Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Hope on July 14, 2015, 08:21:16 PM
-
When slavery was abolished in Britain, slave-owners were compensated by the Government to the tune of a modern equivalent £17 billion. A lot of that money found its way into the various industries that were beginning to develop at the time - the railways, shipping, industry, etc.
Have you got slave compensation in your family background? Your forebears wouldn't have had to be particularly rich - research by University College London shows that it was a fairly common state of affairs.
See whether your family crops up on the database at https://www.ucl.ac.uk/lbs/
(PS I've checked my paternal family name and a second family name in that area, and got nil returns; my maternal family name gives a single return (2 slaves owned by a woman) and an associated family name gives a nil return.)
-
When slavery was abolished in Britain, slave-owners were compensated by the Government to the tune of a modern equivalent £17 billion. A lot of that money found its way into the various industries that were beginning to develop at the time - the railways, shipping, industry, etc.
Have you got slave compensation in your family background? Your forebears wouldn't have had to be particularly rich - research by University College London shows that it was a fairly common state of affairs.
See whether your family crops up on the database at https://www.ucl.ac.uk/lbs/
(PS I've checked my paternal family name and a second family name in that area, and got nil returns; my maternal family name gives a single return (2 slaves owned by a woman) and an associated family name gives a nil return.)
Talk about washing your dirty linen in public!
I didn't realise that you were such a masochist.
-
Talk about washing your dirty linen in public!
I didn't realise that you were such a masochist.
Matt, its all about the fact that many ordinary citizens owned/part-owned slaves. Nothing to be ashamed of because of how many people were involved. Try your family and its immediately associated ones - maternal family and grandmothers' .
-
Talk about washing your dirty linen in public!
I didn't realise that you were such a masochist.
Matt, its all about the fact that many ordinary citizens owned/part-owned slaves. Nothing to be ashamed of because of how many people were involved. Try your family and its immediately associated ones - maternal family and grandmothers' .
No thanks! I have enough black sheep in my family history - it has been very well researched and I am thankful that slave-owning is not included as people as low on the social ladder as most of my family WERE the slaves but were also white British people.
-
Somebody cue the violins. Seems that there has been a constant black cloud over matty's family for centuries. Or perhaps some ones imagination and exaggerations gone overboard.
-
Well I put in my adopted fathers surname and some dude with the same last name was compensated for 33 slaves. Guess he had a plantation in Jamaica. Don't know that because one has the same surname means they are a relation.
-
Didn't hsave to search this site.
One of my ancestors on my grandmother's side was John Brown of Priesthill - shot in front of his wife and children for refusing the "Test Act".
His brother and nephew were sold into white slavery in the West Indies by the government agents.
-
Talk about washing your dirty linen in public!
I didn't realise that you were such a masochist.
Matt, its all about the fact that many ordinary citizens owned/part-owned slaves. Nothing to be ashamed of because of how many people were involved. Try your family and its immediately associated ones - maternal family and grandmothers' .
No thanks! I have enough black sheep in my family history - it has been very well researched and I am thankful that slave-owning is not included as people as low on the social ladder as most of my family WERE the slaves but were also white British people.
Contrary to Christian doctrine, you are not responsible for the behaviour of your ancestors.
I tried my paternal family name and found six people. However, I have no idea if they are related to me in any way and if they are, so what?
-
Contrary to Christian doctrine, you are not responsible for the behaviour of your ancestors.
Where is there anything referring to responsibility for one's ancestor's behaviour within Christian doctrine?
The Bible teaches that if someone does something wrong, their descendants to the 7th generation will suffer the consequences. I believe that many modern psychotherapists agree with this.
-
Contrary to Christian doctrine, you are not responsible for the behaviour of your ancestors.
Where is there anything referring to responsibility for one's ancestor's behaviour within Christian doctrine?
The Bible teaches that if someone does something wrong, their descendants to the 7th generation will suffer the consequences. I believe that many modern psychotherapists agree with this.
Of course one isn't responsible for the behaviour of their ancestors! Where do you get the notion that many modern psychotherapists agree with that Biblical claptrap?
-
Of course one isn't responsible for the behaviour of their ancestors! Where do you get the notion that many modern psychotherapists agree with that Biblical claptrap?
Your two sentences don't match, Floo. There is nothing in the Bible or Christian doctrine that suggests that "one is responsible for the behaviour of their ancestors", so the claptrap you refer to is jeremy's not Christianity's or the Bible's. I understand that some forms of psychotherapy seek to find events in the past that the client has suffered or has knowledge of that could lead to particular behaviour patterns. IIRC, its called regressive therapy.
