Taking Richmond

[Van]

Well, apparently you are reading into what you want it to say.

Sir, please stop talking about my behavior and address the issue. The acceptance of slavery by Christian leaders introduced a destructive heresy into the body of Christ.

The northern baptists did not split from the southern baptists over sweat shops.

Any professing Christians who presents rationalizations to justify slavery is unstudied and wrong.

 

[Van]

Again, lies.
My implication is study history through the lens of its time. Two wrongs do not make a right, but one can not sanctimoniously ignore their wrong while pointing out the wrongs of another. Slavery was evil, but the North had its own evils. You meed to look at the international slave trade. Who engaged in it. How were the slaves obtained. When did it end. After its end, what did many former slave traders do after the abolishment of import?
Who rounded up slaves in Africa?
You try to over simplify a complicated time in world history.

Mr Reynolds again disparages me and does not address the issue. Pay no attention to those who present rationalizations to justify slavery.

Sweat shop labor in the North was as brutal as or worse than slavery. The implication is that two wrongs make a right, since people were exploited in the north, exploiting blacks in the south is just as "ok."

 

[Van]

That response exhibits no understanding of my statement, and badly mischaracterizes it. It did not attempt to justify slavery, and made no mention of slave trading, which is also worse than slavery. So, contrary to your claim, there are things worse than slavery. Murdering one's own unborn children out of convenience is far worse than slavery. Those complaining about past slavery and yet engaging in such a gross evil today are especially deceived. Saying so justifies none of it.

RT claims abortion is worse than slavery. So what. Does that mean slavery is not a horrific ungodly abomination? Nope
Pay no attention to those who try to justify slavery as "not as bad as ...."

 

[Jerome]

or say 'well don't we all have skeletons' in the face of such vile stuff.

Reformed theologian R. L. Dabney's POST Civil War foulness:

"we know that the African has become, according to a well-known law of natural history, by the manifold influences of the ages, a different, fixed species of the race, separated from the white man by traits bodily, mental and moral, almost as rigid and permanent as those of genus. Hence the offspring of an amalgamation must be a hybrid race, stamped with all the feebleness of the hybrid, and incapable of the career of civilization and glory as an independent race. And this apparently is the destiny which our conquerors have in view. If indeed they can mix the blood of the heroes of Manassas with this vile stream from the fens of Africa"

 

[Van]

Here is a link to an article on misuse of scripture to rationalize slavery.
How Christian Slaveholders Used the Bible to Justify Slavery

 

[just-want-peace]

I would think that rather than ASSUMING what a person means, when not SPECIFICALLY stated, one would ask first for a clarification.
Many a “hoof & mouth disease” would be avoided if such were practiced.
IMHO, of course!

 

[Reynolds]

Mr Reynolds again disparages me and does not address the issue. Pay no attention to those who present rationalizations to justify slavery.

Sweat shop labor in the North was as brutal as or worse than slavery. The implication is that two wrongs make a right, since people were exploited in the north, exploiting blacks in the south is just as "ok."

Again, your commentary.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

RT claims abortion is worse than slavery. So what. Does that mean slavery is not a horrific ungodly abomination? Nope
Pay no attention to those who try to justify slavery as "not as bad as ...."

That's just twisting another's words, which perhaps you would better understand if someone were to interpret your objections as amounting to an approval of abortion.

You asked, "So what?" Well, here is the so what. The big difference here is that slavery was outlawed long ago, whereas abortion on demand is protected and encouraged. If slavery were still legal, there would be need of standing against laws protecting and encouraging it.

As it is, those who actively oppose the slavery of the past, already deemed wrong and outlawed, are pushing and practicing a particularly hideous form of murder when they should be calling for it to be outlawed. That degree of hypocrisy is outrageous, completely indefensible, and should be called out.

Given the way you are twisting the argument, why shouldn't your apparent defense of these hypocrites be interpreted to mean that you are in essence approving abortion?

 

[Salty]

Any professing Christians who presents rationalizations to justify slavery is unstudied and wrong.

Who is justifying slavery

 

[atpollard]

Utter nonsense, and once again we see the two wrongs make a right demonic argument. If a shipper of slaves used the "tight pack" method of loading their slave ship, it was not uncommon for about 50% of the "cargo" to die on the voyage.

Is that really, in your opinion, the absolute most horrible act of depravity ever committed?
The comment made was that nothing was worse than slavery, and someone suggested that abortion for convenience was more depraved. That does not make slavery “good”, it just challenges the assumption that slavery is the greatest evil possible.

Are you really prepared to defend slavery as the absolute greatest evil? Worse than the purges of Stalin or the Khmer Rouge? Worse than the Nazi death camps? Worse than abortion or sacrificing infants in the fires of Molech? Is there really no evil greater than slavery?

