She accuses others of painting with a broad brush but she herself lumps all liberals together into a single godless, baby-killing, card carrying communist group whose sole purpose is world domination and the wholesale slaughter of the innocents. How does she know this? Why Glen Beck told her. So it must be true!
Her most recent foray into the depths of Bachman land concerns slavery and why her god never went so far in its holy book to condemn such a heinous act. Mind you all this is occurring in a debate about the recent Supreme Court decision granting corporation’s person hood. Yes were all confused as to what one has to do with the other too.
The fact that God gave legislation concerning slavery does not mean that He approved it. He was only protecting the civil rights of the enslaved.
After several people point out to her the obvious as to why, if her god didn’t approve of slavery, did it allow the practice to continue. After all it is god, the supposedly most powerful entity in the entire universe. One would assume that if it didn’t approve of something there’d be a whole lot of smiting going on instead of the issuing of some minor rules and regulations.
She (Curly Sue, not the imaginary bronze age sheep herder god she believes in) starts to back pedal and try to tell us that slavery isn’t really all that bad.
Did you ever think that you're looking at the text through the narrow lens of your personal experience and how you understand words? It goes deeper than that. There are things to know about who the book was originally written to, what the customs and understandings were of that day, and such like.
The Bible doesn't portray slavery the same as you're thinking of it. It was not the forcible taking of people and making them serve for no wages. That practice violates natural human rights, which in our Declaration are inalienable, given by God.
Wow! Maybe she’s right. Perhaps this slavery thing isn’t as bad as we think. It was just a voluntary decision on the part of the slave to go into servitude and work for free. She even provided documentation.
SLAVERY No Freedom for Female Slaves The Law commanded that a man who had become a slave to pay his debts should be freed in the seventh year of his service (Ex. 21:2). However, no such law was given for setting free female debt slaves. Why? One reason might be that female slaves often became concubines of their master (see Gen. 30:9). Once a woman had been a concubine, she would have been unlikely to find a man willing to marry her. Yet without marriage, she would have had little means of surviving on her own. The culture of that day was not conducive to anyone—male or female—living as a single person. Thus the Law may have assumed that a female slave would permanently remain in her master’s household. Slavery in Bible Times Paul uses a powerful image when he pictures one’s relationship either to sin or to obedience as slavery (Rom. 6:16). The Roman Empire was heavily dependent on slaves to take care of its hard labor and menial tasks. In fact, many of Paul’s Roman recipients may have been slaves, since perhaps half the population or more were under servitude by one historian’s estimate. Slaves were taken from the many nations that Rome conquered. Those assigned to the empire’s widespread construction projects or to its mines had a hard lot. Fed a subsistence diet, they were worked to exhaustion. Injuries and disease were common, and once they were too sick to work, or in rare cases too old, they were abandoned. Household slaves, however, enjoyed better conditions. Nearly every Roman home owned at least two or three servants, and some had hundreds. They assisted the women in maintaining their homes and raising their children. Slaves with occupational expertise proved particularly valuable in the workplace, and some businesses were entirely dependent on these imported, cheap laborers.
See, not a moral issue at all. Except she seems to have missed this part “Slaves were taken from the many nations that Rome conquered”. But I’m sure they all volunteered. Right? After all it was slavery or the sword. Which would you choose?
She of course would argue that these are the oppressed Roman slaves, not the happy friendly slaves described in the old testament. You know the ones described in Leviticus 25:44 “Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.” Remember imported slaves are always much better than those cheap domestic ones. However even if the only oppressed slaves were the roman ones. After all remember how much fun the Jews had under Pharaoh. You think that the big C. Mr.Jesus H. Christ might have had some words of wisdom on the subject. Oddly he remains quite mute on the subjest. Thanks Mr. C. Paul however has some things to say on the matter He tells us “Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to be refractory, nor to pilfer, but to show entire and true fidelity” I guess he though “Let My People Go” was a bit too cliché. Besides he must have known how much his workload would have increased had he gotten rid of his slaves.
