"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way."
(Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
"If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.’ If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. "
(Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)
"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. "
(Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property."
(Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ."
(Ephesians 6:5 NLT)
"Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them."
(1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)
The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. “But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.”
(Luke 12:47-48 NLT)
64 comments:
But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. - Romans 6:22 (NIV)
Humans have always been used as "livestock" and chattel and are farmed and owned. They still are.
The best con act is to give the illusion that you are "free" and make you believe that you have some choice in the matter, such as with a vote , or freedom of movement. The system controls all sides of the equation, left and right, and creates the
The reality is that we are all beholden to the "Great Babylon" and she owns us and reaps a harvest of us. The Hegelian dialectic has all of us as slaves.
Feastgoer said...
"But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God,"
Unfortunate wording still.
Dennis, you know as well as I that the kind of "slavery" spoken of by Lincoln was condemned in the bible
Exo 21:16 - And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.
You know that is exactly what was done 300 years ago. Africans were stolen from their land by many countries and sold into slavery. That was condemned.
You also know that the type of slavery spoken of in the bible is when one person was indebted to another for whatever reason, they had to work off their debt.
Just as most here in the U.S. are indebted to their mortgage holder, their credit card companies, etc. We have the same kind of slavery but we handle it differently. Rather than working directly for the bank owners or the credit card companies, we still work, get paid, and pay them monthly payments. Most in the U.S. are slaves to their bills.
I hate the cliche/idiom, but you're comparing apples to oranges and you know it, at least you should.
Why do you resort to such arguments when there are much better ones which you have used in the past?
Kevin
The old testament did not have laws supporting slavery like existed in the US. The laws protected slaves and even put time limits on how long you could keep a slave.
It was a form of debt payment and it wasn't unjust and cruel. If you cherry pick scriptures but do not know the law system it is very easy to make accusations. But most people won't bother to respond so the lies go uncontested.
That was then. This is now. For times in which the owning of people was a given, these are not bad ethics or guide lines.
I believe that what we are witnessing here is another indication that not every law or ritual enumerated in the Bible is intended to be literal and eternal. God created the evolutionary process, so knew that mankind would continue to grow and develop.
Of course there will always be those who interpret the Bible soas to believe that one day we’ll return to a low-tech agrarian society in which children’s mates are chosen by their parents, people own other people, we’re all running around in robes and sandals, and our form of government is global totalitarian theocracy. I, on the other hand, look to a future in which goodness is the driving factor in everyone’s character, and beings remain free and able to express this naturally and unfettered in their every behavior.
I have no problem reading the laws and ethics given for a vastly different and more primitive time in history. My problem is with those who would use these vestiges as an excuse for their own inhumanity in the present, as if slavery and other conditions were actually a moral high ground that has been lost.
BB
Anonymous said...
Dennis, you know as well as I that the kind of "slavery" spoken of by Lincoln was condemned in the bible
Actually Kevin, I would not know that as well as you do. The slavery spoken of by the Old Testament should have been condemned by the Bible but was encouraged and clearly defined. Those not Israelite were property and could be used and abused as needed. The indentured type open only to Israelites had a shelf life and a few more humane considerations. All of it was the cultural mindset of the day. Conquered peoples were hauled off into captivities as booty and passed around to the highest bidder.
The NT did not speak up against slavery either in any meaningful way. It just had to slowly die the death of advancing history and inventions that did not need slaves for tractors and combines.
Perhaps a year or so of Bible slavery or even Southern Style, as a non-clan member would help your perspective
These scriptures were used by many a southern slave owner to abuse their slaves and see them as much less than human like themselves. I had church members tell me they were brought up to see African Americans as "monkeys" and one simply could not take them to church with them when I asked if they might give a wonderful family a ride to church. One good ol southern boy told me that "he had nothing against blacks. Everyone should own a few." Stupid lives on and it is Bible based and condoned.
Apples don't fall far from historical trees around here.
PS Your credit card debt and payment obligations are hardly the kind of slavery the Bible is condoning here, as you should know as well as I do.
Puhlease,
Young Lincoln did not run an anti slavery campaign. That would have been political suicide for an aspiring politician.
