Anon does genealogy
(midwest.social)
🍹Early to RISA 🧉
GreentextI 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.
Anon sounds entitled AF. Has he tried not relying on nepotism for getting ahead?
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.
Is probably one of those who screams DEI = Didn't Earn It...but is also pisses he wasnt born into advantages
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.
slaves were a one time purchase, workers were subscriptions
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”
Bruh... this is a shitposting sub
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.
Are you actually shitposting if you don't get downvoted?
Its a shitpost sub though, its oppositr day for votes.
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?
who said anon is a Christian?
Anon lost everything in the mameluk uprising
Punishing descendants is absolutely a part of the bible. Women experiencing pain during childbirth is supposedly a punishment for Eve eating the forbidden fruit.
For some biblical figures really far back, yes, but as a punishment for normal (real) people?
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.
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.
With the New Testament in mind the post is even more bogus.
Not one jot or tiddle of the old law will be gotten rid of until Jesus comes back during end times. So said Jesus. Green text is on point.
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.
https://michaelpahl.com/2017/01/27/the-bible-is-clear-god-endorses-slavery/
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? 🤣
tbf, christian dogma supported slavery for hundreds of yesrs. almost like the religion isnt based on anything but vibes in the first place.
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.
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).
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.
This type of thing is exactly what's brought up during Sunday school
Most of the Sunday School I remeber was just making like, paper Jesus puppets and shit.
In Sunday school I learned what a prostitute was (from the story of Jericho) about King Solomon suggesting cutting a baby in half, that dude that sacrificed his daughter because she was the first to come out of her house, how scripture has been misused to justify slavery, how it's been misused to justify violence, Noah's nakedness, the left handed dude who used his left handedness to assassinate a king, Asherah poles being destroyed, David cutting Saul's robe while he was peeing, to name a few
‘Curse you Eli Whitney!’
- Anon maybe idk
