What is a "Rich Slave"?

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Ophiuchus 13

A slave to me...

We're not talking about what is a slave "to you." Slavery already has a definition.

Yes I shared that definition first.

There still exist places in the world where a person may own another without legal troubles. Just because we live in a first-world country does not mean everyone does. When one tries to redefine a word, one loses the original meaning of that word and all historical reference.

God does not speak out in the Bible against slavery; if anything He accepts it. There are many references to actual slavery, because at that time actual slavery was common.

Which god?
Does your god approve of slavery? Also those times of the past you mentioned were more barbaric, are you saying humanity has not progressed since then?

Point I keep making that some struggle with accepting or understanding is we are all slaves until we as collective begin to work on building a better world for our souls to LEARN WITHIN, GROW WITHIN, which in turn helps free us in the spiritual realms as we conduct ourselves better then the rich man did in the story of Lazarus in this realm.
Makes sense.

Follow the Golden rule.
Love your brothers and sisters of your species and then of Creation.
Develop a benevolent Spiritual rich in consciousness free of not enslaved within the regions of Existence where those who must still learn find themselves as did the rich man.

If you're enslaved in the neither realms of Existence after death for example or Hades YOU ARE A SLAVE TO WHAT RULES OVER IT bro/sis.

Many question the simulation theory...Now consider what type of beings could of built it to capture, distract or enslave your eternal spirits.

Hypothetically speaking if inside said simulation and unaware is one not a slave to the TOOLS provided within it that can be used to trick a soul or souls to carry out malevolent activities to remain financially ahead why becoming more spiritually behind. Again making for perfect prey for whatever predators exist within Hades

a reply to: Ophiuchus 13

Which god?

The same God you keep quoting, while ignoring context and definitions. There is but one true God.

Also those times of the past you mentioned were more barbaric, are you saying humanity has not progressed since then?

Pretty much, yes, I am saying that. We have built buildings and discovered technology, but the human animal is essentially unchanged. We still seek to control others, we still ignore that which does not conform to our world view, and we still war against each other. For every forward step we take, we take another step backward.

You are advocating a step backward by trying to redefine words and ignore the realities that still exist elsewhere.

You seem to be quite interested in Biblical verses. This is admirable, but more admirable is understanding and humility to accept what they say even when it disagrees with you. I leave you with two verses you may be interested in:

James 1:26

If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain.

Revelation 22:19

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

The verses above may be found online here.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Some days I just have to shake my head and laugh to keep from crying...

Yahoo Finance is reporting some guy who goes by the name "Charlemagne tha God" (real name is reported as Lenard McKelvey) made a few statements that indicate he obviously doesn't even know what a slave is, despite being pretty worked up over being a black man and supposedly having slave ancestry.

Here's a couple of quotes:

"I don’t think that we have gotten to the point in our society where we can take those chances on a president who may be putting money in our pockets but rolling back all of our other civil rights, and rolling back all of our other civil liberties. That don’t add up to me.

“I don’t care how rich you are. If you don’t have civil rights, what’s the point? Who wants to be a rich slave?"

The very definition of a "slave" is a human being who is the property of another human being. There can, by definition, not be a rich slave because a slave owns nothing, not even their own bodies. That's what makes slavery so terrible. A slave does what they are told, when they are told, how they are told, without reward or personal benefit, because refusal to do so can and often will result in a beating, starvation, selling off to another owner, or in severe cases, death.

The phrase is a total oxymoron.

In essence a slave was human cattle... who has ever heard of a rich cow? A rich pig? A rich horse? Their owners may be wealthy, but the cattle owned by the owners are not; they own nothing. So it is with a slave. Just like a responsible livestock owner will take basic care of his animals' needs, so a responsible slave owner would take care of his slaves' basic needs. Those needs did not equal human rights, however, as children could be bought and sold from their mothers' arms, and food, while typically provided, was not exactly the same kind of food fed to non-slaves. It was usually tasteless, cheap gruel. That's what I mean by "basic needs."

The term slave has worked its way into our modern language... a harsh, demanding boss is said to be a "slave-driver," for example. A worker may describe himself as a "slave to the company." Neither euphemism is accurate, however; employees always have the right to quit their job, while a slave cannot simply decide he doesn't work for his owner, any more than a cow can decide it doesn't want to be owned. The consequences for quitting may be harsh (inability to find another job, indigence, loss of property, etc.), but the right exists for a worker whereas it didn't exist for slaves.

So Mr. McKelvey has just used a public venue to inform his listeners that slavery is not actual slavery. Instead, according to his words, slavery is apparently just everything not going one's way. OK, his right to say that and make himself look like a babbling fool, but then this little statement caught my ear and is really the reason I had to write this thread:

"Financial freedom is definitely our only hope. But we also have to remember that we’re black at the end of the day."

What? Is his agenda for some legal protection to change his skin color? Of course he's black "at the end of the day." "At the end of the day," I'm a white redneck. That's not gonna change for either of us, no matter who is in what position or says when where.

That bothers me greatly, because it indicates to me that he somehow sees himself as inferior. No one should ever see themselves in that light, especially not someone who has placed themselves as a celebrity figure. We are all unique and important human beings, despite our skin color, our gender, our sexual proclivities, or anything else we choose to use to separate ourselves. Everyone has a history that is both good and bad, and that means every culture has something that those descended from it can look on as a source of pride in themselves.

