Thomas Jefferson statue removed from NY City Hall after 187 years

[Thatgirloncfforums]

Alde is right. A husband use to own his wife. A woman couldn't own property or vote. Inheritance went to sons and not daughters and even today a wife takes the man's last name (which is a vestige and why feminists decry the practice as contrary to human rights). A man is still called a husband. Does that word ring any bells? As in husbandry

Someone needs to tell you that the scare quotes don't help you there. If you're married, you can try some air quotes using that term with your wife and tell us what happens.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

We condemn them all. Unequivocably. Slavery is evil. Period. Whether it was deemed acceptable or not at the time is another matter. Whether one treated their slaves well or not is another matter. I would suggest that someone who knew it was wrong yet still did it would be worse than someone who truly felt it was acceptable. That is why I asked upstream if anyone thought that Jefferson thought he knew it was wrong. I'm certain that he did. And he must be condemned because of that.

So Christ used an example of human sinfulness to explain our relationship with him in the Kingdom? God blessed Job through sin, when he gave Job servants? Our redemption (literally) is build on a sinful typology?

 

[Desk trauma]

even today a wife takes the man's last name

If she chooses, there is no legal requirement to do so. My wife and I both use the last names we were given at birth.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You're stuck on the word property. What is buying and selling--ie purchasing? It is the exchange of one thing for another. Christ purchased us by his blood. A man who pays a dowry is purchasing a wife. Another man who gives grain or money in exchange for a human person in order to save their life, is purchasing that person such as during a kidnapping or in the case of law, where titles are exchanged. Ransom is closely connected to the idea of purchase.

I'm not saying that we should have this system today. That would be evil. But at the same time, do you realize how many ancestors we are condemning by saying that such things are absolutely evil in all cases? As if we today are more advanced spiritually than they.

I used to find much of this kind of talk disconcerting when I was a Christian. Perhaps if I cared deeply about religion, it would have bothered me with this purchase talk, and the earlier talk of kings, and driven me away. Alas, it was that I could no longer find the notion of Christ believable that turned me away rather than the "purchase us by his blood" part, which should have.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

If she chooses, there is no legal requirement to do so. My wife and I both use the last names we were given at birth.

That's why I said it's a vestige. Same with the word 'husband'. We don't think about it's epistemology anymore.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

I used to find much of this kind of talk disconcerting when I was a Christian. Perhaps if I cared deeply about religion, it would have bothered me with this purchase talk, and the earlier talk of kings, and driven me away. Alas, it was that I could no longer find the notion of Christ believable that turned me away rather than the "purchase us by his blood" part, which should have.

I'm sorry.

 

[Bradskii]

Alde is right. A husband use to own his wife. A woman couldn't own property or vote. Inheritance went to sons and not daughters and even today a wife takes the man's last name (which is a vestige and why feminists decry the practice as contrary to human rights). A man is still called a husband. Does that word ring any bells? As in husbandry

You used to be able to force yourself sexually onto your wife as well. But the comment in question was present tense, not past.

Incidentally, my wife and I were married in the Middle East and I had to legally promise to pay her father a dowry for her. From memory, it was about $150. So I 'legally' own her. And anytime I feel like sleeping on the couch I remind her of that.

 

[durangodawood]

Why? It isn't played on horseback.

Because the ball isn't made from a foot.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

You used to be able to force yourself sexually onto your wife as well. But the comment in question was present tense, not past.

Maybe Alde has a victorian world-view?

Incidentally, my wife and I were married in the Middle East and I had to legally promise to pay her father a dowry for her. From memory, it was about $150. So I 'legally' own her. And anytime I feel like sleeping on the couch I remind her of that.

Haha!

 

[Hans Blaster]

Because the ball isn't made from a foot.

Hence the proper name of the sport "Gridiron Pigskin".

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm sorry.

Sorry for what?

 

[Bradskii]

Maybe Alde has a victorian world-view?

It would appear so.

 

[Desk trauma]

You used to be able to force yourself sexually onto your wife as well.

Something my fine state came in dead last in fixing with rape of your spouse only becoming a crime in 1993. Also it only became legal to withdraw consent to intercourse in 2019 but I digress.

 

[Bradskii]

Hence the proper name of the sport "Gridiron Pigskin".

Not to disrupt the thread, but what's with all the protective gear? Coming from a rugby union and a rugby league background it seems like...overkill? And possibly more dangerous.

 

[Aldebaran]

You didn’t. You seem to be arguing that it wasn’t rape.

Well it's been about 250 years, so my memory about it is a bit fuzzy.

Are you trolling or are you serious?

I'm being serious. If you think about it, a husband and wife own each other, otherwise they'd be perfectly free to sleep around with anyone they want. If you're a man and are married, would you feel at all like you've been violated or betrayed if your wife decided she could sleep with anyone she wanted?

 

[Aldebaran]

Not to disrupt the thread, but what's with all the protective gear? Coming from a rugby union and a rugby league background it seems like...overkill? And possibly more dangerous.

Everything is about safety. Even with all the gear, some people would like to see the sport banned.

 

[Aldebaran]

I used to find much of this kind of talk disconcerting when I was a Christian. Perhaps if I cared deeply about religion, it would have bothered me with this purchase talk, and the earlier talk of kings, and driven me away. Alas, it was that I could no longer find the notion of Christ believable that turned me away rather than the "purchase us by his blood" part, which should have.

The "purchase us by his blood" part is best understood by understanding the mosaic law and sacrificial animals rituals that were done. It's a symbolic thing with spiritual realities.

 

[Aldebaran]

Someone needs to tell you that the scare quotes don't help you there. If you're married, you can try some air quotes using that term with your wife and tell us what happens.

If she got upset about it, I'd just tell her she needs to calm down.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

The "purchase us by his blood" part is best understood by understanding the mosaic law and sacrificial animals rituals that were done. It's a symbolic thing with spiritual realities.

It's still a purchase. Men are still being bought back by God.

 

[Aldebaran]

It's still a purchase. Men are still being bought back by God.

I know, but I meant that the animal sacrifices were the original place where it was biblically referenced. It was a foreshadowing of what Christ would become for us, but the guy I was talking to labels himself as a non-believer, so I made reference to what he could look up in a book.