Perhaps anti slavery morals would have been religious suicide for an aspiring ancient god too.
I do agree with the assettion that most people are slaves. "A world held captive" Great title. Enslaved by Wall Street, the manufacturing of consent by continuous warfare and consumerism, orwellian doublespeak calling fat people "obese", making the world safe for democracy by installing and maintaining terrible dictators, dominate women until metoo, etc etc
I would say 5 billion people at least are slaves. Thats more than just the folk digging for rate materials so my mobile phone can send a message from the toilet to a california blog.
Nck
if you do unto others in a way you would not like done unto you, that is sin...
c f ben yochanan
please stop censoring me...
Israelite type slavery was more of an "indentured" servant type for paying off debts with a time limit. Kinda like some nations "clean slate" programs to assist indebted persons and waive their debts after a set period of repaying by declaration of a judge.
Nck
Dennis, no stupid lives on in those who think they know things that are impossible to know.
As you should know, the credit card debt was an analogy.
The bible was talking about how to treat those who work for you, today they call them employees.
You can deny it all that you want but your "faith" in no way trumps a Christians "faith" whether you like it or not.
You haven't a clue what happened a billion years ago, a million years ago or a thousand years ago. Arrogant matter of fact comments and posts don't make it so!
Kevin
PS If you don't "know" any of that it's because you stubbornly refused to acknowledge it!
Kevin
Back when I subscribed to Ebony Magazine, there was an article by two eminent black university professors debunking the idea of Lincoln as the great emancipator. It’s been years since I read that article, but one fact that I clearly recall was that Lincoln had initially abolished slavery only in the South.
I tried to find a link to that article, and much material on the subject by Lerone Bennett who was later the chief editor at Ebony comes up, but this was a totally different paper from the ‘80s, by two professors. Amazing article and very well documented.
BB
According to Chronicles, Solomon basically enslaved 180,000 non-Israelites to build the temple. A Hebrew slave could go free after 7 or 50 years at the Jubilee. One of the problems in Ezra and Nehemiah's time was making slaves of their fellow citizens for not paying their debts.
You can still be thrown in jail today for not paying government fines. Kind of hard to make debt payments when you are in jail.
Jails have become a profit center for private corporations.
The Old Covenant (OC) seeks to regulate slavery rather than eliminate it. God could have proscribed slavery completely but the decree would have fallen on deaf ears and it may have diminished the level of free will that God wished Israel to have. Diehl is right, the OC gives definition to the institution of slavery. But, we might ask ourselves, what would the institution be like if it were not so defined and regulated.
The New Testament is clear in pointing out that the Israelites did not have the faith to keep the laws of God. Slavery was practiced by other nations and Israel would practice slavery, too. Even the modest regulation required by God in the OC was something that they could not conform to. My guess is that slavery in ancient Israel was much more cruel and brutal than the institution described in the OC. But there was a karmic downside for Israel. Because they ignored the laws and regulations, nasty things happened to them - like the Assyrians, who enslaved the entire nation and transported them to other lands where they learned all about why slavery is bad.
Slavery viewed in isolation, like Diehl has presented it, looks way different from slavery viewed in the context of the history of Israel.
Evolution of a soda can
if you do unto others in a way you would not like done unto you, that is sin...
c f ben yochanan
please stop censoring me...
Colossians 3.21 don't provoke your children least they become discouraged.
So there's no mention of children right to life, to be free from abuse, or right to be treated justly. That's because in Roman times, children and the wife were chattel of the husband. That was the culture of the time. Obviously Paul didn't want to offend the Romans and challenged the status quo big time. The 'do unto others as you would have them treat you' is the closest moral condemnation possible at the time.
Slavery in the OT was practised widely. It was enslave or be enslaved. People don't have a right to a double standard, so they could hardly complain of being enslaved on moral grounds.
Americas huge national debt is enslaving its future generations, so who are they to complain if enslaved in war.
I'm no historian but what I understand about Lincoln is that while he personally was against slavery he once said ending the war and saving the country was his highest priority. If he could end the war while maintaining slavery he said he'd do it, and if he could end the war and end slavery he'd do it, whatever ended the war while maintaining the country.