This is the true source of racism: a belief that certain people are inferior, and by extension that other people are superior. That is not the case. I may be superior to someone mathematically, but I promise you I am inferior to them in other ways. Anyone remember when Baz tortured his audience on the radio by making me sing? I think I'm safe saying I am inferior to pretty much everyone else on the planet when it comes to that talent. My point is that everyone has talents and abilities... some of us use them, some ignore them, and that is the basic reason for both social and income inequality... not skin color.

It is as possible to see oneself as inferior as it is to see others as inferior... and both are wrong. Both are the heart of true racism.

Now, I will give credit where credit is due. Mr. McKelvey does go on to say that financial prowess is a good thing and to point out, correctly IMO, that a lot of the problem many blacks have achieving income equality is that they don't know how to manage money. I agree with him on that, and I wish he would put more emphasis on educating his audience in that area. He could do so much good for his culture that way. But, doing so without bringing up the ridiculous mis-characterization of slavery would not achieve his major point: he thinks Trump is a bad President and black people shouldn't vote for him.

That's fine; I support Trump, but I have no problem with people pointing out mistakes he has made, policies they disagree with, or even personal foibles they find irritating. Where I get concerned is that Mr. McKelvey, in his zeal to thwart what appears from polling data to be a shift of black voters away from the DNC and toward Trump, is passing up a chance to help his culture, his people, his listeners, and instead instruct them in dangerous rhetoric. Slavery is illegal and frowned upon because it was a horrible institution that dehumanized an entire race in the US, and it still exists in some third-world nations. Changing the definition to include simple hardship, something everyone has regardless of their skin color, will have the effect of lessening the horror and allowing those pockets of slavery to exist... worse, it could someday, at least generations from now hopefully, lead to the re-institution of slavery. Look at what the constant cries of "racist!" have accomplished... we see almost no outrage today at true racism, because it never makes the news any more. It is covered up by the constant cries of the label toward those with opposing political policies. Skinheads are not heard of, although they do still exist; we as a society are more concerned with calling a political opponent racist than pointing out the true racists in our midst.

So it will be with slavery if this new expanded definition takes hold.

(I remind everyone that this is NOT the Political Mud Pit. I consider this a vitally important issue that affects our society greatly, not a useless argument over personality. There are some good, juicy threads full of mud happening over there right now if that is your desire.

TheRedneck

Laugh at those that are crying. You haven't a clue do you? You are in for a rude awakening.

a reply to: InTheLight

Laugh at those that are crying. You haven't a clue do you?

Really? I don't have a clue?

"Laugh to keep from crying" is not the same as "laughing at those who are crying."

Now you have a clue! See what a nice guy I am?

TheRedneck

The point I am making again is TheRedneck we are all slaves until WE do better then the past in this dimension and the dimensions related to the Afterlife like Hades. And until we collectively do we will continue to be slaves to this reality slave masters and the potential slave masters of the afterlife with our ignorant actions
What don't you understand?

I didn't attempt to rewrite the word slave I even posted it's dictionary meaning just in case some would say I was redefining it?

a reply to: TheRedneck

I knew some would try and use religious scripture to justify that slavery was ok with God.
Again I ask which god do you speak of BY NAME?

I doubt it, that JESUS supported the slave masters the Roman or Jew or any slave masters back then...
I also know many untrustworthy human hands have had their chances at altering religious text and then misuse them to manipulate the masses. As there was a time not far ago the Bible was used by slave masters to manipulate the African slaves back then in the past into submission and accepting their slave masters rules/laws...

What is not being understood?

And to clarify and reiterate I DOUBT JESUS CHRIST EVER BELIEVED IN OR ACCEPTED SLAVERY.
You may be talking about another pagan god intertwined in the scriptures who did.

Please don't try to say I am altering biblical text, it is very unbecoming.

✌️

Out of the more than three quarters of a million words in the Bible, Christian slaveholders—and, if asked, most slaveholders would have defined themselves as Christian—had two favorites texts, one from the beginning of the Old Testament and the other from the end of the New Testament. In the words of the King James Bible, which was the version then current, these were, first, Genesis IX, 18–27:

“And the sons of Noah that went forth from the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan. These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole world overspread. And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: and he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness. And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. And Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years.”

Despite some problems with this story—What was so terrible about seeing Noah drunk? Why curse Canaan rather than Ham? How long was the servitude to last? Surely Ham would have been the same color as his brothers?—it eventually became the foundational text for those who wanted to justify slavery on Biblical grounds. In its boiled-down, popular version, known as “The Curse of Ham,” Canaan was dropped from the story, Ham was made black, and his descendants were made Africans.

The other favorite came from the Apostle Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, VI, 5-7: “Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; not with eye-service, as men-pleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; with good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free.” (Paul repeated himself, almost word for word, in the third chapter of his Epistle to the Colossians.)

time.com...

a reply to: Ophiuchus 13

The point I am making again is TheRedneck we are all slaves until WE do better then the past in this dimension and the dimensions related to the Afterlife like Hades.

There is your contradiction... a slave does not choose when and when not to be a slave. A slave cannot stop being a slave by any action he/she takes. Perhaps you should read the definition you posted.

I am not going to debate religion with you, and I will point out that it was you who first posted verses from the Bible. I simply stated that you are taking them out of context and posted warnings from that same Bible about doing so. You are free to take those or leave them, but you show your disingenuousness by emphasizing your lack of understanding. I have no intention of casting pearls before swine, and even if I tried to do so, you lack the understanding to receive them.

TheRedneck