It has nothing to do with the client being responsible for ther ancestors' actions; rather, it is looking for ancestors' behaviour that might explain present behaviour. That sounds like ancestral responsibility.
-
Contrary to Christian doctrine, you are not responsible for the behaviour of your ancestors.
Where is there anything referring to responsibility for one's ancestor's behaviour within Christian doctrine?
The Lord passed before him [Moses], and proclaimed,
‘The Lord, the Lord,
a God merciful and gracious,
slow to anger,
and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness,
keeping steadfast love for the thousandth generation,
forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin,
yet by no means clearing the guilty,
but visiting the iniquity of the parents
upon the children
and the children’s children,
to the third and the fourth generation.’
That's God punishing the descendants.
The Bible teaches that if someone does something wrong, their descendants to the 7th generation will suffer the consequences. I believe that many modern psychotherapists agree with this.
You do? What kind of ignoramus are you to believe that modern psychotherapists think that we suffer the consequences of our ancestors back for seven generations? I never even knew any of my great grandparents (a mere three generations).
You don't half come up with some claptrap sometimes.
-
Of course one isn't responsible for the behaviour of their ancestors! Where do you get the notion that many modern psychotherapists agree with that Biblical claptrap?
Your two sentences don't match, Floo. There is nothing in the Bible or Christian doctrine that suggests that "one is responsible for the behaviour of their ancestors", so the claptrap you refer to is jeremy's not Christianity's or the Bible's. I understand that some forms of psychotherapy seek to find events in the past that the client has suffered or has knowledge of that could lead to particular behaviour patterns. IIRC, its called regressive therapy.
It has nothing to do with the client being responsible for ther ancestors' actions; rather, it is looking for ancestors' behaviour that might explain present behaviour. That sounds like ancestral responsibility.
The Bible teaches that if someone does something wrong, their descendants to the 7th generation will suffer the consequences. I believe that many modern psychotherapists agree with this.
You were implying that the evil deity was going to punish future generations for something their ancestors did wrong!
-
Seems like that alright.
We have humans with greater moral value than this bloody awful dictator ?!?!!?!?
-
Seems like that alright.
We have humans with greater moral value than this bloody awful dictator ?!?!!?!?
Agreed!
-
Contrary to Christian doctrine, you are not responsible for the behaviour of your ancestors.
Where is there anything referring to responsibility for one's ancestor's behaviour within Christian doctrine?
The Lord passed before him [Moses], and proclaimed,
‘The Lord, the Lord,
a God merciful and gracious,
slow to anger,
and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness,
keeping steadfast love for the thousandth generation,
forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin,
yet by no means clearing the guilty,
but visiting the iniquity of the parents
upon the children
and the children’s children,
to the third and the fourth generation.’
That's God punishing the descendants.
The Bible teaches that if someone does something wrong, their descendants to the 7th generation will suffer the consequences. I believe that many modern psychotherapists agree with this.
You do? What kind of ignoramus are you to believe that modern psychotherapists think that we suffer the consequences of our ancestors back for seven generations? I never even knew any of my great grandparents (a mere three generations).
You don't half come up with some claptrap sometimes.
I quite agree, that really is a silly post.
-
You do? What kind of ignoramus are you to believe that modern psychotherapists think that we suffer the consequences of our ancestors back for seven generations? I never even knew any of my great grandparents (a mere three generations).
You don't half come up with some claptrap sometimes.
We have seen that epigenetic consequences of our behavior can affect up to at least 5 generations. It could even be seven perhaps. So...the bible is quite right I think!
-
You were implying that the evil deity was going to punish future generations for something their ancestors did wrong!
Well, at least you've got it the right way round now, Floo - the ancestor being responsible for the suffering of the descendants - not the other way round. Biblically, 7 is a very important number, and such references may not be literally 7 generations - it might be more or less, but if we look at a less specifically individual case, we can see that the consequences of an act can rumble on for generations. As you will probably know, modern Iraq and Iran were created in the early 20th century by the deployment of a pencil and ruler belonging to a British civil servant (in much the same way as modern-day India and Pakistan were created out of India). There was no consideration for tribal and ethnic boundaries, or location of Shia and Shiite majorities. We continue to see the repercussions today, and Britain suffers as a result. We are now at least 3, if not 4 generations down the line, and I doubt the problems will be solved before the middle of this century (so 6 generations later) - if then.
