To get back on the topic of pride parades, I see nothing wrong with them. LGBT rights used to be so deplorable in part because the LGBT community was a hidden minority. With pride parades and people coming out of the closet came the advent of LGBT rights, so pride was inarguably very important historically. Keep in mind that members of the LGBT community were told that being LGBT is a sad, lonely, and miserable existence; pride countered this falsehood and was the first time some people realized it was a lie. While pride is less important today, it still has importance. The LGBT community is still without some basic rights, and the community is still the target of violence. People don't have to like pride parades, but I can't see how people can argue against them, aside from bringing up traffic.
To make the baseless accusation that I haven't carefully studied the topic, regardless of whether or not I'm right, tells me you're not going to listen to me no matter what I say. It tells me you care more about your existing assumption about slavery than whether or not the facts contradict it. I could be snarky too and state that your posts demonstrate the kind of surface understanding of slavery that comes solely from what a pastor commonly says during a sermon in an effort to redefine or excuse it, but I'm not going to do that. If you end up wanting to continue this conversation with an open mind and in an appropriate place, feel to PM me, Joostin.
No, a slave could not just quit whenever he or she wanted. I'm not sure where you got your information, but it certainly wasn't from the Bible. Exodus 21:2 is very clear about the duration of some slavery as six years, the permanent ownership of a slave's wife and children in Exodus 21:4, and a loophole to keep the slave forever in Exodus 21:5-6, not to mention the known historical facts about slavery during this time period. As I already said, ownership of another human being is immoral regardless of how long that ownership lasts, and we're talking about the kind of slavery where slaves are required to obey their masters and can be beaten to within an inch of their lives according to the Bible.
To make the baseless accusation that I haven't carefully studied the topic, regardless of whether or not I'm right, tells me you're not going to listen to me no matter what I say. It tells me you care more about your existing assumption about slavery than whether or not the facts contradict it. I could be snarky too and state that your posts demonstrate the kind of surface understanding of slavery that comes solely from what a pastor commonly says during a sermon in an effort to redefine or excuse it, but I'm not going to do that. If you end up wanting to continue this conversation with an open mind and in an appropriate place, feel to PM me, Joostin.
Last edited by Lacius,
