Recent comments in /f/todayilearned

anrwlias t1_jadl7zw wrote

Semantic satiation. Semantic satiation. Semantic satiation. Semantic satiation. Semantic satiation. Semantic satiation. Semantic satiation. Semantic satiation. Semantic satiation. Semantic satiation. Semantic satiation. Semantic satiation. Semantic satiation. Semantic satiation. Semantic satiation. Semantic satiation. Semantic satiation. Semantic satiation. Semantic satiation. Semantic satiation. Semantic satiation. Semantic satiation.

Dang, you're right.

4

XIphos12 t1_jadl5ea wrote

Oh, for heaven's sake, he wasn't restricted from freeing his own slaves. Robert Carter did it! George Washington did it! Nobody said anything about a magic hand wave. He could have just made the decision to let his own captives go. He seemed to have thought the event of complete emancipation would trigger great civil unrest at the time. His refusal to create an amendment for the gradual emancipation of slavery combined with his condemning/outlawing the international slave trade leads me to believe he was wishy-washy and selfish in his anti-slavery efforts, at best.

1

smilbandit t1_jadl0p2 wrote

1

timk85 t1_jadkvej wrote

Yes, he would not have fit into the "Christian box" that exists in modern American culture, nor would have a lot of ancient Christians. He, like most of the deists, still believed in God – just not quite as "structured" as we have these days.

Even C.S. Lewis, who is uplifted by evangelicals, had some very different views about God that they would find strange.

The problem is that – like everything else, Christianity has been broken up into nice and neat little boxes. God simply will not fit in these.

3

GenXer3383 t1_jadk0jj wrote

Also, if you married a daughter of a plantation owner, even if you don't want more slaves, you or she may inherit slaves from her parents when they die, and you don't have an option in the matter. Messed up situation all around.

3