U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-24-2016, 01:32 PM
 
Location: Emmaus, PA
3,018 posts, read 2,060,045 times
Reputation: 2149

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC View Post
You don't know what He would do.
YES- I do - because I actually believe the Gospels and not the ultraconservative garbage that is taught as Christianity.

 
Old 03-24-2016, 01:33 PM
Status: "Even better than okay" (set 9 days ago)
 
Location: Coastal New Jersey
51,228 posts, read 50,519,955 times
Reputation: 60110
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC View Post
People can justify anything using almost any source.

The Bible acknowledges slavery existed... its position is neutral with regards to slavery.

The Bible denounces any mistreatment and abuse of people. That's where people went wrong in America past.
Now this one I agree with.
 
Old 03-24-2016, 01:35 PM
 
Location: USA
3,027 posts, read 1,049,278 times
Reputation: 870
Quote:
Originally Posted by janelle144 View Post
True, but it was also Christians who put a stop to it. It was overturned and laws can be overturned again.

Southern ministers and slave owners quoted from the bible and noted that not only does the Bible not condemn slavery, it specifies standards by which slaves are to be treated. The Bible treats slavery as if it were a natural state of the human condition.

27f. The Southern Argument for Slavery
"Defenders of slavery noted that in the Bible, Abraham had slaves. They point to the Ten Commandments, noting that "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, ... nor his manservant, nor his maidservant." In the New Testament, Paul returned a runaway slave, Philemon, to his master, and, although slavery was widespread throughout the Roman world, Jesus never spoke out against it." The Southern Argument for Slavery [ushistory.org]

Southern Justification of Slavery
"With regard to the assertion that slavery is against the spirit of Christianity, we are ready to admit the general assertion, but deny most positively that there is anything in the Old or New Testament which would go to show that slavery, when once introduced, ought at all events to be abrogated, or that the master commits any offense in holding slaves. The children of Israel themselves were slaveholders and were not condemned for it. All the patriarchs themselves were slaveholders; Abraham had more than three hundred, Isaac had a "great store" of them; and even the patient and meek Job himself had "a very great household." When the children of Israel conquered the land of Canaan, they made one whole tribe "hewers of wood and drawers of water," and they were at that very time under the special guidance of Jehovah; they were permitted expressly to purchase slaves of the heathen and keep them as an inheritance for their posterity; and even the children of Israel might be enslaved for six years."
Southern Justification of Slavery


The Religious Defense of American Slavery Before 1830

"The foundation upon which the slaveholding ethic and the proslavery argument was built was the scriptural defense of slavery."

"Nearly every proslavery pamphlet, or article, or speaker made at least some reference to a biblical sanction of slavery. The reason for such a position should be clear. From the very beginning much of the attack upon slaveholding had always been upon moral grounds. Opponents of slavery claimed that it was a sin to hold slaves; the principle of right and wrong involved with slavery became fundamental to the argument. The South's use of the Bible to defend slavery and the master-slave relationship was thus an attempt to erect a moral defense of slavery. The emphasis from proslavery defenders was always upon a literal reading of the Bible which represented the mind and will of God himself. Slaveholding was not only justified but also moral because it was recognized as such in Holy Scripture. Slavery's defenders relied on this literal reading as a response to the emphasis upon the "principles of Christianity" used by those opposed to slavery. Proslavery advocates continually contrasted the Tightness of their position, based on such a literal biblical reading, to the open-ended interpretive religion implied by those opposed to slavery. In 1820, for example, in the midst of the debates over Missouri statehood, the Richmond Enquirer went to elaborate lengths in a long editorial to emphasize the literal truth of the Bible and its sanction of slavery. After a long section giving various scriptural sanctions, the article concluded by giving "a plain concise statement of certain propositions that we presume few faithful believers will controvert." There were five propositions: I That the volume of sacred writings commonly called the bible, comprehending the old and new Testaments, contains the unerring decisions of the word of God." http://www.kingscollege.net/gbrodie/...ore%201830.pdf
 
Old 03-24-2016, 01:44 PM
 
Location: Gulf Coast Texas
26,198 posts, read 14,096,059 times
Reputation: 10087
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801 View Post
It is true, though. In my neck of the historical woods, it was the Quakers running the Underground Railroad to a large degree. Conservative NJ was sympathizing with the south because of the large manufacturing industry that sold cheap clothes and shoes to southerners for their slaves. Jersey only sided with the Union for self-preservation reasons due to its location.

Liberal means adhering to ideals of liberty or freedom. For everybody, not just the ones who have the money or the power or belong to the right clubs. That WAS Jesus's position. He was inclusive.

I'm the opposite of programmed. I was raised to believe like you do--some of us are chosen/better than others/favored by God. I rejected that thinking as an adult. Now it creeps me out how some of you are so delighted by the thought that others might undergo some sort of eternal punishment or that they deserve to be poor or not have medical care while they're still here.
In my case, delete the bold...

The underlined is not accurate. That is not what liberal means.

Liberal means - not literal or strict (a liberal translation); not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms; marked by generosity (a liberal giver)
 
Old 03-24-2016, 02:09 PM
 
32,538 posts, read 29,333,321 times
Reputation: 32238
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC View Post
Dang - you guys are really programmed. Everything is liberal. Underground railroad - liberal. Jesus Christ - liberal. Ending slavery - liberal. All things good are only liberal. Amazing.
Really? You've got the nerve to label me as "programmed" and tell me what I should or shouldn't believe about people whose blood I carry?




On second thought....of course you do.

Most far-right fundamentalists excel at thought control and telling other people what, and how, to think. Which is why they are threatened every time someone comes along and expresses an opinion they don't like.

Last edited by DewDropInn; 03-24-2016 at 02:18 PM..
 
Old 03-24-2016, 02:23 PM
 
Location: WV and Eastport, ME
10,275 posts, read 10,383,387 times
Reputation: 6937
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC View Post
In my case, delete the bold...

The underlined is not accurate. That is not what liberal means.

Liberal means - not literal or strict (a liberal translation); not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms; marked by generosity (a liberal giver)
In the US political arena, the term "liberal" was originally used to represent a belief that the government was free to enact any legislation that was not forbidden by the Constitution, while a "conservative" was originally a term used for a belief that the government could only do what it was specifically empowered to do by the Constitution. I doubt there is a definition of "liberal" or "conservative" that everyone would agree to accept.
__________________
Moderator posts are in RED.
City-Data Terms of Service: http://www.city-data.com/terms.html
 
Old 03-24-2016, 02:29 PM
 
32,538 posts, read 29,333,321 times
Reputation: 32238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801 View Post
It is true, though. In my neck of the historical woods, it was the Quakers running the Underground Railroad to a large degree.
It was Amish, Moravians and other hard-headed Germans who thought slavery was sinful and an offense to God in my people's neck of the woods.
 
Old 03-24-2016, 02:43 PM
 
Location: Gulf Coast Texas
26,198 posts, read 14,096,059 times
Reputation: 10087
Quote:
Originally Posted by DewDropInn View Post
Really? You've got the nerve to label me as "programmed" and tell me what I should or shouldn't believe about people whose blood I carry?




On second thought....of course you do.

Most far-right fundamentalists excel at thought control and telling other people what, and how, to think. Which is why they are threatened every time someone comes along and expresses an opinion they don't like.
I am not down playing anything your relatives did.

But between you, Warden, the mightyqueen - and the liberal descriptor used - everything good seems to go in the liberal box.

I guess the thing to me is when Jesus is put in the box. He is beyond any box - liberal, conservative, whatever.

I have not... and am not telling you or anyone else want to think... I don't care. If anything, I am just giving you guys back what I am reading on these posts.
 
Old 03-24-2016, 02:45 PM
 
Location: Gulf Coast Texas
26,198 posts, read 14,096,059 times
Reputation: 10087
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy View Post
In the US political arena, the term "liberal" was originally used to represent a belief that the government was free to enact any legislation that was not forbidden by the Constitution, while a "conservative" was originally a term used for a belief that the government could only do what it was specifically empowered to do by the Constitution. I doubt there is a definition of "liberal" or "conservative" that everyone would agree to accept.
I got the definition(s) from the Merriam Webster webpage... just a strict definition of the term.
 
Old 03-24-2016, 02:47 PM
 
Location: Gulf Coast Texas
26,198 posts, read 14,096,059 times
Reputation: 10087
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801 View Post
Now this one I agree with.

Thank you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top