On a more individual basis, if someone irresponsibly develops a massive debt over their lifetime, it is likely that that person's descendents to several removes will suffer from their irresponsibilities.
Think then of events like the Sea Empress, Exxon Valdes or Deepwater Horizon 'accidents'. How long will nature and (in the Deepwater Horizon's case) the Gulf of Mexico's fishing industry take to fully recover from these events.
Is it punishment that is promised, or is it simply a statement of common sense concerning the time it takes for a family/nation to fully recover from a particular irresponsible action or event?
-
You better believe God will visit the iniquity of sinful fathers and mothers on their sinful children and their children. But of course jeremy and floo opt to ignore context and the full picture, like God's promise to forgive those that repent, cause that would just mess with their ignorant atheist picture of scripture.
For those that want the context and full picture please google and read any commentary on Exodus 34 and also Exodus 20. jeremy is not a source with any credibility in understanding and explaining scripture.
-
You better believe God will visit the iniquity of sinful fathers and mothers on their sinful children and their children. But of course jeremy and floo opt to ignore context and the full picture, like God's promise to forgive those that repent, cause that would just mess with their ignorant atheist picture of scripture.
Johnny, if you read the Bible, the wording is such as to indicate that descendents will be visited with the consequences to 7 generations. What it doesn't necessarily do is show that God will specifically use this as a divine punishment or whether the suffering will work itself out to the 7th generation, as I've suggested in a previous post. I'm not quite sure what the Hebrew, especially, indicates.
-
Talk about washing your dirty linen in public!
I didn't realise that you were such a masochist.
Matt, its all about the fact that many ordinary citizens owned/part-owned slaves. Nothing to be ashamed of because of how many people were involved. Try your family and its immediately associated ones - maternal family and grandmothers' .
No thanks! I have enough black sheep in my family history - it has been very well researched and I am thankful that slave-owning is not included as people as low on the social ladder as most of my family WERE the slaves but were also white British people.
Contrary to Christian doctrine, you are not responsible for the behaviour of your ancestors.
Is that Christian doctrine Jeremy? Sounds like an unskilled confusion on your part, of the doctrine of original sin.....
-
Of course one isn't responsible for the behaviour of their ancestors! Where do you get the notion that many modern psychotherapists agree with that Biblical claptrap?
Floo exposed again as not knowing what's in the bible
-
Of course one isn't responsible for the behaviour of their ancestors! Where do you get the notion that many modern psychotherapists agree with that Biblical claptrap?
Floo exposed again as not knowing what's in the bible
Does the Bible then support Hope's statement, to wit: "The Bible teaches that if someone does something wrong, their descendants to the 7th generation will suffer the consequences. I believe that many modern psychotherapists agree with this" (#8)?
Where?
Which passages?
(You'll note that these psychotherapists are not identified by name, which shouldn't have been much of a stretch if there are "many" of them).
-
You better believe God will visit the iniquity of sinful fathers and mothers on their sinful children and their children. But of course jeremy and floo opt to ignore context and the full picture, like God's promise to forgive those that repent, cause that would just mess with their ignorant atheist picture of scripture.
So God is going to punish me for things I haven't done, but he'll let me off as long as I repent of those things I haven't done. Why doesn't he just not punish me in the first place?
Has it ever occurred to you that your god is a numpty?
-
Is that Christian doctrine Jeremy? Sounds like an unskilled confusion on your part, of the doctrine of original sin.....
You ever heard of Original Sin? You should look it up. IT's not Biblical but a lot of your Christian friends are very big on it e.g. Johnny C above.
-
So God is going to punish me for things I haven't done
That's Christianity for you. All humans are guilty and are born guilty, defective straight off the factory production line, because of a daft fairy story (which would embarrass any reasonably aware and intelligent five year-old) about a pair of non-existent human beings called Adam and Eve supposed to have done something naughty involving fruit at some unspecified point in history, after which all human beings are inherently and innately bad and wrong in the eyes of the paranormal entity which according to this ridiculous myth caused or at the very least passively allowed all this to happen in the first place.
Has it ever occurred to you that your god is a numpty?
It won't have done.
-
No you won't jeremy, unless you are continuing the sin and rebellion of your father. And only a fool would say a child can't suffer and be damaged from the misdeeds of bad parents. We see it every day. Again you opt to ignore God's promise of forgiveness. You don't like that part do ya.
http://www.gospelway.com/topics/salvation/parent-sins-child.php
-
No you won't jeremy, unless you are continuing the sin and rebellion of your father. And only a fool would say a child can't suffer and be damaged from the misdeeds of bad parents. We see it every day. Again you opt to ignore God's promise of forgiveness. You don't like that part do ya.
http://www.gospelway.com/topics/salvation/parent-sins-child.php
The quote was quite specific saying God would visit the iniquities on the descendants not that they would be a side effect of the misdeeds of the parents.
