₦airaland Forum

awesomeJ:
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?

So if I sell a slave in the slave market, I get to share the money together with the slave? Show us where it says so from the bible. Am tired of your dishonesty and the way you keep making things up.

awesomeJ:
Quite a long post on misconceived opinions.

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

Mention where I said every non Hebrew slave is to owned forever. The bible says non hebrew slaves can be passed on as inheritance to kids as properties.

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.

How do you know this to be true? So if a person falls out with his relatives and the gang up against him and sell him off into slavery means he's better off? Where is your evidence for the empty assertion? So a person leading his life who was over powered and captured and sold off as a slave us better off because he was captured and sold off? How do you reason pls? Na wah oo.

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.

My point is that we shouldn't take seriously stories from.people who saw nothing wrong in slavery as anything serious talk more of using their stories as the words of God to guide our lives. Remember these guys saw nothing wrong in stoning their disobedient children to death.

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.

Slavery is wrong totally. That their God was the one regulating it says it all.

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.

They were the barbaric laws of that time. When men were slave owners and champions of genocide and land grabbing, their God was there with them regulating it. Very telling.

CuteMadridista:
The dishonesty spooks even Vaxx

Even vaxx is tired of their dishonesty.

awesomeJ:
What do you think that difference is?

It's the difference between a daily labourer (casual staff), and a full-time long term staff.

if all workers were hired workers, then there would be no need to used the adjective hired.

But workers were mainly in two categories then:
Hired(casual);
Slaves( long term)

The casualnes of hired workers is why you don't find much regulations regarding them, other than the fact the they must be paid their wages.

Will you keep quiet and stop telling lies. I am tired of your dishonesty. Where does it say that hired workers are causal workers while slaves are long term workers. SHOW ME FROM THE BIBLE.

Slaves had no wages at all. They were not allowed to be paid any wages.
Even the bible God warned the people not to treat their poor Israeli brothers that are poor and sold themselves to them as slaves. Hired workers simply means workers that work and get paid, slaves do not work and get paid and according to the Jewish encyclopedia which I made reference to ob the other thread , slaves were not allowed to own properties. Show us where foreign slaves the ones that Yahweh warned the Jews not to treat each other like that are paid wages from the bible.

awesomeJ:
Where did you get that slaves were not involved in decisions regarding them?

Where does it say that slaves were involved in decision regarding who is to buy them or who they are to be sold to? Are they also involved in any decision regarding how they are to be paid or how they are to be passed on as inheritance? What decisions do slaves make regarding themselves? Show us the injunction and what it says from the bible.

Instead of conducting research and trying to help solve our problems our universities have gradually turned into places where religious fanatics are breed.

butterflylion:
You always see what you want to see. My comment again below



In the context of this discussion you can be likened to those who find it cool for bobrisky yet in the Same way you can be likened to those who do not find it cool regarding scriptures covering slavery and I am seen as the complete opposite of the above.

Perspectives is all there is. I do not have to agree with you and neither you me. However this does not make either if us liars as you always enjoy throwing the word round.

Even from the scriptures, the slavery as commanded was bad so much so that Yahweh warned the Jews not to practice it among each other. They were to do the slavery to others but were warned not to treat their fellow Jews that way.

butterflylion:
As I said, what I am looking at is the context and not the word. Would you not say that bobrisky is currently being subjected to what many find inhuman yet he is enjoying it due to the gratification involved?

There is a thread on nairaland currently where he is bragging about his proceeds gotten from sleeping with a man who happens to be a billionaire and their mutual agreement to keep him a secret (terms and conditions)

Would you call what he is doing freedom or slavery.

What is inhumane in two men having mutually agreed sex? Gay relationships are legal in many countries so how is that inhumane when same sex relationships are acceptable in many parts of the world?

Many people hide their personal relationships from the public view for many reasons. Dbanj for example has refused to reveal who his girlfriend was till after they got married and he still reveals very little about his wife.

What he is doing to total freedombecause he can do what ever he likes and say what ever he likes. He eve tells people about his relationship with a billionare even when he is living in a country that imprisons people for 14 years for gay relationships. But he is so much free that he is talking about it openly. Ogbeni you have no case.

CuteMadridista:
The level of dishonesty here is massive haha

Dishonest: It's a same as employer Employee

Honest: A type of slavery has certain similarities between employer Employee

Dishonest: Passing slaves to children and grandchildren is same as a football club loaning a player to another club

Honest: Slaves passed to children has no say whereas footballer not only has a say but the FINAL say

Dishonest: Look how portipher treated Joseph

Honest: Joseph was an exception and moses even had to liberate the Israelites from Egyptian slavery. also moses killed a someone for treating a slave the way the bible allows! they're ignoring that moses killed the guy for beating a slave which seems okay by Yahweh only that the beaten slave was an Israeli


I shall update as we go on lmao!

Even their bible clearly differentiates btw slaves and hired workers.


39 “‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves. 40 They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you; they are to work for you until the Year of Jubilee.

This verse clearly shows that there is a difference btw slaves and hired workers. But this or resident dishonest apologist are trying to tell us that we blind.

butterflylion:
He doesn't have to say it. It's in the "terms and conditions "

He offers up his body and services in exchange for a reward. Others can see those services as disgusting but he gladly sees them as awesome.

Ogbeni just admit that you lied. Where did bobrisky declare that he is any body's slave for luxury? You can't ahow it and you made it up as usual abi? Continue

butterflylion:
In the bible context the slaves opinion did count. Best output is always considered per investment made.

A slave is bought for a time as chosen by the slave or as agreed between the slave and his buyer often so the proceeds can be used to better the life of his family or so.

They are not different. What you see is slavery. What I see is the context behind the slavery.

If dangote offered you a Behind house with a lovely brand new SUV and a lump salary so you can be his slave for 7 years away would you say?

To answer this you can ask bobrisky who is someone's deliberate chosen slave for sake of luxury.

Where and when did bobrisky say that he is any body's slave for luxury? Where? Show us!

butterflylion:
In the bible context the slaves opinion did count. Best output is always considered per investment made.

A slave is bought for a time as chosen by the slave or as agreed between the slave and his buyer often so the proceeds can be used to better the life of his family or so.

They are not different. What you see is slavery. What I see is the context behind the slavery.

If dangote offered you a Behind house with a lovely brand new SUV and a lump salary so you can be his slave for 7 years away would you say?

To answer this you can ask bobrisky who is someone's deliberate chosen slave for sake of luxury.

Will you keep quiet. The slavery was so bad that Yahweh warned them NOT to practice it on their fellow Israeli brothers but other foreign slaves.

awesomeJ:
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.

Let's talk about Joseph. Potiphar was an Egyptian and Joseph according to the story was favoured by God and his master treated him well as a result of that favour. He was treated differently from the way slaves were treated because of the favor from God accordingto the story.

The Jews were so badly treated by the Egyptians as slaves so much so that Moses was sent to set them free. That alone showed you how slaves were treated then.

awesomeJ:
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.

Let's talk about Joseph. Potiphar was an Egyptian and Joseph according to the story was favoured by God and his master treated him well as a result of that favour. He was treated differently from the way slaves were treated because of the favor from God accordingto the story.

The Jews were badly treated by the Egyptians as slaves so much so that Moses was sent to set them free.

butterflylion:
Again wrong! That Is SOLELY a choice to be made by the club and in this case, OWNER of the player.

They weigh player value against offered value and can easily turn it down.

Why do you think some players are loaned to other clubs rather than sold?

Not true, contracts do get terminated regardless of clauses. Many players havebeen paid off by their teams and their contracts terminated. Some players refuse to train with their teams and force their teamsto terminate their contracts. Players have a say when they are being loaned out. If they don't want to go no club can loan them against their wish.

Why are players treated as commodities? They are sold, bought, loaned!

These are people being treated same way slaves are based on buying and selling and lending.

