It wasn't about Christians...

[b23hqb]

Ha! in context of what I said, 4 score and 9 years was when the issue was decided. 4 score and 7, the war was not won.

You are correct, and I stand corrected. I went to bed last night and thought of that - I didn't pick up on the number play in 1863. Good one.

 

[b23hqb]

not about taking slaves, but owning them ....

Leviticus 25:44-46New International Version (NIV)

44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.


there are sections about selling your - younger than 12 - daughter
... treatment of slaves, 7th yr freeing of all slaves and giving them, livestock and wine when you release them


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery

unfortunately any search for Bible and Slavery - the 1st 5 pages are atheists and Christ haters - so one must dig through the chaff

although in 1 Samuel 15:13 - Samuel denounces Saul, because he was supposed to kill the Amalekites, instead bringing back slaves, live stock ... etc


18and the LORD sent you on a mission, and said, 'Go and utterly destroy the sinners, the Amalekites, and fight against them until they are exterminated.'…
19"Why then did you not obey the voice of the LORD, but rushed upon the spoil and did what was evil in the sight of the LORD?"…

Not arguing the fact about biblical times and what the OT said about slaves in that era. I am contesting that anyone in the 1800's owning slaves and stating "it was their god given right" is not biblical. That time had ended two thousand plus years ago, and changed by the writings of Paul..

Slavery in the NT, as written about by Paul, was the Christians using "slavery" as the best option for people to escape poverty or get out of prison - a way to provide for one and their family. The slaves, or servants, were not owned, but they were committed to serving the family, in return for food, shelter, and well being, until the master of the house released them.

That by no stretch of the imagination is what happened by southern slave holders - it was nearly always purely racial, and that mindset was that they were less than equal humans to the white, and were property. The New Testament teachings in the Bible are just the opposite, and dispels any justification about owning people just because of their color..

 

[Midnightrider]

Not arguing the fact about biblical times and what the OT said about slaves in that era. I am contesting that anyone in the 1800's owning slaves and stating "it was their god given right" is not biblical. That time had ended two thousand plus years ago, and changed by the writings of Paul..

Slavery in the NT, as written about by Paul, was the Christians using "slavery" as the best option for people to escape poverty or get out of prison - a way to provide for one and their family. The slaves, or servants, were not owned, but they were committed to serving the family, in return for food, shelter, and well being, until the master of the house released them.

That by no stretch of the imagination is what happened by southern slave holders - it was nearly always purely racial, and that mindset was that they were less than equal humans to the white, and were property. The New Testament teachings in the Bible are just the opposite, and dispels any justification about owning people just because of their color..

I have already provided a prominent southern preacher who argued exactly that. In fact, he argued that the apostles themselves condoned slavery

Indeed, the first organization of the church as a visible society, separate and distinct
from the unbelieving world, was inaugurated in the family of a slaveholder. Among the very first persons to whom the seal of circumcision was affixed were the slaves of the father of the faithful, some born in his house and others bought with his money. Slavery again reappears under the Law. God sanctions it in the first table of the Decalogue, and Moses treats it as an institution to be regulated, not abolished; legitimated and not condemned. We come down to the age of the New Testament, and we find it again in the churches founded by the apostles under the plenary inspiration of the Holy Ghost. These facts are utterly amazing, if slavery is the enormous sin which its enemies represent it to be. It will not do to say that the Scriptures have treated it only in a general, incidental way, without any clear implication as to its moral character. Moses surely made it the subject of express and positive legislation, and the apostles are equally explicit in inculcating the duties which spring from both sides of the relation. They treat slaves as bound to obey and inculcate obedience as an office of religion a thing wholly self-contradictory if the authority exercised over them were unlawful and iniquitous.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/a-southern-christian-view-of-slavery/

 

[b23hqb]

I have already provided a prominent southern preacher who argued exactly that. In fact, he argued that the apostles themselves condoned slavery
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/a-southern-christian-view-of-slavery/

Disagree. The few instances of slavery cited in the NT cite it as an act of charity in order to help out those in need. Please give me an example in NT scripture, not word of mouth, where slavery in the sense of "less than human" or "color" was practiced, as in the South prior to 1865.

There were many Jews, not Christians, that still followed the OT teachings on slavery. Christians should not, and would not.

Paul, the pre-eminent author in the NT, spoke of slavery in the sense of why Paul wrote on behalf of slavery. At that time it was a good option for those in order to escape poverty and probable death. So he encouraged the "slaves" to work diligently and the masters to treat them well. Makes sense.

The slavery the New Testament speaks of is not the same type of slavery practiced in the South prior to the Civil War. The slavery in the New Testament was almost always because of prisoners, convicts, or those escaping poverty - it gave them a chance to just live, work, and be freed. The slavery in the South was racial, with no chance of freedom short of the war.

The New Testament can promote slavery, in a sense, and yet we do not practice it today. We allegedly have a society of caring citizens which (ideally although not always) takes care of prisoners of war, criminals, and the poor and so slavery is not necessary.

Anyone that calls themselves a Christian and promotes slavery, then or now, needs or needed to reexamine, inwardly, themselves on why they think they are Christians.