Kevin
How anyone can quote Exodus 21:2-6, Exodus 21:7-11 and Exodus 21:20-21 pertaining to "slavery" (as translated by the KJV) yet neglect Exo 21:16 which says:
And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.
And then claim that the bible endorses the capturing (stealing) of Africans and selling them into forced slavery is beyond me, and is beyond rationale.
Whatever!
Kevin
This is for you Byker
Kevin
Another one for Bob
Kevin
Kevin
In Lincolns time, the national tide was against slavery. He knew that saving the country by keeping it whole, would eventually result in the abolition of slavery.
Kevin notes: "yet neglect Exo 21:16 which says: And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death
The emphasis is on stealing a man. It was wrong to steal them, one needed to purchase them fair and square.
as noted: ""However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way."
(Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
Love the "but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way"
3:34pm Who are we to blame if we are enslaved in war? Our forefathers of course. Problem is that many "white" U.S. citizens have more slave blood in them than our first black President had. I know I do. I have records of my great, great, great, great, great, great, grandfather fighting in the Revolutionary war and he was listed as mulatto in the military records.
I believe this country will surely pay for the sins of our fathers, both because of slavery and the 50 off million babies that have been aborted.
While other countries love to judge us, if one just researched the slave trade, the rest of the world was fully engaged in it before the U.S. for involved.
That's no excuse of course. Stealing Africans and forcing them into slavery was evil and there's enough blame to go around the world!!!!!
Kevin
In that same letter you refer to, he states that that explanation was what he perceived as his official duty as the President. Then he went on to explain to the addressee that his "oft-stated personal wish" was "that all men everywhere could be free" and that he did not intend to modify it by his clarification of his official duty. Hence why he initially supported colonization, then publically spoke in favor of complete emancipation, culminating in his address to ex-slaves in Richmond where he said "You are now free, and if any man tells you that you are not, take the sword and teach them that you are."
"The emphasis is on stealing a man. It was wrong to steal them, one needed to purchase them fair and square."
Yet you likened biblical slavery to the slave trade here in the U.S. Big difference.
Just how do you know that these strangers didn't sell themselves into slavery/service (service is all the word means) because of debt? I don't know, but I do know that to be a plausible conclusion. What you're doing is making assumptions and presenting them as fact.
You're also reading things into the text based upon the English usage of the word "slavery". The Hebrew word ebed merely means servant or worker.
Dennis, you can believe what you want. I don't care, and I'm not going to argue the point with you.
Good on you Kevin. Nice to know someone else has an open mind!
I have always read widely soas to absorb everything from all segments of the racial, socio-economic, and political spectra. I listen to conservative talk radio, and NPR, and over the years have subscribed to black and Hispanic publications and while I have dated primarily in the Hispanic community, there were also a few black ladies along the way. So, I was aware of the materials you posted. However, I get the feeling some of the rest of the fine folks around here would benefit from some broadened horizons and perspectives, so am grateful that you put up those links. Hope everyone checks them out!
BB
Kevin said: “You also know that the type of slavery spoken of in the bible is when one person was indebted to another for whatever reason, they had to work off their debt. Just as most here in the U.S. are indebted to their mortgage holder, their credit card companies, etc. We have the same kind of slavery but we handle it differently. Rather than working directly for the bank owners or the credit card companies, we still work, get paid, and pay them monthly payments. Most in the U.S. are slaves to their bills.”
Anonymous 10:55 said: “The old testament did not have laws supporting slavery like existed in the US. The laws protected slaves and even put time limits on how long you could keep a slave. It was a form of debt payment and it wasn't unjust and cruel.”
nck said: “Israelite type slavery was more of an ‘indentured’ servant type for paying off debts with a time limit.”
Kevin said: “How anyone can quote Exodus 21:2-6, Exodus 21:7-11 and Exodus 21:20-21 pertaining to ‘slavery’ (as translated by the KJV) yet neglect Exo 21:16...then claim that the bible endorses the capturing (stealing) of Africans and selling them into forced slavery is beyond me, and is beyond rationale.”
