No Christianity Isn’t Dying But It Is Under Attack

[This_person]

The point was that Christianity and liberty and not synonyms.

Also yes, there are several different types of slavery, ranging from the historic to the modern. Chattel slavery is the most widely known in America because that's the kind that was used here.

"Chattel" simply means a moveable piece of property. My car is chattel. How can a human be a slave and not be chattel?

A similar and equally-important point is that Christianity and slavery are not tied together, either. I offer you the same challenge Midnight shrunk from - show me where Jesus ever explicitly approved of slavery. I showed where, in the NT, the OT concept of slavery was fought against by disciples of Jesus in Christ's name, but I've not seen any contradictory passage where Jesus or a disciple said, "slavery, that's some good #### right there."

Saying Christians bought slaves is like saying people who ate bread bought slaves. Free blacks and whites in the south owned slaves in the same percentages, and yet whites get the rap for slavery alone. Free blacks sold blacks into slavery, and whites get the rap for slavery. It was essentially impossible to be prominent in 18th or 19th century confederate states and not be a Christian, so that's a pretty insignificant argument to have with Christianity and slavery.

That was my point.

 

[This_person]

You could argue those things, and they would be disingenuous BS, but go ahead.

Please, do tell how the obvious truth is "disingenuous BS".

As for Jesus' approval of slavery, it is explicit through his actions. Jesus presumably interacted with thousands or slaves in his lifetime, yet he didn't free a single one. Jesus' words are for slaves to obey their masters and for masters to be just. There is no 'confusion' about Jesus' position on slavery.

You should look up the difference between the words "explicit" and "implicit". It would help you in this discussion. Your inference, based on presumption, well, that's not explicit.

 

[ProximaCentauri]

"Chattel" simply means a moveable piece of property. My car is chattel. How can a human be a slave and not be chattel?

A similar and equally-important point is that Christianity and slavery are not tied together, either. I offer you the same challenge Midnight shrunk from - show me where Jesus ever explicitly approved of slavery. I showed where, in the NT, the OT concept of slavery was fought against by disciples of Jesus in Christ's name, but I've not seen any contradictory passage where Jesus or a disciple said, "slavery, that's some good #### right there."

Saying Christians bought slaves is like saying people who ate bread bought slaves. Free blacks and whites in the south owned slaves in the same percentages, and yet whites get the rap for slavery alone. Free blacks sold blacks into slavery, and whites get the rap for slavery. It was essentially impossible to be prominent in 18th or 19th century confederate states and not be a Christian, so that's a pretty insignificant argument to have with Christianity and slavery.

That was my point.

Pathetic apologetics for Christians who used a theologically defensible reading of the bible to defend slavery as did the illustrious leaders of the confederacy.

 

[Bird Dog]

Pathetic apologetics for Christians who used a theologically defensible reading of the bible to defend slavery as did the illustrious leaders of the confederacy.

So, according to this analogy, Christians owned slaves, so all Christians are bigots and racists.
Even though slavery ended over 150 years ago, and most Christians in the USA weren't even here then. So bigoted and racist by default.....hmmmmmm...

 

[ProximaCentauri]

I guess we are all bigots and racists if we disagree with you and MR.

You'd still be a bigot and a racist without anyone disagreeing with you on this forum.

Paranoid much.......I thought this thread was about Christianity......

Yes it is about Christianity, and you used the tired Christian cliché inferring your supposed security upon your death. If there is a heaven, it will not be populated with racists and bigots.

 

[ProximaCentauri]

So, according to this analogy, Christians owned slaves, so all Christians are bigots and racists.
Even though slavery ended over 150 years ago, and most Christians in the USA weren't even here then. So bigoted and racist by default.....hmmmmmm...

Don't conflate my calling you out as the racist and bigot you are, with the response I made to person's post.

 

[Bird Dog]

Don't conflate my calling you out as the racist and bigot you are, with the response I made to person's post.

Don't tell me what to say or not say.....

 

[This_person]

Pathetic apologetics for Christians who used a theologically defensible reading of the bible to defend slavery as did the illustrious leaders of the confederacy.

If you're saying it could be argued, I would agree with you. Any partially-accurate position could be argued. It's partially accurate to argue that people used Christianity to justify slavery. It's at least equally accurate to argue that people used Christianity to end slavery.

Any opinion is arguable.

If you're suggesting you have the only accurate opinion, and that opinion is that Christianity is the driver of slavery, well, that would be false. Demonstrably false things are not arguable.

 

[TheLibertonian]

"Chattel" simply means a moveable piece of property. My car is chattel. How can a human be a slave and not be chattel?

A similar and equally-important point is that Christianity and slavery are not tied together, either. I offer you the same challenge Midnight shrunk from - show me where Jesus ever explicitly approved of slavery. I showed where, in the NT, the OT concept of slavery was fought against by disciples of Jesus in Christ's name, but I've not seen any contradictory passage where Jesus or a disciple said, "slavery, that's some good #### right there."

Saying Christians bought slaves is like saying people who ate bread bought slaves. Free blacks and whites in the south owned slaves in the same percentages, and yet whites get the rap for slavery alone. Free blacks sold blacks into slavery, and whites get the rap for slavery. It was essentially impossible to be prominent in 18th or 19th century confederate states and not be a Christian, so that's a pretty insignificant argument to have with Christianity and slavery.

That was my point.