 

[PsyOps]

Not arguing the fact about biblical times and what the OT said about slaves in that era. I am contesting that anyone in the 1800's owning slaves and stating "it was their god given right" is not biblical. That time had ended two thousand plus years ago, and changed by the writings of Paul..

Slavery in the NT, as written about by Paul, was the Christians using "slavery" as the best option for people to escape poverty or get out of prison - a way to provide for one and their family. The slaves, or servants, were not owned, but they were committed to serving the family, in return for food, shelter, and well being, until the master of the house released them.

That by no stretch of the imagination is what happened by southern slave holders - it was nearly always purely racial, and that mindset was that they were less than equal humans to the white, and were property. The New Testament teachings in the Bible are just the opposite, and dispels any justification about owning people just because of their color..

And more interestingly is most black slaves became Christians. Figure that out in the context of this discussion. If blacks thought Christianity was the core reason for slavery, why in the heck would they become part of the faith they believed enslaved them?

 

[PsyOps]

Paul wrote:

Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For the one who was a slave when called to faith in the Lord is the Lord’s freed person; similarly, the one who was free when called is Christ’s slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of human beings. - 1 Corinthians 7:21-23

 

[Midnightrider]

Disagree. The few instances of slavery cited in the NT cite it as an act of charity in order to help out those in need. Please give me an example in NT scripture, not word of mouth, where slavery in the sense of "less than human" or "color" was practiced, as in the South prior to 1865.

There were many Jews, not Christians, that still followed the OT teachings on slavery. Christians should not, and would not.

Paul, the pre-eminent author in the NT, spoke of slavery in the sense of why Paul wrote on behalf of slavery. At that time it was a good option for those in order to escape poverty and probable death. So he encouraged the "slaves" to work diligently and the masters to treat them well. Makes sense.

The slavery the New Testament speaks of is not the same type of slavery practiced in the South prior to the Civil War. The slavery in the New Testament was almost always because of prisoners, convicts, or those escaping poverty - it gave them a chance to just live, work, and be freed. The slavery in the South was racial, with no chance of freedom short of the war.

The New Testament can promote slavery, in a sense, and yet we do not practice it today. We allegedly have a society of caring citizens which (ideally although not always) takes care of prisoners of war, criminals, and the poor and so slavery is not necessary.

Anyone that calls themselves a Christian and promotes slavery, then or now, needs or needed to reexamine, inwardly, themselves on why they think they are Christians.

You can disagree if you want, but the fact of the matter is that Christians of the time did use the bible to defend slavery. Additionally, as I have shown you, prominent Christians of the time indeed claimed it was a god given right. I didn't give you word of mouth, I gave you the interpretation of a Christian preacher from the time.

But its funny to watch you first claim there aren't references to slavery in the new testament, then show there is, then claim the NT can promote slavery, and finally say that no Christian could possibly promote slavery. Its quite the show


BTW, that 'its better than poverty' defense was also used by slaveholders.....

 

[Gilligan]

You can disagree if you want, but the fact of the matter is that Christians of the time did use the bible to defend slavery.

I think that its about time we make slavery illegal. You with me?

 

[Hijinx]

You can disagree if you want, but the fact of the matter is that Christians of the time did use the bible to defend slavery. Additionally, as I have shown you, prominent Christians of the time indeed claimed it was a god given right. I didn't give you word of mouth, I gave you the interpretation of a Christian preacher from the time.

But its funny to watch you first claim there aren't references to slavery in the new testament, then show there is, then claim the NT can promote slavery, and finally say that no Christian could possibly promote slavery. Its quite the show


BTW, that 'its better than poverty' defense was also used by slaveholders.....

Never argue with a black man about slavery. In their belief only blacks were ever slaves.

 

[PsyOps]

I think that its about time we make slavery illegal. You with me?

Does that mean I can't get my dog to fetch me a beer and my slippers?

 

[Midnightrider]

Never argue with a black man about slavery. In their belief only blacks were ever slaves.

I am glad you have been appointed to speak for all black people

 

[Hijinx]

I am glad you have been appointed to speak for all black people

Well it's a self appointment, and of course like all generalities it has it's exceptions, Would you care to be considered an exception?

But I can dig an even deeper hole. Eric Holder stated that America was a nation of cowards when discussing race.
But have you ever seen him engage in such a discussion with anyone who disagreed with him
How can such a discussion be held when as soon as the discussion starts, anyone not black is called a racist?

You see when you discuss race with blacks you are already considered a racist unless you agree with them.
Ipso Facto my former post.

You seem like an intelligent individual. Why do you take Obama's side on everything? Certainly not because he is always right. He isn't. Obama was speaking from his Muslim upbringing and attacking Christians. Why can't you just admit that?

 

[Midnightrider]

Well it's a self appointment, and of course like all generalities it has it's exceptions, Would you care to be considered an exception?

But I can dig an even deeper hole. Eric Holder stated that America was a nation of cowards when discussing race.
But have you ever seen him engage in such a discussion with anyone who disagreed with him
How can such a discussion be held when as soon as the discussion starts, anyone not black is called a racist?

