Thomas Jefferson statue removed from NY City Hall after 187 years

[RDKirk]

It is *entirely* about the possibility of being cuckold that drives this type of sexual jealousy that leads to repressive "property-type" marital regulations. That concern, or desire, about investing ones resources to the raising of only your own offspring drives such jealousies and impacts our sexual mores.

If we were perfectly rational, men would not develop notions of "ownership" of the sexual activities of their child-rearing partner particularly when it couldn't result in her becoming pregnant. But that's not the way our sexual instincts work, hence men typically become jealous or possessive if their partner has any sexual relations with others, even if they rationally know it couldn't result in a child.

Hearing Christians in this thread argue so strenuously a case for slavery makes me amazed that it was Christians who developed the argument for the abolishment of slavery.

But then I remember that those Christians were not so ideologically bound to a particular nation-state that they were unable discern the line between the evil of their nation-state and the goodness of Christ.

 

[RDKirk]

It's because marriage is a mutual covenant agreement between them, and monogamy is a part of that agreement for many different reasons. It's not ownership of one or the other, but responsibility towards each other and the covenant. So if she, or he, decided to sleep with another person, they are breaking that agreement.

With the exception of indentured servitude, a slave is not given a choice, but is simply considered as property.

I'm going to quote that for emphasis.

Marriage is a covenant relationship. Property ownership is not.

I'm surprised that a Christian would argue otherwise.

 

[RDKirk]

.

 

[iluvatar5150]

If a man didn't own his wife, why should he be upset if she decided to sleep with another guy? It's her body, her choice, right?

It seems that others have beaten me to the answer.

 

[lsume]

View attachment 308754

Thomas Jefferson is no longer in the room where it happens.

Art handlers packed up an 884-pound statue of Jefferson in a wooden crate Monday after a mayoral commission voted to banish the likeness of the nation’s third president from City Hall, where it’s resided for nearly two centuries — because he owned slaves.

Thomas Jefferson statue leaves City Hall after 187 years

Understandable considering his life. I don’t think taking down the statue will fix anything though. Forgiveness is the only way.

 

[Aldebaran]

It is *entirely* about the possibility of being cuckold that drives this type of sexual jealousy that leads to repressive "property-type" marital regulations. That concern, or desire, about investing ones resources to the raising of only your own offspring drives such jealousies and impacts our sexual mores.

If we were perfectly rational, men would not develop notions of "ownership" of the sexual activities of their child-rearing partner particularly when it couldn't result in her becoming pregnant. But that's not the way our sexual instincts work, hence men typically become jealous or possessive if their partner has any sexual relations with others, even if they rationally know it couldn't result in a child.

Then do you believe women shouldn't be jealous if their husband sleeps with other women. And no, this woman and her husband don't have children.

 

[Aldebaran]

It's because marriage is a mutual covenant agreement between them, and monogamy is a part of that agreement for many different reasons. It's not ownership of one or the other, but responsibility towards each other and the covenant. So if she, or he, decided to sleep with another person, they are breaking that agreement.

With the exception of indentured servitude, a slave is not given a choice, but is simply considered as property.

You are correct about the marriage being a responsibility in both directions, which means the husband and wife have ownership of one another.

 

[Aldebaran]

I'm going to quote that for emphasis.

Marriage is a covenant relationship. Property ownership is not.

I'm surprised that a Christian would argue otherwise.

Does God not own us? Did He not pay for us? Is He not our master?

 

[Landon Caeli]

The age old battles of the cuckolds and the cuckqueans... Wittoldry aside.

 

[bekkilyn]

You are correct about the marriage being a responsibility in both directions, which means the husband and wife have ownership of one another.

I know which bible verse you're getting this from and it's of course correct in that sense because two flesh become one flesh, but it's still not comparable to slavery in the sense we are discussing here in which there is no choice and no covenant.

 

[bekkilyn]

Does God not own us? Did He not pay for us? Is He not our master?

God still gives us the choice to reject him.

 

[Aldebaran]

God still gives us the choice to reject him.

Not after we've been saved, although I know some will disagree.

 

[bekkilyn]

Not after we've been saved, although I know some will disagree.

I'm one of those "some". If someone truly doesn't want to be with God, God isn't going to force the matter. Like the father of the prodigal son.

But at some point in most Christian theologies, God does allow us the opportunity to reject him, or knows beforehand who would reject him (i.e. Calvinist)

Also, once we are Christian, we become adopted into God's family and rather than being under the master-slave covenant of law, we are under the new covenant of grace and are as the adopted son, co-heirs with Christ, rather than slave.

Slavery in the sense of this thread allows no rejection at any point and certainly a slave would not full familial rights as a son and heir of the master's family.

 

[Aldebaran]

I'm one of those "some". If someone truly doesn't want to be with God, God isn't going to force the matter. Like the father of the prodigal son.

But at some point in most Christian theologies, God does allow us the opportunity to reject him, or knows beforehand who would reject him (i.e. Calvinist)

Also, once we are Christian, we become adopted into God's family and rather than being under the master-slave covenant of law, we are under the new covenant of grace and are as the adopted son, co-heirs with Christ, rather than slave.

Slavery in the sense of this thread allows no rejection at any point and certainly a slave would not full familial rights as a son and heir of the master's family.

As the prodigal son parable indicated, the father/son relationship does not end if the son decides to walk away.

 

[bekkilyn]

As the prodigal son parable indicated, the father/son relationship does not end if the son decides to walk away.

Two things:

1. father/son (not master/slave as the son later came to realize)
2. The son could have freely chosen not to return

 

[RDKirk]

Does God not own us? Did He not pay for us? Is He not our master?

Scripture explicitly distinguishes our relationship with God as adopted sons rather than mere slaves. Jesus explicitly expressed the relationship of His disciples to Him as friends rather than mere slaves.

Your attempt to equate the covenantal relationship of Christians to God with the crass ownership by American slaveholders of kidnapped Africans is repugnant.

 

[IWalkAlone]

Abe Lincoln wasn't a slave owner but they want to take down his statue as well. Cancel culture is absurd.

 

[Bradskii]

You are correct about the marriage being a responsibility in both directions, which means the husband and wife have ownership of one another.

Your original post on this matter tried to draw a comparison between a man raping his slave and sex within a marriage because a man 'owned' his wife. Explicitly saying that as long as one 'owns' the other person then there's no problem. The fact that you have now suggested that a married couple 'own' each other (a nonsensical suggestion in itself) doesn't excuse the first comparison. It exacerbates it.

 

[durangodawood]

Abe Lincoln wasn't a slave owner but they want to take down his statue as well. Cancel culture is absurd.

Can you link a picture of the particular statue?

 

[Bradskii]

Abe Lincoln wasn't a slave owner but they want to take down his statue as well. Cancel culture is absurd.

Some context would be required in this instance. Do you want to provide it or shall I? To help you provide the context, here's the statue:

If you can find an example of a statue of Lincoln himself being asked to be taken down, then let's hear about it and we can discuss it.