"So let me get this straight. Obi started by arguing that the founders, even though they considered themselves Christians, were not christians. Now he's areguing slaveholders, whether or not they considered themselves christians, they are christians."

I QUOTED JEFFERSON'S SAYING HE WAS *NOT* CHRISTIAN, SC!

NOT A CHRISTIAN!

READ BEFORE YOU BLATHER ON...OR ELSE STOP DELIBERATELY DISTORTING WHAT I SAID!!!!!!!!!!

Disingenuous and frankly not far from out and out lying and character assassination, SC.

For shame!

"Who conquered Africa, sir?
Who?
WHO?"

NOBODY UNTIL THE LATE NINETEENTH CENTURY YOU IDIOT.

Jefferson = The Founding Fathers

nice logic, George Washing was a devout Christian, and so were others

"I QUOTED JEFFERSON'S SAYING HE WAS *NOT* CHRISTIAN, SC!

NOT A CHRISTIAN!

READ BEFORE YOU BLATHER ON...OR ELSE STOP DELIBERATELY DISTORTING WHAT I SAID!!!!!!!!!!"

And I quoted him saying he was.

"you fail to see how this goes against everything God says. Plus, you forgot about the Muslims."

1. Muslims didn't found America, I was again limiting myself to the Abolition question as THAT WAS THE TOPIC...so they're irrelevant here, sorry.

2. God says over and over killing these other tribes is OK, says slavery is OK...

No amount of apologist hand-wringing can change that.

I have class now, so I suppose I'll have to continue this wonderful little Theist flame war later.

For a history lesson Obi. The Europeans did not get slaves from conquered colonies. They set up towns and small holdings on the coast at ports then bought slaves from Africans. The conquest of Africa did not occur until the Age of Imperialism in the Nineteenth century.

Sir.

you say SC is cherry-picking, but you are the cherry-picker.

"Do unto others, what you want done to yourself"

"nice logic, George Washing was a devout Christian, and so were others"

NOT according to the source cited in the link above...

I cited a source saying he WASN'T.

"NOBODY UNTIL THE LATE NINETEENTH CENTURY YOU IDIOT."

WE HAD AFRICAN AND HAITIAN SLAVES AT THE REVOLUTION!!!

And who conquered HAITI?

CHRISTIANS!

Necessarily, they were Christians, get over it!

"
WE HAD AFRICAN AND HAITIAN SLAVES AT THE REVOLUTION!!!

And who conquered HAITI?

CHRISTIANS!

Necessarily, they were Christians, get over it! "

Oh my god. Haitian slaves were brought over from Africa you idiot.

God... arguing with obi is like talking to a rock...

You see why I am rude now? PE was just taking it out of context

I can see why you are rude on the forums now... back to the world of only games/Diplomacy related topics

*Obi furiously searching Wikipedia to prove himself right about Africa then realizing he isn't.

LOL +1

but obi will have to wait until after class to do so

Plus 1 to Santa for refraining from all caps in this message:
<<Oh my god. Haitian slaves were brought over from Africa you idiot.>>
heh.

If we want to ignore the factual problems and get right down to it, though, yes, Obi, a lot of Christians were involved in the slave trade to some extent, including plantation owners. Some of them were Christian in name only and some were practicing Christians who, in my definite opinion, were sinning in what they did. Christians do sin--I sin, and some of my sins are economic, and some hurt people. But that doesn't reflect on the teaching of Christ as much as it does on me, "a poor miserable sinner." I'm deeply ashamed of every single action I take that's contrary to God's will, and struggle with my tendencies to sin and to take every thought and action captive for the glory of Jesus Christ. After what he's done for us, I deeply want to please him by the way I live and reflect his glory, however dimly. But when I do sin, as I will in spite of my desire not to do so, Jesus stands at my side and represents me to the father, and my sins are stamped "Paid in Full" and I get a clean slate--Over and over and over again. Christians don't get to heaven because we deserve it--We don't deserve it. We don't try to do good to earn our way to heaven--We can't earn our way to heaven. We want to do good to please God and to show others the benefits of living with God in our lives.

So that everyone who wants that will come to God. We don't care what church, what group, what Messianic synagogue one attends, but we want others to know this freedom, and when our own limited love fails, we want it because Jesus wants it for them--and his love NEVER fails.

