bible to condemn employment?

spartan117:
The fact that the name of the ship was Good ship jesus and the fact that it's captain John Hawkins was a religious zealot doesn't make him a Christian missionary my friend , he didn't come to Africa to propagate the gospel of christ he came to trade plain and simple. I spoke about such religious zealots in my previous post on this thread
Here is Wikipedia's definition of a Christian missionary for your enlightenment
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mission

You basically just said the exact same things I wanted to say to the dude, only even better.

They will come up with silly bases, and start making misinformed arguments.

He probably thought you won't check to confirm the funny claim he made. Now that you've corrected him, he will never come to admit he was wrong about his claim.

God bless you real good bro.

Bright minds are so obvious to spot. Kudos.

Niflheim:
The only aspect of Christianity I respect is their right to eat grass!!! No need to pay a labourer to cut it!!!

What's this one saying now?
And his fellow funny dudes still gave him 2 likes. Na wa o.

Seun:
I think he is talking about modern missionaries who are affiliated with wealthy tithe-collecting churches like Christ Embassy and RCCG. They would rather open churches in wealthy places like London and Cape Town.

You obviously sound like you're saying the major aim for setting up churches is tithe collection.

I have mentioned to you that churches don't have access to members' bank accounts whereby they can make direct debits.
It's those members who willingly come up with whatever they want to give, and make the payments at the church.

If you earn 1million monthly, and you choose to pay 10,000 as tithe or you even choose to pay nothing. Nobody audits you, as a matter of fact, nobody cares.

If your stingy nature makes you see giving as bad, why not keep that funny tightfisted attribute to yourself? It's isn't at all enviable you know.

If you keep ranting endlessly about what people choose to do with their own money- a matter that isn't any business of yours- what does that say about you?

Those folks world over who are utterly motivated to do tithing are only-unlike like you- well informed of its benefits.

Imagine a village illiterate telling you that spending your time writing codes is a waste. Would his silly opinion convince you to stop?

Seun:
I think he is talking about modern missionaries who are affiliated with wealthy tithe-collecting churches like Christ Embassy and RCCG. They would rather open churches in wealthy places like London and Cape Town.

There you go again.