Quote:

Animalman said:
Actually, you followed your normal conversational path, the "Pariah three point plan" as I like to call it:

1.Say something incorrect
2.Revise your statement when even the people on your side say you were wrong
3.Accuse others of putting words in your mouth afterwards



I didn't revise my statement. You're still just sore that you were ignorant of how people had to make a living back then. Only today would we consider indentured servantry to be a kind of slavery since people don't have to live that way anymore. Back then however, people had to make these sacrifices. I can understand why you'd confuse what I said since I refrained from explaining the use of slavery back then as opposed to today (today, even if one gets paid, being overworked will be considered slave labor), but your floundering isn't very sportsmen like.

Quote:

I was merely quoting our good friend, MisterJLA. It makes him feel special.



Yeah, I know you tried to rationalize it that way.

Quote:

The Bible discusses it without criticism. The definition of "condone".



I was talking about the issue of multiple wives or generally just having more than one spouse over a period of time (without one of the spouses dying), which is criticized in the Bible.

As for your slavery argument: If the work-force back then was involuntary, you'd have a point. But that's not the case. "Chattel" and "Indentured" are two different things.