Players are not treated as commodities because they have the right to say if they are going out or not. They have a say in what ever transaction they are invovked in and they are heavily paid usually. They are consulted before any move is made. How many slaves or commodities are consulted before they are sold out? According to the bible slaves and their kids can be passed of as inheritance to children of their masters. How many footballers are treated that way. Stop this your yeye silliness abeg.

butterflylion:
At the words in bold, that is wrong. Clauses protect and prevent such terminations. A 5 year clause must be seen through even to the detriment of the club or player.

No player simply just walks away anytime they feel like it.

Football contracts can be terminated and are terminated sometimes. If a 5 years contract is detrimental to a club for example, the player can be paid off and the contract will be terminated regardles of the clauses.

awesomeJ:
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.

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.

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.

Sincerely, I almost wanted to go off on him but had to restrain myself. The extent these guys go to defend absurdity away is really apalling. He is trying to compare slavery in the ible to employment. Something that even the God tacitly agree is wrong by warning the people NOT to do it among themselves bit only among the foreigners living among them.

awesomeJ:
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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

awesomeJ:
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.

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.

awesomeJ:
In what specific ways?

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?

spartan117:
Alright I'm here

Just a little point of correction I never said the Captain of the Good ship jesus admiral John Hawkins wasn't a Christian. I only said he wasn't a Christian missionary. he came to the African coast for the purpose of engaging in slave trade he didn't come to propagate the gospel of christ, which is why history remembers him as a British admiral and not a British Christian missionary.


AwesomeJ, 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.

awesomeJ:
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.

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

awesomeJ:
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!

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.

awesomeJ:
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.

Which basless argument?

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 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.

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

Even your like agreed that missionaries were imperialist and oppressors. It says:

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


Christianity was spread through conquest. Most missionaries were imperialist that went about colonising people, enslaving them and stealing their resources. Examples are the conquistadors and the European imperialist that came to Africa.

spartan117:
I'm very sure you meant to say the British government took slaves and resources from Africa?

The missionaries took slaves and resources from Africa. The name of the first slave ship that left Africa was called the "Good ship Jesus". Google is your friend.

spartan117:
If Christian missionaries didn't go to hostile and remote environments then western education probably wouldn't have reached your village by now

The missionaries came and took resources from Africa including many slaves. There is no where the missionaries went that they didn't take human and material resources. They made lots of money while propagating the message of the cross.

spartan117:
Looks like I didn't go through the op thoroughly,and yes there is no respectful way to tell a man that all he has believed in all his life is false. However the point I raised in my previous post is still valid.

But you won't find Christians that have an understanding of God's word and know who they are in christ crying foul play because someone else criticized their beliefs instead we look at them with an eye of love and that is what drives missionaries to go to hostile environments and even remote environments with no access to basic amenities. Sometimes they even pay with their lives. It's all born out of love.

It's a lie, Christian missionaries dot go to hostile environment's. When was the last time you heard daddy Adeboye travel to North Korea, Pakistan or Sambisa forest in his private Jet to go and speard the word? Christian missionaries only go to places where they can exploit the people and give them the Christian culture in exchange for their money or resources. That's how it has been right from inception. From the Roman conquest till today. Christianity has only promoted those that went about spreading it's message with wealth.

Hypocrisy is the life blood of all religions. I've seen christians team up with atheist to castigate and insult islam here, I've also seen atheist team up with Muslims to castigate, ridicule and insult Christianity.

When you ridicule their pet superstition it becomes a problem for them and they try to silent you by saying you should respect their beliefs as if they respect the beliefs of others.

Christianity begins by totally delegitimizing all other religions and their God's as false, Islam even goes a step ahead by declaring there there is NO except Allah the God of Islam and it says that practicing other religions is the worst form of endeavour a human can engage in.

When they gather together as a group all the do is put down all other religions and promote theirs but when you give them a taste of their own medicine they begin to cry bla bla bla respect our beliefs .

Ridiculous hypocrites.

butterflylion:


You are stuck aren't you?

You definitely cannot talk about God in its broadest form but can only play ring around the roses with one or two which does not quite grasp what atheism is all about. Atheism says GOD does not exist and not YAHWEH or ALLAH does not exist.

Good thing you said God means different things to different people so if it does, can disproving one disprove all?

What is God in its broadest form?