So a Christian rapper blocked me from his youtube video and sent me this message

[The Gawd]

first I'll link the song posted by someone else so he doesnt get the hits that youtube counts



So I had been commenting... some scathing, others teaching, and he blocks me from commenting and sends this

i'm gonna block you from commenting on my channel for obvious reasons, but before I do.......let me tell you this. 1. You seem to have never read the Bible with an honest heart, seeking GOD, and being willing to submit to Truth. You've only LOOKED for reasons not to serve GOD, and if that's what you look for, that's what you will find. The problem is, that without GOD'S standard of write and wrong you have NO BASIS to tell me that murder, slavery, rape, etc. is wrong. Without an ABSOLUTE moral standard, you are left to moral relativity and we all decide what's right and wrong in our own minds, even though my right may contradict your right. 2. You say The Bible never says slavery is wrong............the problem is A. That's not totally true, because when Israel was oppressed in Egypt, HE definitely saw a problem with it. B. When you think of slavery, you think of WESTERN slavery. Since you seem to know the Bible, you know that Joseph was sold into slavery, and ended up being over everything in Pharaohs house, and pretty much governing Egypt STILL being a slave. And there were FREE people aka Non-Slaves Aka his family that came begging for food from him during the famine. So obviously slavery meant something different. People sold themselves into slavery back then to be able to provide for their families, etc. WESTERN slavery was OPPRESSION, people were taken against their will, treated foul. As a matter of fact, AS SOON as Egypt started treating the slaves like that, GOD heard their cry and intervened. Hommie, GOD ended slavery in the U.S. We are the only "slaves" in history who didn't have to overthrow the masters to get freedom, but were allowed to just walk. And it happened to be after 400 years, JUST like Israel. You can keep holding GOD to YOUR standard and trying to find HIM guilty, but in the end you will be held to HIS. GOD shows HIMSELF loving, patient, and forgiving all throughout the Bible and you've neglected to mention that even once which shows me that your bias has blinded you and your scales are unjust. Read the Bible to understand, not to find blame.

[Nam]

Apparently he can't spell "homie" correctly, and he evidently hasn't read the Bible since he got everything wrong.

-Nam

[The Gawd]

He actually does better than most though...

for instance, he doesnt do the typical and come outright and say yahweh opposes slavery. He decides to go halfway and say that its not totally true that yahweh endorses slavery. In other words, he acknowledges that his god does endorse slavery.

However, most of what I talked about on his page was genocide and rape. He also knew not to mention those in his message to me. Oddly, I am not blocked yet.

[Ivellios]

"the standard of write and wrong" - ROFL!

The thing he was against was Jews as slaves. He couldn't care less about anyone else because non-Jews aka Gentiles are sub-humans. Jewish males only served 6 years as slaves then released on the 7th, Gentiles were slaves for life. So yes, he was against slavery in this regard, just as he is opposed to be a slave himself, but if he lived in that time and had the cash, he wouldn't be against owning a slave. Jesus himself was pro-slavery. Sure he said the whole, "Do unto others.." but that only applied to Jewish males because if you were a slave, "Obey your master as you would obey YHWH..." If Jesus/God thought slavery was wrong, he would have said something.

The whole thing about the Civil War... it looked like God was Pro-Slavery, then couldn't decide until Gettysburg. So how would an Perfect All-Knowing, All-Loving, God not able to "make up his mind?" Then change his mind on his stance of slavery that went againist the last 6,000 years, if the Bible were true? Remember, if anything "Perfect" changes, it's no longer perfect. The thing that ended slavery in the US wasn't God, it was thousands of people that were willing to give the ultimate sacrifice, and it meant more than Jesus' sacrifice because they knew they weren't going to come back... hence 'sacrifice.'

[Nam]

All the peoplewho fought for the Confederacy were not fighting for slavery. I'd say, maybe 1-2% were since they were the only ones who could actually afford to not only buy a slave but to care for him/her.

-Nam

[The Gawd]

All the peoplewho fought for the Confederacy were not fighting for slavery. I'd say, maybe 1-2% were since they were the only ones who could actually afford to not only buy a slave but to care for him/her.

-Nam

True, even back then it was "states rights" and cultural. Slavery wasnt really an issue at all and if I remember correctly good ol Abe released the slaves as a punishment rather than because it was right, and as a method to destroy the southern economy in order to win the war... but dont quote me on that.