@obi i'm lazy but basically shouldn't have to be economic slaves and sell our lives to some bourgeois or the capitalist system to survive, shouldn't have to embrace our exploitation and um 'fruits of the earth belong to us all and the earth itself to noone' and all that jazz.

Sorry Socrates, but I disagree. The lazy (as you just admitted you are) think the whole hippie "we don't own the earth, man" approach is valid. But those of us who are motivated elieve we earn what we own and take the "you keep what you kill" approach to life. I work hard and I'll be fucked sideways with a firetruck before I give it to a lazy person. If someone is in true need and *can't* fend for themselves, I will take them in and feed and clothe them. But if they just *won't* fend for themselves because they are one fo those 99% protestor types, let 'em starve and freeze. It;s a matter of common sense and willingness to make something of oneself.

When did I admit I was lazy? Man property is a very poor notion, not established on solid grounds - at all. Rousseau wasn't really a lazy hippie, neither were other thinkers such as Proudhon...
And economic slavery exploitation etc?
But you agree that one should take care of those that truly can't take care of themselves? Not using that to springboard an argument just curious.

"@obi i'm lazy "

Please tell me how *else* that statement should be interpreted?

I believe society has a repsonsibility to take care of it's weakest members Those who can, do. Those who *can't* get helped by those who can. Those who *won't* suffer at their own hands. I do not believe society has a responsibility to take care of everyone.

Sorry I'm tired, but thank you for ignoring the rest of my reply. And there is a world of difference between someone who is tired and therefore too lazy to fully write out an eloquent thought out reply, and someone who is lazy and wants to live off the state and benefits. I for one (although being somone that was too lazy to write a full message out before, and often feels like not doing things) would never want to be in that position, and think that people that are are wasting away their existence.

ooops guess you did reply, sorry for the quick accusation! fair enough, guess we shall just disagree.

Then you should have said "Obi, I'm tired." Honestly, I can't be blamed for your imprecise use of the English language when composing your thoughts into written form.

If one is saying they are lazy it does not necessarily show that they are, or are even saying, that they are lazy in general, more often than not it is with regards to something they are doing then specifically. Moreover even if I was trying to say that I'm lazy in general that does in no way suggest that I am one of those 'lazy hippies' (to paraphrase you) that have certain views on the world because of their lazy hippie personality.

Also you don't understand language very well - its proper uses and the such - but I dislike arguing on forums over pedantic slights and points that are of no real interest to me so I will drop the matter.

@ obi

"So I'm not being short-sighted, just limiting my scope to the subject that was raised."

Yes, but you seem to be limiting the scope in an effort to ignore evidence which undermines your position. That isn't legitimately limiting the scope; it's stacking the deck. You cannot claim that CHRISTIANS (as you seem to call us) are responsible for slavery and then ignore the clear history of the anti-slavery movement in Christian Europe. A slave had about the same rights as a donkey under Hammurabi. By Mideval Europe, though, William the Conqueror (1066) stated "we forbid any one to sell a Christian into a foreign land and especially to heathens. For let great care be taken lest their souls for which Christ gave His life be sold into damnation." (http://www.churchsociety.org/crossway/documents/cway_103_slavery2.pdf). That shows a pretty distinct change in the view of human rights for slaves. Then by 1688 the Quakers were saying “Ah! doe consider well this thing, you who doe it, if you would be done at this manner? and if it is done according to Christianity?” (http://www.yale.edu/glc/aces/germantown.htm).
You can limit the scope to make a topic manageable, but not to exclude a perfectly valid response to an erroneous claim that you made yourself. You said the Christians were responsible for slavery, and that was your basis for derision of their good works. The idea according to you was that they created the situation and Christianity deserved no credit for cleaning it up. I merely showed that they did not create the situation and in fact spent centuries cleaning it up before the first atheist arrived to take credit.

Plus 1, CA.

And what CA just said is disingenuous as well. The argument you make is that Slavery improved under christianity with better conditions, a higher view of slaves etc. This is wrong. Perhaps limited to before new world slavery that could be the case, I don't know enough about that. But what I do know is from the time slavery began in the new world to the late eighteenth century and the emancipation movements, the institution, undder christians, became increasingly brutal and some christians defended this new form of slavery. So while Obi is wrong in saying Christians are alone responsible for slavery you are just as wrong in painting slavery under christians as anything near humane. Obi needs to remember that slavery was an economic institution and christianity was incidental to much of its rise, but you need to remember that for ever Las Casas there were thousands of clergy members of all denominations that were happy to protect the institution.