Anonymous 4:40 said: “...Yet you likened biblical slavery to the slave trade here in the U.S. Big difference. Just how do you know that these strangers didn't sell themselves into slavery/service (service is all the word means) because of debt? I don't know, but I do know that to be a plausible conclusion. What you're doing is making assumptions and presenting them as fact. You're also reading things into the text based upon the English usage of the word ‘slavery’. The Hebrew word ebed merely means servant or worker.”
Right on y’all!
To add:
1) Most “free” people in America are wage slaves.
2 Slavery based on the color of skin, which was legal in America until the Civil War, is nowhere sanctioned in the Bible.
BB
The initial political question called to Lincolns attention was not about ABOLISHING slavery at all.
New STATES were added to the USA. The question was whether they should implement NORTHERN laws or SOUTHERN practice.
The southern states felt that by implementing northern practice in the NEW states their economy was threatened, which was (70%??) slave dependent.
When the CIVIL WAR broke out SLAVE HOLDING STATES joined "the NORTH"
(Kentucky? Have to look it up.)
Lincoln as a young politician also is politically ambivalent regarding americas original sin, even as his personal views may have been in favor of freedom for all. (except women of course)
Nck
God advised Israel against a King.
He just works with "the will of the people" as expressed through their respective cultures.
I have read the mistaken notion on this blog that God would send the great tribulation, whereas armstrongism merely teaches that god allows man to continue its erroneous ways by implementing it themselves.
In the 16th - 17th century no Christian Nation traded slaves on their own soil.
Especially not the ones that saw themselves as Israel delivered from the Habsburg Pharaoh through their protestant (moses) type princes. Even if those nations may have been the largest traders, they never brought them to the "nations of israel" or "the pleasant green hills, where jesus walked", home so to say.
Nck
It all ends up being like the old Chinese parable about the blind men describing the elephant, nck.
There were numerous causes, patterns of thought, matters of conscience, political positions, etc. Basically, the Civil War was America’s repentance from the evils and sin of slavery. That is the boil down. President Lincoln may have made a number of questionable decisions, but he definitely had a well-developed sense of social justice, which is what the USA was largely founded upon, and has always distinguished us from much of the rest of the world. And, he paid the ultimate price as do many warriors.
BB
Well the fossil record, carbon dating, and background radiation gives us some idea of what happened. That’s thanks to scientific inquiry though.
BB
True. I'm a great fan of Lincoln.
I'm just saying he was ALSO a product of his time.
I guess you knew all that, that slave holding states had joined the North to fight the seccession states and the issues that were really discussed in Congress at the time.
nck
"For two hundred years, 1440-1640, Portugal had a monopoly on the export of slaves from Africa. It is notable that they were also the last European country to abolish the institution -- although, like France, it still continued to work former slaves as contract laborers, which they called libertos or engagés à temps. It is estimated that during the 4 1/2 centuries of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, Portugal was responsible for transporting over 4.5 million Africans (roughly 40% of the total)."
and:
"During the eighteenth century, however, when the slave trade accounted for the transport of a staggering 6 million Africans, Britain was the worst transgressor -- responsible for almost 2.5 million. (This is a fact that is often forgotten by those who regularly cite Britain's prime role in the abolition of the slave trade.) "
From:
History of African Slave Trade
It's always hilarious how Britain and Europe always try to claim the moral high ground over the U.S.
As I said earlier, there's enough blame to circle the world!
Kevin
The posting was meant to highlight what the Bible says about slavery. Not what I say and not about American Slave trade and practices in the past though the Bible was used to justify it. The Bible does not correct itself over 2000 years into the times of the First Century Church. The Apostles tweek it a bit but clearly even Jesus was familiar with the concept and spoke not a thing about it. (Or the Gospel writers did putting words in the character of Jesus did).
Here we have a God/Culture/Book that promotes slavery with all it's horrors for the person, family, child, woman inslaved to another no matter how you think it was having no problem doing so to another human being. Yet this same God cares about men not cutting the hair on the sides of their heads, the food Israelites ate or did not eat and whether their clothes were made out of one fabric only or not. Classic case of majoring in the minors by Priests speaking on behalf of the gods.