[jaimehlers]

The Emancipation Proclamation was a propaganda effort as much as anything.  Lincoln was much more concerned with winning the war.  Which is fairly sensible, since if he had focused on freeing the slaves, it would have verified what Southerners were saying about him.

Regarding the guy who blocked you, it sure is easy for people to interpret the Bible as supporting what they already believe, even if it's completely counter to what other people believe (and interpret the Bible as supporting what they believe, of course).

[thunderridge]

The problem is, that without GOD'S standard of write and wrong you have NO BASIS to tell me that murder, slavery, rape, etc. is wrong. Without an ABSOLUTE moral standard, you are left to moral relativity and we all decide what's right and wrong in our own minds, even though my right may contradict your right.

The thing about this is that since gods are imaginary he too is using moral relativity because men wrote the moral standards in his "holy" book.   

[magicmiles]

Thanks for posting the song, I liked it.

[The Gawd]

Thanks for posting the song, I liked it.

No prob. I dont dislike it in that as a rap diss record its actually pretty decent.

it is a response to this...

[Nam]

I like Kanye West's music but I think he's a retard.

-Nam

[Ivellios]

All the peoplewho fought for the Confederacy were not fighting for slavery. I'd say, maybe 1-2% were since they were the only ones who could actually afford to not only buy a slave but to care for him/her.

-Nam

I know that it wasn't about slavery, I was simply using his own arguement against him. Basically, even if the the only issue was about slavery...

[EV]

You seem to have never read the Bible.

Split infinitive.

[Willie]

All the peoplewho fought for the Confederacy were not fighting for slavery. I'd say, maybe 1-2% were since they were the only ones who could actually afford to not only buy a slave but to care for him/her.

-Nam

True, even back then it was "states rights" and cultural. Slavery wasnt really an issue at all and if I remember correctly good ol Abe released the slaves as a punishment rather than because it was right, and as a method to destroy the southern economy in order to win the war... but dont quote me on that.

Baloney.

Read the Declaration of Causes documents from North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Texas, and see if you still believe that "slavery wasn't really an issue at all". These are the official documents in which each of those states explains it's reasons for seceding. Far from being a peripheral issue, if you were to remove everything either directly or indirectly related to the conflict over slavery, there would hardly be anything left. To the extent that states' rights is mentioned at all, it is used in defense of a state's supposed right to continue to enslave a particular race of human beings.

Here are a few choice quotes.

From the Mississippi Declaration of Causes:

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. ..."

From the Texas Declaration of Causes:

"In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States."

From the Georgia Declaration of Causes:

"The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. ..."

From the South Carolina Declaration of Causes:

"...A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction."

I strongly encourage reading the actual documents. That will show that the meanings of these quotes have not been altered by taking them out of context. Furthermore, a careful reading will reveal that slavery, and issues directly stemming from the conflict over it (the north refusing protection of slave trader ships, refusing to return escaped slaves, refusing to prosecute "criminals" who were helping slaves escape, refusing admittance of new slave-holding states, etc.), make up the bulk of these states' grievances.

Links:

Mississippi: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp
Texas: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_texsec.asp
Georgia: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_geosec.asp
South Carolina: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

This idea that the Civil War wasn't really about slavery, or that it was really about states' rights, or that Abraham Lincoln wasn't sincere in his opposition to slavery and only freed the slaves for political reasons, is an invention meant to whitewash the south's real motivation. Stop falling for apologist bunk. It WAS about slavery.

[EV]

You seem to have never read the Bible.

Split infinitive.

>image snipped<

Sorry, didn't think it would have turned out that big... Too late to edit now. Apologies.

[The Gawd]

@ Willie, thanks for the lanks. I shall surely read them.

However, the slaves werent free before the war, and actually freeing them was a tactic to crush the southern economy. we shouldnt pretend as if Lincoln was some sort of beacon of equality that wasnt a racist himself. He certainly was better than the alternative and obviously better than the presiding culture at the time. However he did not believe the american negro was equal to whites.

And I dont really feel like doing the research right now, but the union also had slave holding states. And I believe the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to Confeferate states at the time. Again, I will do the research to either affirm my points or deny them... just not now. My brain hurts.

[nogodsforme]

I don't have the links, but I heard a historian on Lincoln who argued that he was definitely against slavery, and was not apologetic about it. This historian was critical of the way history was being taught in schools, all boring and with the life sucked out.