-
Its amazing how the non-believers here manage to reroute threads onto spiritual/religious rails so often. Implies that they've all got some hidden urge to get involved in said issues ;D
-
Not that amazing, and no rerouting if the subject arises, as it did.
It would have done anyway given that in Britain alone there were prominent Christian abolitionists but equally, prominent Christians who were ardent supporters of the slave trade.
-
Its amazing how the non-believers here manage to reroute threads onto spiritual/religious rails so often. Implies that they've all got some hidden urge to get involved in said issues ;D
My original comment on Original Sin was meant to be a throwaway comment and not actually go any further. You decided to run with it, not me.
Your OP did seem to adopt a tone of "we've all got slave ownership in our past therefore we need to feel guilty" (I'm guessing most of us are white and British).
-
So God is going to punish me for things I haven't done
That's Christianity for you. All humans are guilty and are born guilty, defective straight off the factory production line, because of a daft fairy story (which would embarrass any reasonably aware and intelligent five year-old) about a pair of non-existent human beings called Adam and Eve supposed to have done something naughty involving fruit at some unspecified point in history, after which all human beings are inherently and innately bad and wrong in the eyes of the paranormal entity which according to this ridiculous myth caused or at the very least passively allowed all this to happen in the first place.
Has it ever occurred to you that your god is a numpty?
It won't have done.
So you believe the Adam and Eve story: thought you were fairly bright. Apparently, you're not.
-
Your OP did seem to adopt a tone of "we've all got slave ownership in our past therefore we need to feel guilty" (I'm guessing most of us are white and British).
In fact, my OP was a straight-forward factual post. My second post, in response to Matt's, pointed out that slave-ownership was far more prevalent than generally presumed and therefoire nothing to be ashamed of. So where did your idea that I was saying that "we need to feel guilty" come from.
-
Not that amazing, and no rerouting if the subject arises, as it did.
No, not that amazing, I suppose. Jeremy is good at reading far more into posts than the authors ever intended!!
-
You would have to be fairly knowledgeable about your family tree for this. Just typing in a relatively common will give hits. My mother's maiden name will give lots, I am sure, but on basis of the knowledge I have of the line going back are unlikely to amongst those on the database.
-
In fact, my OP was a straight-forward factual post.
Clearly I read more into the tone than you intended. For that I apologise.
My second post, in response to Matt's, pointed out that slave-ownership was far more prevalent than generally presumed and therefoire nothing to be ashamed of. So where did your idea that I was saying that "we need to feel guilty" come from.
Your second post implies that many of us do feel ashamed or would feel ashamed about what our ancestors did. There never was anything for us (i.e. the people to whom you address the post) to be ashamed of whether it was prevalent or not. We are not accountable for the things people did 200 years ago.
-
Your second post implies that many of us do feel ashamed or would feel ashamed about what our ancestors did. There never was anything for us (i.e. the people to whom you address the post) to be ashamed of whether it was prevalent or not. We are not accountable for the things people did 200 years ago.
I was responding to a specific post - from Matt - who seemed to feel that he does feel shame over a number of issues in his past.
-
You would have to be fairly knowledgeable about your family tree for this. Just typing in a relatively common will give hits. My mother's maiden name will give lots, I am sure, but on basis of the knowledge I have of the line going back are unlikely to amongst those on the database.
I'd agree, NS. I am 'fortunate' in that several of my ancestors had pretty unusual surnames, but even that doesn't ensure that any hits are related to me. I have a printed family tree running back to the 1400s so I can be more precise. Folk in my larger family have actually traced our family back to Bruges in the 800s
-
But Jeremy, why would you pluck a verse out of context ignoring the verses surrounding it? It's a dishonest thing to do that. If you were an honest person you would not ignore the context of God's forgiveness and other verses throughout the Bible assuring us that the sins of the father will NOT be held against their children. Please read the context and be honest. If the generations that follow continue in their rebellion against God, of course they will reap the same as their fathers.