The Post is about the Biblical okness of slavery and the rules applied to those who are the chosen ones vs those who are not of the clan. The Bible verses cited are responsible for the ignorance of both the Israelites of the day and Christians along the way who seek their behaviors and permission to be so from the Bible.
The Bible is the problem or , may I be so kind, the way people read it to justify their no common sense and "glad that didn't apply to me and my family" rules.
If one thinks they can clean up and apologize for the Biblical injunctions and make them mean less than they actually meant and how they were applied to real people was not so bad, you are kidding yourself and apologizing for the Priests who actually made up the rules implying that they had the mind of their God in doing so. "God told me..." or "God wants us to..." is a dangerous game still used to control the gullible to this day
The opening quote should have been: “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”
― Voltaire, Questions sur les Miracles à M. Claparede, Professeur de Théologie à Genève, par un Proposant: Ou Extrait de Diverses Lettres de M. de Voltaire
"Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever."
The way it works in today's world is instead of the piercing, you put a blue or red vest on your servant, as Walmart, Lowes or Home Depot does, and/or make them wear a name tag with their name and the emblem of their current "master", McDonalds, Wendys, Sears etc. etc. etc.
Are things really that different today?
Diehl wrote: "Here we have a God/Culture/Book that promotes slavery with all it's horrors for the person, family, child, woman..."
That statement is political spin. The Bible does not promote slavery but regulates it. See my earlier comments.
I could state: "Atheism promotes slavery with all it's horrors for the person, family, child, woman..." And my support for this is that I don't see atheists standing in line to oppose slavery - still a big problem in our world - whereas Christian Abolitionism has been a huge movement. My Great-Great-Grandfather, a Quaker, ran a way station on the Underground Railroad. I don't find hisitorical references to atheists doing anything like that.
Diehl's view of the Biblical position on slavery is a contrivance in support of missionary atheism.
Another point is what would you rather be: a Christian who has some foundation for opposing slavery or a atheist who has none?
Why would an atheist even care what the Bible says about slavery? Atheists do not believe there is absolute good and absolute evil - its all a matter of opinion. The closest atheists can come to some kind of morality is an impoverished ethical stance derived from Darwinian natural selection. So if an atheist determines that enslaving others is a good way to enhance the survivability of his/her own offspring, then slavery is perfectly fine.
NEO
Atheists should be EXTREMELY concerned about any group, book or person expressing the possibility of enslaving them. EAT or be EATEN.
Hunanists should be extremely concerned about sources talking about differences between man rather than our commonalities.
I see no reason why anyone should not speak out against certain INTERPRETATIONS of Islam, Racist Judaism an especially some versions of christianity where thousands of priests saw fit to abuse hundred thousands of children over the centuries.
Nck
You are so flabbergastingly horrifically wrong in your opinions.
Millions of atheist Africans did NOT favor slavery. Dont tell me that the Africans had no business opposing slavery, because they were not christian.
You smug NO nothings. The smugness of the blog "christians" is beyond words.
Nck
I do applaud the Quaker underground.
However because of the smug comment doing a disservice to the Quakers I will add that far more communist atheists died battling fascism than christians.
As a matter of fact the germans were christians.
Nck
When I was an atheist, attempting to convince others in various ways that the Bible was flawed, conflicted, immoral, and invalid, the ways in which readers shifted the threads always bothered me, too. Certain readers seemed impervious. “How could they not get it?” was a question that frequently went through my mind.
The really nagging questions from the other side were “What about the law of Biogenesis?” “Where did human consciousness come from?” Atheists who came to my support would do their best to explain that scientists had almost created life, and probably would succeed within our lifetimes. Unfortunately, that had a hollow ring to it. It seemed like a new application for “within the next 3-5 years”.
Anyone from either side who believes that they will eventually totally blow away the other side in this debate, amassing numerous converts, will only end up frustrated. Most people ultimately come to positions which support who they always were on a core level. That frustrates those whom they end up resisting. It makes salesmen repeat themselves, and attempt to develop the perfect argument, the perfect set of convincing words, unassailable logic.
Most of us here are accustomed to manipulation and recognize it for what it is. That’s how we got into the bogussness of Armstrongism in the first place. We let another man argue us into an intellectual corner. We learned from this that at some point, it is best to stop listening to compulsive manipulators.
