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.
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?
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.
Sir, this is greentext. It’s supposed to be bogus, that’s the joke
It's pretty fun to dissect the bogus, though.
Generally the sin inheritance thing goes to everyone.
Punishing descendants is absolutely a part of the bible. Women experiencing pain during childbirth is supposedly a punishment for Eve eating the forbidden fruit.
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.
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? 🤣
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.
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.
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).
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.
tbf, christian dogma supported slavery for hundreds of yesrs. almost like the religion isnt based on anything but vibes in the first place.
Anon sounds entitled AF. Has he tried not relying on nepotism for getting ahead?
Is probably one of those who screams DEI = Didn't Earn It...but is also pissed he wasnt born into advantages
Has he tried pulling himself by the bootstraps?
Probably. Perhaps he's realized that nepotism is a successful methodology for getting ahead in life. But maybe he should have tried being born into a more wealthy family, instead of blaming others.
I am inclined to believe that he didn't choose to be born to this specific family.
No, poor people are poor because they did something to deserve it
Yeah...
I was robbed of my white privilege
Uhh, I'm pretty sure you're still white. Sounds like you don't know what white privilege actually means.
Least racist /b/tard.
I hear that. My grandfather was descended of German nobility. Nothing major, but he was the son of a prince. To be clear: a complete nobody even when German nobility was still a thing pre-WW1. After the war, they pretty much abolished all that in a revolution.
But basically, if I go back four generations, we owned a ‘castle’ somewhere. Meanwhile, I’m solidly in the peasant class.
Good news, I hear you can probably get a castle for fairly cheap. Only problem is you have to maintain it.
From whom? Was it a little gnome peeking out from behind a mushroom?
Quite a few countries, Italy for example, will either sell you a castle for dirt cheap or just give it to you, as long as you promise to restore and maintain it.
Which is, to be clear, an absolute pain in the ass, since those castles have very strict restrictions about how to repair and upgrade them, materials and even companies you’re allowed to use, etc. Not to mention they’re a bitch to heat in the winter.
The cheapest castle in Italy I can see from a cursory glance is 1.3 million euros. You must be on that good gnome shit.
Edit: that's an outside area of 732m² and an internal of 184m². It's a literal tower on a tiny plot for 1.3 million dollars. Nothing about that seems remotely close to cheap.
Oh wait till you hear about my family.
My family was French Aristocracy that faked their deaths and moved to America to avoid the French Revolution
Then they owned slaves, but the deeds to their plantations and land and shit were burned in a slave revolt and they lost it all.
Then they helped found the Klan and became poor white trash.....
We could have been rich and not lived in America. But no we had to become poor AND racist.
Don't think they weren't racist before moving....
You know, often in these green text posts I have a takeaway that at least attempts sympathy toward the anon.
Fuckin nope, not here.
I would say its so hilariously pathetic that its a bit, but I've met people that are unironically like this.
Anon, you only exist because Sherman didn't finish the job.
He should have.
Here, a song for you before you meet your God:
In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me;
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
while God is marching on.
Oh, imagine a world where that describes current day 'Republican Jesus'.
My idea of a 'white man's burden' is that its our job to rid the planet of all these melanin deprived slavers and 'ante bellum nostalgics'.
Its really the least we could do, at this point.
EDIT:
... you know who I can trace my lineage back to?
Father's father's father's... etc, was a goddamn miscreant, some kind of petty criminal that got shipped out of I think somewhere in or near Wales, to Vrigina, in the 1720s.
His sons fought in the Revolutionary War, some died in it, some didn't.
One of those sons had his own sons... one of them... a Reverend.
A Reverend that moved out of Vrigina, out to Kansas in the 1850s.
Where he founded an anti-slavery Baptist church.
Around which, he helped to build a small town.
A small town where an escaped slave from Missouri was able to purchase his own land, work his own land, and from the proceeds of it, buy the official freedom of himself and his family, before the Emancipation Proclamation and/or 13th Amendment would make that last step unnecessary.
Now I can't say with 100% complete certainty that this Reverend ancestor of mine ever met John Brown... but uh, given a fairly small number of anti-slavery Reverends running around this particular part of Kansas, in the exact same time frame as John Brown... and that they were both part of the general Free-State movement...
... seems more likely than not.
I thought it was a joke. Rephrase it a bit and it would be a funny standup routine. I guess anon should have emphasized that they didn't support slavery (if they did) but it is a funny concept to ask how they fumbled the bag so hard.
Be family
Need Slaves
No money
Remeber slaves are literally slaves and cost nothing
Get slaves
I don't think you have to be rich to own slaves.
Edit: Some of ya'll don't understand what shitposting is.
If you’re talking about the US, you are incredibly misinformed. Selling slaves for money was an insanely lucrative business. It’s not called “The Transatlantic Slave Here You Can Just Have Some”
You do have to feed, keep them healthy, clothe and shelter them along with you and your family - plus they did cost money to buy, they don't spontaneously appear. You'd need a modicum of wealth to afford and keep one. Not much, but some.
slaves were a one time purchase, workers were subscriptions
‘Curse you Eli Whitney!’
Any wealth inheritance has been divided amongst an unknown number of heirs for the last, what 5 generations? 7? That shit's long gone.
Owning slaves was like owning a tractor. Your ancestors werent rich they were just lazy. Like you and your dad, who's a Wendy's manager at 57.