-
Now as far as slave ownership. Dear UK people, don't keep beating yourselves up over it. For example my ancestors viewed women as property. When we were fighting our traditional enemies the Blackfoot, we would kidnap as many of the women as possible and make them ours. And talking about those Blackfoot, if a man caught his wife in adultery, one punishment was for the husband to bite the nose off his wife. We all were known to sell and trade women, and when the whites came along we would sell our wives and daughters to get booze. Even today those first nations were fighting the government, because the government was making it law, that on reserve wives were to have matrimonial rights. Up until a year ago, an on reserve man could force his wife out of the house, leaving her destitute. She could not claim any money nor property nor goods.
So don't beat yourselves up. You have come along way and much further than some of my kin folk.
-
Your second post implies that many of us do feel ashamed or would feel ashamed about what our ancestors did. There never was anything for us (i.e. the people to whom you address the post) to be ashamed of whether it was prevalent or not. We are not accountable for the things people did 200 years ago.
I was responding to a specific post - from Matt - who seemed to feel that he does feel shame over a number of issues in his past.
YTou are a bigger idiot than even I gave you credit for!
I do not "feel shame over a number of issues in [my] past!"
I was stating that my family, going back quite a way' were all in the very lowest echelons of the working population at a time when ordinary working people in this glorious country were little better than slaves (hence the creation and rise of trade unions to protect such workers) and would, therefore be the very last people to be able to afford to dabble in the slave trade.
Now do me a favour - either read my posts properly or shut the **** up!
MODERATORS
Yes, I bloody lost it again!
-
Dearest Matty,
I recall a post of yours, belly aching about name callers around here. Why then do you do just that with so many of your posts? Do you not remember posts you have written? Or are you comfortable with your hypocrisy?
-
YTou are a bigger idiot than even I gave you credit for!
I do not "feel shame over a number of issues in [my] past!"
I was stating that my family, going back quite a way' were all in the very lowest echelons of the working population at a time when ordinary working people in this glorious country were little better than slaves (hence the creation and rise of trade unions to protect such workers) and would, therefore be the very last people to be able to afford to dabble in the salve trade.
Now do me a favour - either read my posts properly or shut the **** up!
MODERATORS
Yes, I bloody lost it again!
And you phrased your post in such a way as to suggest, at least to me, that you were ashamed of that history. If you're not, my apologies.
Just a general point re.slave ownership, apparently very ordinary people (I assume similar to your ancestors) owned slaves. It wasn't something restricted to the upper or middle eschelons of society. I suspect that this had something to do with what happens now where one has a pension or a corporate fund which invests in a aariety of things and may or may not invest in arms suppliers, tobacco and alcohol companies - in other words groups that individual subscribers might not want to invest in.
-
But Jeremy, why would you pluck a verse out of context ignoring the verses surrounding it? It's a dishonest thing to do that.
Which is why I didn't pluck a verse out of context.
If you were an honest person you would not ignore the context of God's forgiveness
If you were an honest person, you would admit that Christian doctrine has nothing to with the context of the verses I quoted since it would be several hundred years after the verses were written down that Christianity was invented.
-
But jeremy, you are being dishonest, you are using one verse and ignoring the rest. That's very, dishonest, shame on you. You claim you are not doing that so how about talk about the whole chapter? Is that because it talks about forgiveness? Why ignore the promises that the children won't be held responsible. And guess what, that is NOT new testament but found in the old. You don't know scripture at all and a danger it would be for anybody to go by your childish way of reading it.
-
Contrary to Christian doctrine, you are not responsible for the behaviour of your ancestors.
Where is there anything referring to responsibility for one's ancestor's behaviour within Christian doctrine?
The Lord passed before him [Moses], and proclaimed,
‘The Lord, the Lord,
a God merciful and gracious,
slow to anger,
and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness,
keeping steadfast love for the thousandth generation,
forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin,
yet by no means clearing the guilty,
but visiting the iniquity of the parents
upon the children
and the children’s children,
to the third and the fourth generation.’
Two simple questions for you Jeremy -
(A) Do you think that finding a verse in the old testament means you have found a piece of Christian doctrine?
(B) Do you think that Christian doctrine teaches that we should not eat pork.
Each of those questions is subject to a simple yes or no answer, I think.
-
But jeremy, you are being dishonest
How can you say quoting a passage from the Bible in correct context can be regarded as dishonest.
you are using one verse and ignoring the rest.
I'm not ignoring the rest. I only quoted the relevant verse, rather than the whole chapter, but read the chapter and you'll see I didn't misrepresent anything.
You claim you are not doing that so how about talk about the whole chapter? Is that because it talks about forgiveness?
Have you read the chapter? It talks about forgiveness but then says God does the iniquity visiting anyway.