BB
NCK:
For millions of atheist Africans (Is that really true?) who fear being enslaved, opposing slavery would be a survival issue not a moral one. It would only be moral if they defined their morality with reference to Darwinian natural selection, which some atheists do.
One would think that a good Atheist would understand survival of the fittest. Mankind has always had those who are very capable of taking care of themselves and those who are barely able if at all.
In our system today we have food stamps, welfare, SSI Disability to take care of those who aren't the fittest. We even have many lazy "fit" people taking advantage of such, but that's another subject.
Mankind didn't have such a system millenia ago, so what did those who weren't the fittest do? Starve to death? Die from the elements?
Or did they take hold of one of the fittest and sell himself into "slavery"? Not really slavery as we perceive it today, but a servant, a butler if you will, a maid, a cook, whatever job that was needed.
So God gave laws to protect these individuals else they really be taken advantage of.
So we have the least of the fit either starving, dying from the elements, or taken care of by their "master" who was one of the "fittest".
Seems like a great "evolutionary" system for the weak amongst us.
Or is it just another subject to bitch on the bible about?
Nck said: "Millions of atheist Africans did NOT favor slavery. Dont tell me that the Africans had no business opposing slavery, because they were not christian."
You might want to do some research before making ignorant comments.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_African_religions
Africans were not atheists, at least not most of them. You do know that being non-Christian doesn't make one an atheist don't you?
The Germans may have been Christians (not as a monolith), nck, but they certainly did not take the moral high road in any way, shape, or form. Neither, of course, did the Italians, in spite of the presence of the Pope.
BB
Christians aren't moral, that's why we need a savior.
Kevin
Gotta love the armchair amateur historians on this blog.
The educational propaganda has clearly worked, as the "War of Northern Aggression" had NOTHING to do with slavery and EVERYTHING to do with STATE'S RIGHTS.
Lincoln was a dictatorial tyrant.
Kevin.
I merely reacted to the notion that as if the enslaved could not philosophize that "something is not right here on this ship." As if one needs a book to explain that.
Modern psychology finds that the smallest of children also exhibit natural altruistic behavior, like sharing, when they are confronted with a crying doll.
The social system resulted from the rich merchants realizing that their sons and daughters died from the diseases the poor spread in the cities.
By the standards of this blog only an extreme minority of humans are atheists. Since religion is part of the human make up anyway. For some sportsman they are just rudimentary rituals for others todays horoscope. Humans need contact with a "higher level." As they do with equals. Babies die when no one touches them or talks to them, no matter how much you feed them.
As for the bible. I believe it worked with the culture of the day to make a point. Just as HWA did. Later generations might disagree with the culture of the day.
Nck
6:55 I said that the question started with the position of new states within the Union. Your position depends on the opinion if a State may decide to seccede. I wonder what your position might be if Texas decided to be a Federal State of Germany, California would seccede and join Canada in Commonwealth and perhaps decimated england without scotland and ireland (eu) would ask for joining a new england state cluster.
(Reshuffles like this have happened in the past.)
Nck
States rights? More of us would be sypathetic to that point of view if your ancestors hadn't chosen the right to own their fellow humans as the first test case.
11:07 said “States rights? More of us would be sypathetic to that point of view if your ancestors hadn't chosen the right to own their fellow humans as the first test case.”
Therein lies the problem imo. The issue be it abortion, capital punishment, religion, slavery, marijuana, marriage, seceeding, etc. is irrelevant. Either the State is free to legislate in accordance with its State’s citizens wishes on any issue of importance or not. The morality of the decision isn’t the Federal government’s to make and to usurp. And the Union was freely entered into by the States as free States. Thus, they should be able to leave if they so choose for whatever grievance just as the Declaration of Independence asserted. They weren’t agreeing to join a form of USSR.
5:46am said: "Therein lies the problem imo. The issue be it abortion, capital punishment, religion, slavery, marijuana, marriage, seceeding, etc. is irrelevant. Either the State is free to legislate in accordance with its State’s citizens wishes on any issue of importance or not. The morality of the decision isn’t the Federal government’s to make and to usurp. And the Union was freely entered into by the States as free States. Thus, they should be able to leave if they so choose for whatever grievance just as the Declaration of Independence asserted. They weren’t agreeing to join a form of USSR."