You see when you discuss race with blacks you are already considered a racist unless you agree with them.
Ipso Facto my former post.

You seem like an intelligent individual. Why do you take Obama's side on everything? Certainly not because he is always right. He isn't. Obama was speaking from his Muslim upbringing and attacking Christians. Why can't you just admit that?

Because I am an intelligent person I case see that Obama was not attacking Christianity, he was stating a fact and drawing an analogy. Your bigotry prevents you from seeing that.

Why would I need to be an exception?

A self proclaimed bigot like you has no standing to say blacks 'already consider you a racist'. Regardless of whether you agree with them or not, you have already stipulated that you are a racist. Them considering you one can not be wrong.

 

[PsyOps]

Because I am an intelligent person I case see that Obama was not attacking Christianity...

Intelligent eh?

 

[This_person]

Because I am an intelligent person I case see that Obama was not attacking Christianity, he was stating a fact and drawing an analogy. Your bigotry prevents you from seeing that.

Why would I need to be an exception?

A self proclaimed bigot like you has no standing to say blacks 'already consider you a racist'. Regardless of whether you agree with them or not, you have already stipulated that you are a racist. Them considering you one can not be wrong.

As someone who firmly believes president Obama is exceptionally bad for our country, I nonetheless agree he was simply stating a fact.

However, what was the point, the reason? Was he trying to suggest that the twenty first century Muslims are to be forgiven because hundreds of years ago a different religion's zealots did similarly bad things? If so, I don't forgive them.

Was he trying to suggest that Christians are the same level of threat today as extremist Muslims today because of things that happened hundreds of years ago? If so, I would disagree with his assessment.

Was he suggesting that there is an equivalency between slavery and ISIS? I would disagree with that, too.

Was he suggesting that there is an equivalency between the Democrat party, who wrote, passed, and enforced Jim Crow laws, and ISIS? I would disagree with that.

I don't think that he was trying to do any of those things. I think he was taking an unprovoked and unnecessary cheap shot at Christians and whites. There's really no other explanation as to a reason for his factual statement.

 

[Midnightrider]

As someone who firmly believes president Obama is exceptionally bad for our country, I nonetheless agree he was simply stating a fact.

However, what was the point, the reason? Was he trying to suggest that the twenty first century Muslims are to be forgiven because hundreds of years ago a different religion's zealots did similarly bad things? If so, I don't forgive them.

Was he trying to suggest that Christians are the same level of threat today as extremist Muslims today because of things that happened hundreds of years ago? If so, I would disagree with his assessment.

Was he suggesting that there is an equivalency between slavery and ISIS? I would disagree with that, too.

Was he suggesting that there is an equivalency between the Democrat party, who wrote, passed, and enforced Jim Crow laws, and ISIS? I would disagree with that.

I don't think that he was trying to do any of those things. I think he was taking an unprovoked and unnecessary cheap shot at Christians and whites. There's really no other explanation as to a reason for his factual statement.

Try watching the clip. If you listen you will hear his explanation.

 

[This_person]

Try watching the clip. If you listen you will hear his explanation.

I've watched it many times. "Lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place" was his given explanation. This, of course, supports my interpretation that he was trying to knock Christians, particularly white Christians, off the high horse he perceives us to be on.

I mean, what other reason makes any sense? Were we having an epidemic of people saying, "you know, even a thousand years ago Christians weren't even bad to people", and he needed to correct the record?

 

[This_person]

Try watching the clip. If you listen you will hear his explanation.

His remarks, in context:[video=youtube;CcPSLgXr1vQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcPSLgXr1vQ[/video]

 

[Midnightrider]

I've watched it many times. "Lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place" was his given explanation. This, of course, supports my interpretation that he was trying to knock Christians, particularly white Christians, off the high horse he perceives us to be on.

I mean, what other reason makes any sense? Were we having an epidemic of people saying, "you know, even a thousand years ago Christians weren't even bad to people", and he needed to correct the record?

He mentioned a lot of other faiths in that speech. He certainly didn't single out Christians or white people. The only way you can come to your 'interpretation' is to ignore everything he says and substitute your own reality.

 

[Hijinx]

Because I am an intelligent person I case see that Obama was not attacking Christianity, he was stating a fact and drawing an analogy. Your bigotry prevents you from seeing that.

Why would I need to be an exception?

A self proclaimed bigot like you has no standing to say blacks 'already consider you a racist'. Regardless of whether you agree with them or not, you have already stipulated that you are a racist. Them considering you one can not be wrong.

I have no problem with being called a bigot. My problem is when bigots like yourself are too stupid to realize their bigotry.
You also have a comprehension problem, which is probably why you cannot comprehend what Obama said.
When I said when you discuss race with blacks I did not say when I discuss race with blacks.
The you was a royal you and meant that anyone who discusses race with blacks is automatically called a racist.

I think it's fine for blacks to stick up for our racist Muslim President.
Fine to a point.
But after 6 years of f**king up like Hogans goat its's time you started waking the f**k up.
A lot of blacks are. Only the real die hard fanatics will hold out to the last