The suggestion was made that Christianity and liberty are synonyms, and that to believe in liberty, one must also be Christian, or Christian based. The post was to point out that this was a false statement. Christians were also some of the fiercest abolotionist, and that's fine. Again, my point was merely that "Christian" and "Liberal" are not the same thing. Liberal in this case meaning believe in liberty, the more classical use of the word, not the modern one.

ALso as for slavery: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery#Types

It's a good jumping off point, but other good source is Amnesty International and the U.N. for definitions of slavery.

 

[This_person]

The suggestion was made that Christianity and liberty are synonyms, and that to believe in liberty, one must also be Christian, or Christian based. The post was to point out that this was a false statement. Christians were also some of the fiercest abolotionist, and that's fine. Again, my point was merely that "Christian" and "Liberal" are not the same thing. Liberal in this case meaning believe in liberty, the more classical use of the word, not the modern one.

ALso as for slavery: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery#Types

It's a good jumping off point, but other good source is Amnesty International and the U.N. for definitions of slavery.

A similar and equally-important point is that Christianity and slavery are not tied together, either.#

 

[Midnightrider]

I guess we are all bigots and racists if we disagree with you and MR.

Paranoid much.......I thought this thread was about Christianity......

You are bigoted on your own just fine. Disagreeing with me has nothing to do with it.

Please, do tell how the obvious truth is "disingenuous BS".

You should look up the difference between the words "explicit" and "implicit". It would help you in this discussion. Your inference, based on presumption, well, that's not explicit.

The state right they were fighting for was slavery. Like I said, your argument is disingenuous BS.

Jesse' actions and words are explicit. He told slaves to be good salves and masters to be good masters. That is explicit. Jesus did not free a single slave. You can call that implicit if you want, but the reality is that there is nothing in the book that implies Jesus opposed slavery. His explicit words and actions did. Not to mention slavery is explicitly endorsed in the OT, and since its the same god, yes, Jesus, the lord approved of slavery.

 

[Bird Dog]

Jesse' actions and words are explicit. He told slaves to be good salves and masters to be good masters. That is explicit. Jesus did not free a single slave. You can call that implicit if you want, but the reality is that there is nothing in the book that implies Jesus opposed slavery. His explicit words and actions did. Not to mention slavery is explicitly endorsed in the OT, and since its the same god, yes, Jesus, the lord approved of slavery.

Jesus wasn't worried about our lives here. He was concerned about our lives outside of this world.
Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and give to God what is God's. Slave, Free, King, Rich, Poor, they were all equal in the eyes of the Lord.

 

[This_person]

The state right they were fighting for was slavery. Like I said, your argument is disingenuous BS.

Which means that it is a partially true for multiple points of view item, thus, arguable in every way. Thank you for agreeing!

Jesse' actions and words are explicit. He told slaves to be good salves and masters to be good masters. That is explicit. Jesus did not free a single slave. You can call that implicit if you want, but the reality is that there is nothing in the book that implies Jesus opposed slavery. His explicit words and actions did. Not to mention slavery is explicitly endorsed in the OT, and since its the same god, yes, Jesus, the lord approved of slavery.

Please look up the definitions of explicit and implicit. You have every right to argue it is implicit, but it was never explicit. It's an interpretation, and inference on your part

 

[This_person]

Jesus wasn't worried about our lives here. He was concerned about our lives outside of this world.
Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and give to God what is God's. Slave, Free, King, Rich, Poor, they were all equal in the eyes of the Lord.

Which is why I gave the quotes I did You are 100% correct, in my view.

 

[TheLibertonian]

A similar and equally-important point is that Christianity and slavery are not tied together, either.#

And I agree with that, but there are already two people countering that argument quite well so I didn't feel the need to butt in.

 

[Midnightrider]

Which means that it is a partially true for multiple points of view item, thus, arguable in every way. Thank you for agreeing!
Please look up the definitions of explicit and implicit. You have every right to argue it is implicit, but it was never explicit. It's an interpretation, and inference on your part

For you everything is arguable in every way.

 

[This_person]

For you everything is arguable in every way.

As you always are when determining what my position is, you are wrong.

Facts are not arguable. The fact is, there is no explicit condoning by Jesus of slavery.

You certainly have points to argue it is implied, through your inferences as I have points to argue the opposite through the story of the slave whose freedom was sought by a disciple. We have valid arguable points each.

You just can't get around the pesky facts though.

 

[Midnightrider]

As you always are when determining what my position is, you are wrong.

Facts are not arguable. The fact is, there is no explicit condoning by Jesus of slavery.

You certainly have points to argue it is implied, through your inferences as I have points to argue the opposite through the story of the slave whose freedom was sought by a disciple. We have valid arguable points each.

You just can't get around the pesky facts though.

Here is an explicit fact for you

22Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. 23Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, 24since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. 25Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for their wrongs, and there is no favoritism.

 

[ProximaCentauri]

As you always are when determining what my position is, you are wrong.

Facts are not arguable. The fact is, there is no explicit condoning by Jesus of slavery.

You certainly have points to argue it is implied, through your inferences as I have points to argue the opposite through the story of the slave whose freedom was sought by a disciple. We have valid arguable points each.

You just can't get around the pesky facts though.

The god of Abraham explicitly condoned slavery while jesus tacitly condoned slavery. Agreed?

So one important question remains. Is it a sin to own a slave?

If your answer is yes, how would one know that basing one's answer on what god in the OT and jesus in the NT had to say or didn't say regarding this all important question to human morality?

 

[stgislander]

This is beginning to sound like an exercise in Presentism.