While I agree in part, my only question is, does that list include murder? If one state legalized murder and I'm from another state, can I and my intended "unknowing" victim travel from my state to the "murder is legal" state to do the deed, and then once I travel back home, all is well?
Doesn't living in a "United" Stated of America mean something?
I believe in limited government but common sense must (or should) abound.
Kevin
Lincoln wanted to send the slaves back to Africa. He was right.
Whites are the LEAST guilty. All other races took more slaves and treated them worse.
Gosh! For a minute there, I thought I’d accidentally gotten on Parler!
BB
2:29 Sir.
The bible stance/christian interpretation regarding slavery is the topic here. Or at least if the good book meets universal standards.
All of humanity took a spear and placed it in Jesus' side. The wages of sin are death. That is even a sinful thought or a simple lie.
2:26 is wrong. The "sending back idea" is interesting though in light of the history of Liberia. Since a lot of wcg ideas were 19th century. The millennial re migration theory in my opinion did not ultimately stem from a racist idea on race but rather an enlightened "christian american" solution as executed in Liberia.
Nck
Anonymous 2:26 PM said: "Lincoln wanted to send the slaves back to Africa. He was right."
According to this New York Daily Tribune article dated August 15, 1862 this is correct.
Anti-theists just want to paint the bible in a bad light regardless of the facts. What the bible actually teaches seems to be ignored in favor of sensational cherry picking.
Tithes were suppoesed to go the foreigners living in Israel. Think about that for a minute. That was law. There are so many misunderstandings about what the bible teaches there will always be ammunition for anti-theists to throw a fit over.
Kevin said: "While I agree in part, my only question is, does that list include murder? If one state legalized murder and I'm from another state, can I and my intended 'unknowing' victim travel from my state to the 'murder is legal' state to do the deed, and then once I travel back home, all is well?
Doesn't living in a 'United' Stated of America mean something?
I believe in limited government but common sense must (or should) abound."
I agree that common sense must abound, but you know what is said about common sense...that it's not very common ;-)
Re your question about a State legalizing murder and the implication that it would be incumbent upon the Fed to override such and to impose its view upon the State, well, all I can say is that such a state of affairs has existed in the US for decades with respect to the murder of unborn children (abortion). However, it's the opposite in the sense that abortion was illegal in 30 States prior to 1973, but then after Roe vs Wade the Fed mandated its legalization nationwide. Likewise if one views "assisted suicide" as murder too then you'll note it's legal in 9 States and DC, but illegal in the rest of the nation. Perhaps in the not too distant future the Fed will likewise legalize it nationwide?
Either way I don't see anything wrong with someone moving across States if they disagree with the laws of the State they currently inhabit. But, I disagree with the Fed imposing its will on free States (especially via violent means!) that voluntarily joined the Union and have every right to leave it if the State's citizens so choose. Not unlike the UK choosing to leave the EU. Does the UK, as a sovereign nation (or nation-state), have to go to war just to leave a Union they originally voluntarily joined?
I didn't read the article yet. But I cannot imagine anyone of good will sending "slaves" back.
Nck
I certainly see nothing wrong with accountability! Each part of any union is beholden to maintaining the ethics, ideals and standards of the union itself. In its best form, if an individual state aspired to upgrading the standards of the collective, the union becomes elevated, stronger, and more exemplary. Fighting to maintain antequated, lowest of low standards is not progress. It is a reversal.
I'm also informed by "The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down". The "Yankees" were excessive and punitive. I don't believe that any of us can be 100% proud of our ancestors' behavior. It's been said that more American citizens died in the Civil War than in any other in the history of our country.
At original SEP in Texas, the Civil War was refought frequently amongst the campers in the booths. We learned a lot of stuff that wasn't taught in the history books in our public schools. In fact, that education was one of the biggest take aways from the summer. It was stuff we had never even discussed at church. I still remember conversations like Camper #1: "Know what his problem is?" Camper #2 (winking) "Yup! He's a Yankee!"
BB
Post a Comment