I don't believe the Pilgrims "went on to destroy" the Pawtuxets. Their village was decimated by an epidemic, but no overtly hostile action on the part of the Pilgrims.
Only to those who have forgotten, or not bothered to research.
Uh ... yeah. "Forgotten." That was my point. Not much validity to a symbol whose symbolism is ... forgotten.
The world passed you up about 150 years ago, time for you to go back. And if a young girl is sold into white slavery to work at a brothel while she is well taken care of, I guess that's okay.
No, you're missing the point. It isn't a matter of how well she's treated. It's a matter of her personal outlook on the situation. She doesn't HAVE to be suffering, just because you think she should. Your values are not HERS.
Or why don't I just grab ny neighbor (he's black) and tell him he's my slave. I promise to take good care of him.
See the previous reply. And if your neighbor did not object, how would the action be harming him? Get over yourself.
OTOH, while he's Christian, I doubt he'll believe this load of bull.
Probably not. But that has nothing to do with the validity of the argument.
I know slavery has a long tradition. However, Christians like you make claims with the end to continue slavery.
I'm not sure I understand that malformed sentence. If you mean that I am arguing for the continuance of slavery, I'd suggest you whip out the Witch's Primer and go back to your ABCs. I said that the Bible is ambiguous on slavery, but that it exhorts Christians to remember that this is but a fleeting speck of time, and that the Eternal Life is what is important. Oh, and that joy can come from being a good and faithful servant.
It's a good thing not all Christians are like you or the Abolitionists would have never turned this country towards ending slavery.
Yeah, those good ole Abolitionists. Where's John Brown when ya need 'im? Oh that's right. His body lies a-moulderin' in the grave.
I'm used to working with brighter students, and I've worked with some pretty dumb ones.
I don't imagine they were much improved for the experience.
It's not borrowed from, but similar to. "Do that which causes the least harm" is essentially the negatively-phrased version of "Do that which brings the greatest happiness." However, it is more passive, not pursuading people to proactively cause happiness as Buddhism does, only not to cause harm (as in the Hippocratic Oath).
"First, do no harm." Is that it? Okay. Now I understand. See, all it takes is a sentence constructed according to rules of English grammar and I can fill in the blanks.
Yeah, but I'll be in good with God for bashing my young child's head in with a rock. Glory be!
That's certainly a reward worth considering. But you don't believe in God ... So maybe you'd get twice the reward if you applied that rock to your own skull. Do that, will you, and let me know how it turns out?
You forget the wars that followed later.
Not much validity to a symbol whose symbolism is ... forgotten.
... by the ignorant.
It isn't a matter of how well she's treated. It's a matter of her personal outlook on the situation.
So if a person is happy being a slave, then that's okay. And the way you use the Bible is meant to make people happy being slaves, thus promoting slavery.
You are missing a good way the Bible can be used to offer hope for slaves.
And if your neighbor did not object,
Then it's not slavery, a.k.a., involuntary servitude.
"First, do no harm." Is that it? Okay. Now I understand. See, all it takes is a sentence constructed according to rules of English grammar and I can fill in the blanks.
Not quite. Read the grammatically-correct sentences I wrote, such as "Do that which causes the least harm," and "Do that which causes the greatest happiness."
That's certainly a reward worth considering.
Bash kid's head in to get reward from God. Got it. And you were trying to tell me that divinely-delivered absolute morals are good? I think you'll need to use a different, more sane, tact.