466
Anon does genealogy (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by Early_To_Risa@sh.itjust.works to c/greentext@sh.itjust.works
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] rumschlumpel@feddit.org 90 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

AFAIK, in 1860 about 20% of families in the slave states owned slaves. Lots of those were probably relatively poor farmers - slaves or no, small farmers in the 19th century weren't that wealthy. Also, since when does the Christian god condemn entire family lines? Is slavery even forbidden by the bible?

[-] kek_kecske_31@lemmy.world 45 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

In the Jewish part of Bible there are passages about kinda inheriting sin as something you need to do something about (e.g. Cain and his lineage). But even there its not straightforward inheritance. With the New Testament in mind the post is even more bogus.

[-] GrumpyBike1020@monero.town 8 points 1 week ago

Sir, this is greentext. It’s supposed to be bogus, that’s the joke

[-] rumschlumpel@feddit.org 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

It's pretty fun to dissect the bogus, though.

[-] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 3 points 1 week ago

Generally the sin inheritance thing goes to everyone.

[-] ferrule@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago

With the New Testament in mind the post is even more bogus.

Not one jot or tiddle of the old law will be gotten rid of until Jesus comes back during end times. So said Jesus. Green text is on point.

[-] Whats_your_reasoning@lemmy.world 22 points 1 week ago

Punishing descendants is absolutely a part of the bible. Women experiencing pain during childbirth is supposedly a punishment for Eve eating the forbidden fruit.

[-] Patrikvo@lemmy.zip 14 points 1 week ago

Yeah, she really shouldn't have listen to the snake. Women could have been giving birth like a giraffe: Just standing there, muching on a snack while the baby just falls out.

[-] blady_blah@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Shit, if that's the case, I'm surprised Christians haven't tried to outlaw epidurals.

[-] rumschlumpel@feddit.org 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

For some biblical figures really far back, yes, but as a punishment for normal (real) people?

[-] brotundspiele@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago

Women are normal (real) people, I believe.

[-] rumschlumpel@feddit.org 2 points 1 week ago

According to the bible, Eva is the literal second human and first woman and IIRC lived for hundreds of years, so no, she's not normal or real.

[-] brotundspiele@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago

But the millions of women who suffer from pain during birth on her behalf are normal and real.

[-] MintyFresh@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

And she was made of rib

[-] Davel23@fedia.io 17 points 1 week ago
[-] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 3 points 1 week ago

Kinda mad that if you click on his links, he's citing a very specific translation of the Bible, flip through them and it's clearly talking about servants as a blessing. Not necessarily slaves. The words in question are עֶ֫בֶד and שִׁפְחָה. Basically every other translation I flipped through rendered this as servants, including the likes of culturally significant ones that Christians draw on for doctrine like the KJV and ESV.

Is he trying to convince Christians that slave owning is okay or something? 🤣

[-] m0darn@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 week ago

Kinda mad that if you click on his links, he's citing a very specific translation of the Bible, flip through them and it's clearly talking about servants as a blessing.

Can you elaborate? He links to the NRSVUE which is the translation academics use because it focuses on eliminating modern biases.

I think the fact that other versions use "servants" is a reflection of the fact that Christians are embarrassed that the bible endorses slavery, and will tie themselves in pretzels to minimize this fact.

Is he trying to convince Christians that slave owning is okay or something

No, I think he is just being honest about what the bible is saying. Christians should know that the interpretive lens they use has a big impact on what they'll see the bible advocating.

load more comments (14 replies)
[-] __hetz@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 week ago

Christians already have to convince themselves of that. At least once it's brought to their attention. It's not exactly something that gets brought up during your typical Sunday School session.

[-] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 1 points 1 week ago

This type of thing is exactly what's brought up during Sunday school

[-] RamenJunkie@midwest.social 6 points 1 week ago

Most of the Sunday School I remeber was just making like, paper Jesus puppets and shit.

[-] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 1 points 1 week ago

In Sunday school I learned what a prostitute was (from the story of Jericho) about King Solomon suggesting cutting a baby in half, that dude that sacrificed his daughter because she was the first to come out of her house, how scripture has been misused to justify slavery, how it's been misused to justify violence, Noah's nakedness, the left handed dude who used his left handedness to assassinate a king, Asherah poles being destroyed, David cutting Saul's robe while he was peeing, to name a few

[-] rumschlumpel@feddit.org 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

If all of the cited passages are actually talking about servants, they're treating their servants so badly that the difference is merely semantic. Note that American (including both USA and other countries' colonies in the Americas) chattle slavery was unusually depraved, in mediterranean antiquity slaves were generally treated better than that (or so the surviving accounts would have us believe).

[-] KombatWombat@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

Yeah, I don't think it really matters what word is considered a better translation. It is talking about humans becoming property.

In Exodus 21:2-11, it says Hebrew men are restricted to being indentured servants for 6 years unless they volunteer for more. And Hebrew girls/women are sold forever, just not to foreign nations. And in Leviticus 25:44-46, it directly addresses that gentiles can be enslaved, sold, and inherited with no special restrictions.

A slave by another name is still a slave.

[-] IronBird@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

tbf, christian dogma supported slavery for hundreds of yesrs. almost like the religion isnt based on anything but vibes in the first place.

load more comments (11 replies)
[-] hanrahan@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 week ago

Is slavery even forbidden by the bible?

No its encouraged, as is your daughter marrying her rapist

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations

In the US they do this with Mexicans now but not Canadians... yet.

Exodus 21:7. says its ok to sell your daughters into slavery

as examples, working on the Sabbath ??

Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death.

[-] froufox@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 week ago

who said anon is a Christian?

[-] Aqarius@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Anon lost everything in the mameluk uprising

[-] rumschlumpel@feddit.org 1 points 1 week ago

What non-Christian believes in hell?

this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2026
466 points (95.7% liked)

Greentext

8344 readers
1002 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS