Most Evil Person in American History

[OldRegular]

So you support slavery?

Luke 6:31
New International Version (NIV)
31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.

New International Version
The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."

You cannot violate these two commands and support slavery.

You cannot OBEY these two commands and SUPPORT the slaughter of the unborn. I question if anyone can SUPPORT the slaughter of the unborn and LOVE God!

 

[Crabtownboy]

Neither of these "commands" proves slavery is evil.

You cannot keep those commands and have slavery as it was practiced in the USA.

Now since you seem to be saying there is nothing wrong with slavery as long as the master treats the slaves well, that must mean that you do not disapprove of "White Slavery" as long as the pimp treats his women well. After all scripture says nothing about White Slavery.

One can fulfill both, and be a slave holder.

So you are saying your would not mind being treated as a slave?

Again, the Scriptures condemn the ILL TREATMENT but not the slavery.

Again, so if you are treated well, you would not mind being a slave?

Slavery WAS practiced and has ALWAYS been a practice from the earliest records of the world. Statements such as: "There was no such slavery in their times." is just inaccurate.

Not as practiced in the USA. Slaves in that time were not sold as property in the marketplace. They were not hunted as free folk were hunted in Africa.

Slavery at that time was very different than what was practiced here.

Human mistreatment towards other humankind has also been a part of the fabric from the time Cain slew Able.

Remember Paul? What did he do when he encountered Onesimus? He returned him as his brother to Philemon, HOWEVER Paul did not "free" Onesimus. Rather, Paul remarked to Philemon about the treatment he was to give to Onesimus. Just as the Scriptures state above. One can be a slave owner and a business owner and treat the slaves and employees Scripturally.

Paul's actions doe not mean God approved.

I have yet to be shown a place in Scriptures in which slavery is condemned.

Treat others as you want to be treated. Do you want to be treated as slave?

Remember the Hebrews taken into the palace of the king Nebuchadnezzar? He removed their ability to father children. Mistreatment of others is just so basic to heathen hearts.

But not bought and sold as property.

I gave two videos (and there are more) earlier in this thread documenting from the very slaves themselves from their own recorded audio and video statements (you can hear the slaves first hand accounts) showing treatment and loyalty.

True and in the Slave Narratives there are those who said they had good masters. But that did not mean they liked being slaves and did not mean they approved of slavery.

Did mistreatment occur in the US? Certainly.
Was such treatment Godly? NO!

Was such treatment normal? More records are showing that as quite far from the truth.

I would say that ill treatment was the norm.

But was that a reason to erect a view of evil that God does not erect?

Sorry, I have no idea wht you are saying in his sentence.

Prove by Scriptures that God condemns slavery.

Love your neighbor as yourself. You cannot hold a person in bondagae and at the same time love him/her.

 

[agedman]

You cannot keep those commands and have slavery as it was practiced in the USA.

You have no doubt confused obedience to the commands with inability to have total authority over another person's welfare and duties.

They do not.

Not all slavery "as it was practiced in the USA" was brutal and hurtful.

"Property" is to increase in value. If one harms the "property" the value diminishes. Slave holders were businessmen.

According to the historical documentation (some of what I put on line in video form) shows that ill treatment was not brutal and hurtful in the vast majority of the south.

Thomas (Stonewall) Jackson owned (if I recall correctly) about 6 to 9 slaves. Look at the link I provided and see his conduct toward those in whom he had charge as well as his reputation among the slaves.

So you are saying your would not mind being treated as a slave?

Totally not the question.

The question: Is slavery condemned in the Scriptures as evil?

Again, so if you are treated well, you would not mind being a slave?

What I would or would not is not part of deciding what is right and what is evil.

Feelings have very little to do with what is right and wrong in the sight of God.

Not as practiced in the USA. Slaves in that time were not sold as property in the marketplace. They were not hunted as free folk were hunted in Africa.

Again, doesn't matter.

The question: Is slavery condemned in the Scriptures by God as being evil.

Slavery at that time was very different than what was practiced here.

Again, doesn't matter.

The question: Is slavery condemned in the Scriptures by God as being evil.

Human mistreatment towards other humankind has also been a part of the fabric from the time Cain slew Able.

Paul's actions doe not mean God approved.

Doesn't matter.

There is no statement that God disproved the actions and statements of Paul.

Fact is, that Paul's letters are part of the Scriptures, it would show all the more that God did in fact approve.

Treat others as you want to be treated. Do you want to be treated as slave?

Doesn't matter what I "feel."

What matters is what the Scriptures state.

There has been no Scriptures showing that Slavery is evil and not Scriptural.

The treatment is certainly regulated and the Scriptures do speak very specifically about that issue.

But the Scriptures do not condemn slavery as evil.

But not bought and sold as property.

True and in the Slave Narratives there are those who said they had good masters. But that did not mean they liked being slaves and did not mean they approved of slavery.

Doesn't matter. Again, you seem to base what is right and wrong upon what feelings are attached.

There are any number of things that happen to people they may rather not have happen.

The question: Is slavery condemned in the Scriptures as evil.

I would say that ill treatment was the norm.

Sure, you can "say it" but it has no factual foundation. I can just as well make the claim that the slaves were treated very well in comparison to the living conditions of those left in their original homeland. Certainly, the Hebrews had no desire to be enslaved - but they were.

But the real question remains: Is there Scriptural proof that slavery is condemned as evil.

Love your neighbor as yourself. You cannot hold a person in bondagae and at the same time love him/her.

That is merely your own feelings.

There are no prerequisites nor conditions that must be met or the command is disavowed.

The basic question remains: Does Scripture condemn slavery as evil.

The answer - no.

Certainly, the ill treatment of a slave is condemned, but not the condition, itself.

But look carefully at what Paul states in Ephesians 6:

5 Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ; 6 not by way of eye service, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. 7 With good will render service, as to the Lord, and not to men, 8 knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free.
​

See, it isn't slavery is evil; rather, it is that the treatment needed to meet a certain level of expectation both by the slaver holder and the slave.

 

[Crabtownboy]

You have no doubt confused obedience to the commands with inability to have total authority over another person's welfare and duties.

They do not.

So you are saying that women kidnapped, as slaves were, and forced into prostitution must obey their masters and if they do not they deserve to be punished.

After all scripture says noting about kidnapping women and forcing them into prostitution. So, you see nothing wrong with that.

In fact, you are saying it was all right for anyone to kidnap anyone and make them a slave?

 

[agedman]

So you are saying that women kidnapped, as slaves were, and forced into prostitution must obey their masters and if they do not they deserve to be punished.

After all scripture says noting about kidnapping women and forcing them into prostitution. So, you see nothing wrong with that.

In fact, you are saying it was all right for anyone to kidnap anyone and make them a slave?

Obviously, You can't do it.

You cannot show by the clear, plain teaching of Scriptures or Scriptural principle that Slavery is evil.

I am not disputing that evil treatment of slaves is not evil. Such just is not a part of the basic issue.

The claim on this thread is that slavery is evil. I have challenged that view. I expect those who contend for that view to show BY SCRIPTURES the proof that God condemns slavery as evil.

Anecdotal examples of ill treatment has little to do with the basic question proclaiming the institution of slavery, evil, anymore than me posting good treatment demonstrates that God approves of slavery.

I posted a passage in Ephesians.

It concerned the treatment.

It did not condemn the institution.

Btw, kidnapping and forced prostitution is most certainly condemned in Scriptures. The ONLY exception is the conditions of one army winning in battle or capturing a city. They Scripturally took as God authorized without condemnation.

 

[OldRegular]

Not as practiced in the USA. Slaves in that time were not sold as property in the marketplace.

In Rome they fought to the death in the circus!

Love your neighbor as yourself.

You cannot abort a child and at the same time love him/her.

 

[Crabtownboy]

In Rome they fought to the death in the circus!

I do not see what that has to do with the evil of slavery as practiced in America.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Btw, kidnapping and forced prostitution is most certainly condemned in Scriptures. The ONLY exception is the conditions of one army winning in battle or capturing a city. They Scripturally took as God authorized without condemnation.

You just negated your entire argument supporting slavery as practiced in America. All the original slaved had been kidnapped.

 

[Van]

Folks, the good ol boys continue to post slander and fiction.

The South was pro-slavery.

The South seceded before Lincoln took office.

The South Confederate Vice President said slavery was the cause of the split.

The SBC split from the unified Baptists over slavery, rejecting the view that slave ownership made them less than followers of Jesus.

The South fired on Fort Sumter, initiating the hostilities.

The good ol boys falsely claim Lincoln did not care about slavery, but he opposed expansion of slavery into the territories.

Slavery, as practiced in the South was cruel, sinful, vulgar, abusive and mean. The more than 3 million slaves held captive in the South were being beaten, chained, raped, castrated, and murdered.

 

[ktn4eg]

Is not true that the so-called "Great Emanicipater" [Abraham Lincoln] did not free any slaves in the South that were under the occupation of the Union armies in the Confederate States' areas by his "Emancipation Proclamation"?

Is it also not true that President Lincoln did nothing to free the slaves in the northern "Border States" (e.g., Maryland, Delaware) that did not secede from the Union?

 

[OldRegular]

I do not see what that has to do with the evil of slavery as practiced in America.

Statement by agedman
Slavery WAS practiced and has ALWAYS been a practice from the earliest records of the world. Statements such as: "There was no such slavery in their times." is just inaccurate.

Response by CTB
Not as practiced in the USA. Slaves in that time were not sold as property in the marketplace. They were not hunted as free folk were hunted in Africa.

Slavery at that time was very different than what was practiced here.

Just contradicting your argument about slavery in the USA with slavery in History!

 

[OldRegular]

Is not true that the so-called "Great Emanicipater" [Abraham Lincoln] did not free any slaves in the South that were under the occupation of the Union armies in the Confederate States' areas by his "Emancipation Proclamation"?

Is it also not true that President Lincoln did nothing to free the slaves in the northern "Border States" (e.g., Maryland, Delaware) that did not secede from the Union?

You got any evidence showing that the "war monger" Lincoln did those noble acts?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

You got any evidence showing that the "war monger" Lincoln did those noble acts?

Read the Emancipation Proclamation. It had no effect on occupied territory in the South, only behind the battle lines.

 

[Salty]

Folks, the good ol boys continue to post slander and fiction..

Okay lets look at them

The South seceded before Lincoln took office..

Just to amuse us, please list the dates of succession of each State/Commowealth

The South Confederate Vice President said slavery was the cause of the split..

What is a "South Confederate VP?

The SBC split from the unified Baptists over slavery, rejecting the view that slave ownership made them less than followers of Jesus..

1) Baptists - Unified - good joke
2) Have no ideal what you are talking about
(you dont really know SBC history - do you)

The South fired on Fort Sumter, initiating the hostilities..

1) After a legal govt said they were no longer welcome
2) Have you researched the other actions prior to Sumter.

The good ol boys falsely claim Lincoln did not care about slavery, but he opposed expansion of slavery into the territories. .

What was more inportant to Lincoln - A) saving the Union or B) freeing the slaves - Reference please

Slavery, as practiced in the South was cruel, sinful, vulgar, abusive and mean. The more than 3 million slaves held captive in the South were being beaten, chained, raped, castrated, and murdered.

As stated, yes there was cruel treatment of slaves,
But answer this - how many slaves stayed on the plantation after the War of Northern Agression ended?

Van - you have evaded just about every VALID question asked of you.

But please answer this question:
Do you condone Shermans March to the Sea?
A simple yes or no will do

IF you can not answer these question - oh well.....

 

[OldRegular]

Is not true that the so-called "Great Emanicipater" [Abraham Lincoln] did not free any slaves in the South that were under the occupation of the Union armies in the Confederate States' areas by his "Emancipation Proclamation"?

Is it also not true that President Lincoln did nothing to free the slaves in the northern "Border States" (e.g., Maryland, Delaware) that did not secede from the Union?

You are mistaken! Read post #105! Just to save you the trouble I will repost the EP!

The Emancipation Proclamation

President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, as the nation approached its third year of bloody civil war. The proclamation declared "that all persons held as slaves" within the rebellious states "are, and henceforward shall be free."

Despite this expansive wording, the Emancipation Proclamation was limited in many ways. It applied only to states that had seceded from the Union, leaving slavery untouched in the loyal border states. It also expressly exempted parts of the Confederacy that had already come under Northern control. Most important, the freedom it promised depended upon Union military victory.

Although the Emancipation Proclamation did not end slavery in the nation, it captured the hearts and imagination of millions of Americans and fundamentally transformed the character of the war. After January 1, 1863, every advance of federal troops expanded the domain of freedom. Moreover, the Proclamation announced the acceptance of black men into the Union Army and Navy, enabling the liberated to become liberators. By the end of the war, almost 200,000 black soldiers and sailors had fought for the Union and freedom.

From the first days of the Civil War, slaves had acted to secure their own liberty. The Emancipation Proclamation confirmed their insistence that the war for the Union must become a war for freedom. It added moral force to the Union cause and strengthened the Union both militarily and politically. As a milestone along the road to slavery's final destruction, the Emancipation Proclamation has assumed a place among the great documents of human freedom.

The original of the Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 1863, is in the National Archives in Washington, DC. With the text covering five pages the document was originally tied with narrow red and blue ribbons, which were attached to the signature page by a wafered impression of the seal of the United States. Most of the ribbon remains; parts of the seal are still decipherable, but other parts have worn off.

The document was bound with other proclamations in a large volume preserved for many years by the Department of State. When it was prepared for binding, it was reinforced with strips along the center folds and then mounted on a still larger sheet of heavy paper. Written in red ink on the upper right-hand corner of this large sheet is the number of the Proclamation, 95, given to it by the Department of State long after it was signed. With other records, the volume containing the Emancipation Proclamation was transferred in 1936 from the Department of State to the National Archives of the United States.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/fea..._proclamation/

 

[OldRegular]

Originally Posted by Crabtownboy
So you support slavery?

Luke 6:31
New International Version (NIV)
31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.

New International Version
The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."

You cannot violate these two commands and support slavery.

One more time CTB in case you missed it!

You cannot OBEY these two commands and SUPPORT the slaughter of the unborn. I question if anyone can SUPPORT the slaughter of the unborn and LOVE God!

 

[Crabtownboy]

Just contradicting your argument about slavery in the USA with slavery in History!

Slavery in the US was very different than in Biblical times. There was no industry where people went out to kidnap free people and sell them into slavery. There was no wholesale ripping husbands and wives from each other and selling them to different owners. The same for children. There were no plantations with hundreds of slaves.

In Europe slavery was replaced by serfdom. By 1000 a.d. there were no slaves left in Europe. Bathilde, queen of the Franks outlawed slavery of Christians. Slave trade was abolished in England in 1102. By the 11th century canon law lawyers had decreed that slavery was contrary to being a Christian.

How can you defend an institution that lowered people to that of being bought and sold like hogs?

 

[Salty]

...How can you defend an institution that lowered people to that of being bought and sold like hogs?

Like professional athletes?

 

[agedman]

Slavery in the US was very different than in Biblical times. There was no industry where people went out to kidnap free people and sell them into slavery. There was no wholesale ripping husbands and wives from each other and selling them to different owners. The same for children. There were no plantations with hundreds of slaves.

You have produced no documentation to show "Slavery in the US was very different than in Biblical times." That is merely an assumption on your part. The conditions of one becoming a slave does not void what the Scriptures allow or not.

The Israeli's were told to take by force and make slaves as they entered the land. And so did every army of the world until the mid 1800's when a people were conquered.

Taken from Antebellum slavery:

The standard image of Southern slavery is that of a large plantation with hundreds of slaves. In fact, such situations were rare. Fully 3/4 of Southern whites did not even own slaves; of those who did, 88% owned twenty or fewer. Whites who did not own slaves were primarily yeoman farmers. Practically speaking, the institution of slavery did not help these people.
​

In the lower South the majority of slaves lived and worked on cotton plantations. Most of these plantations had fifty or fewer slaves, although the largest plantations have several hundred.

​

The article goes on to discuss the ill treatment of slaves - but that is not in contention and is recognized by all believers as totally ungodly.

Personally, I find slavery abhorrent. What I am attempting to show is that my feelings alone doesn't make slavery evil. Nor does it allow for the North to assume some standard of righteousness to invade the south and cause the death of so very very many.

In Europe slavery was replaced by serfdom. By 1000 a.d. there were no slaves left in Europe. Bathilde, queen of the Franks outlawed slavery of Christians. Slave trade was abolished in England in 1102. By the 11th century canon law lawyers had decreed that slavery was contrary to being a Christian.

You are wrong on your dating, and drawing some fairly inaccurate conclusions.

Look at this documentation: Why Slavery was finally abolished in the British Empire.

How can you defend an institution that lowered people to that of being bought and sold like hogs?

You have YET to answer the basic question and show Slavery was condemned as evil in the Scriptures.

Until one is able to clearly demonstrate proof of that issue the rest of the arguments are totally secondary.

Again no one is arguing as to HOW, or the TREATMENT being evil or not. The Scriptures clearly take on that issue and make very clear statements about each.

However, it is consistently the view of some posters on this thread that the Civil War was fought over slavery.

They present the claim as if the war was then fought from a morally superior position.

However, IF the posters CANNOT show slavery is condemned in the Scriptures as evil, then it follows that the North were the aggressors and were totally unrighteous and at fault for all deaths of the war.

 

[OldRegular]

Slavery in the US was very different than in Biblical times.

In the US slaves were not acquired for the purpose of killing each other to entertain the masses. FYI the circus was the arena in Rome where the gladiators fought!

There was no industry where people went out to kidnap free people and sell them into slavery. There was no wholesale ripping husbands and wives from each other and selling them to different owners. The same for children. There were no plantations with hundreds of slaves.

The blacks sold into slavery were either taken by another tribe or by Muslims and sold to the traders!

In Europe slavery was replaced by serfdom.

Yes and you and the democrat party are well on the way to establish serfdom in this country!

Slave trade was abolished in England in 1102.

That is untrue CTB. You need to check your facts. Slave trade was not abolished by Great Britian until:

It took 46 years, between 1787 and 1833, for Britain to outlaw the slave trade and abolish slavery throughout her colonial possessions. For many people the struggle was over. For others, however, 1833 signalled a new beginning.
http://www.history.uk.com/history/ending-british-slave-trade/

How can you defend an institution that lowered people to that of being bought and sold like hogs?

Crabbie you are a pathetic hypocrite. I have never defended slavery. You are deliberately lying when you say I have. If you can find one place on this thread or this Forum where I defend slavery I will apologize to you.

That being said you are an unethical hypocrite. You accuse me of defending slavery while at the same time you are supporting the practice of slaughtering the unborn. It is simply because of people like you who call themselves Christians that 55,000,000 children have been slaughtered. The practice still continues and you are still WHINING about something that was abolished 150 years ago. Have ypo no conscience? Have you no shame. I see no evidence of it. I hope that God can. But IMO you are an affront and disgrace to the ONE who died for you!.