 

[atpollard]

Really? I'm sorry, but I don't think that nothing could match being out in the hot sun all day in the fields with nothing but a hovel to go back to at night and with nothing but the promise of another day in the hot fields.

Read about the life, and life expectancy, of a chimney sweep. Then get back to me on that opinion.

 

[Van]

Again, your commentary.

Again addressing the poster, rather than the position. Pay no attention to those who advocate that slavery was not a godless abomination but use implication to facilitate plausible deniability.

 

[Van]

That's just twisting another's words, which perhaps you would better understand if someone were to interpret your objections as amounting to an approval of abortion.

You asked, "So what?" Well, here is the so what. The big difference here is that slavery was outlawed long ago, whereas abortion on demand is protected and encouraged. If slavery were still legal, there would be need of standing against laws protecting and encouraging it.

As it is, those who actively oppose the slavery of the past, already deemed wrong and outlawed, are pushing and practicing a particularly hideous form of murder when they should be calling for it to be outlawed. That degree of hypocrisy is outrageous, completely indefensible, and should be called out.

Given the way you are twisting the argument, why shouldn't your apparent defense of these hypocrites be interpreted to mean that you are in essence approving abortion?

LOL, abortionists say it is about "women's reproductive rights" and those who honor the defenders of slavery say it is about abortion. Good grief, Miss Molly.

 

[Van]

Who is justifying slavery

Lets see, those who call me a liar. Those that say I am twisting words. Those that say my words indicate

Here is my post, in case the massive number of deflections has hidden it:
Some the folks who wore blue and won the war were Pennsylvania farm boys, not yet 16 years old. I think Christ's ministry was deeply hindered by those who twisted scripture such that slavery was not condemned as a horrific abomination. How many wearing gray died thinking they were on the side of God? When thinking about Portland, do we consider that God visits the inquiries of our fathers down to the third and fourth generation. All through my life I could see the smoke, but nobody poured water on it, and now the godless Marxists are pouring gasoline on it. Make a list of destructive heresies.

 

[Van]

Is that really, in your opinion, the absolute most horrible act of depravity ever committed?
The comment made was that nothing was worse than slavery, and someone suggested that abortion for convenience was more depraved. That does not make slavery “good”, it just challenges the assumption that slavery is the greatest evil possible.

Are you really prepared to defend slavery as the absolute greatest evil? Worse than the purges of Stalin or the Khmer Rouge? Worse than the Nazi death camps? Worse than abortion or sacrificing infants in the fires of Molech? Is there really no evil greater than slavery?

I missed the quote where I said or suggested "slavery is the greatest evil possible." Note the consistent misrepresentation of my view to hide the truth.

 

[atpollard]

I missed the quote where I said or suggested "slavery is the greatest evil possible." Note the consistent misrepresentation of my view to hide the truth.

Ok. Here is the conversation all laid out for you (including YOUR quote) ...

Sweat shop labor in the North was as brutal as or worse than slavery.

Really? I'm sorry, but I don't think that nothing could match being out in the hot sun all day in the fields with nothing but a hovel to go back to at night and with nothing but the promise of another day in the hot fields.

Putting people in chains, and treating them as livestock is as demonic as it gets.

No, it gets much worse. For example, sacrificing unborn children as though mere blobs of flesh to the gods of personal greed. That those who see themselves as once oppressed by slavery could so readily engage in it demonstrates an especially egregious depth of depravity.

I admit that I took some liberties paraphrasing you, however "as demonic as it gets" [your exact words] and "the greatest evil possible" [my paraphrase] do seem to convey approximately the same meaning ... unless you meant the statement literally and somehow believe that slavers and slave owners were not actually human beings but were literally "demons".

So now, for the record. Did I misrepresent your view to hide the truth, or have you borne false witness against me?

 

[Van]

Ok. Here is the conversation all laid out for you (including YOUR quote) ...

I admit that I took some liberties paraphrasing you, however "as demonic as it gets" [your exact words] and "the greatest evil possible" [my paraphrase] do seem to convey approximately the same meaning ... unless you meant the statement literally and somehow believe that slavers and slave owners were not actually human beings but were literally "demons".

So now, for the record. Did I misrepresent your view to hide the truth, or have you borne false witness against me?

Why ask the question, your post proved I never said slavery is the greatest evil possible. I did imply slavery is as demonic as it gets. This is consistent with the fact that if you break one point of the Law, you break the whole Law.

1) Two wrongs do not make a right.
2) Any depravity can be rationalized by saying, well it is not as bad as.... Think about this claim, Hitler was not as bad as Stalin, and Stalin was not as bad as Mao, Or if you murder your father, that is not as bad as murdering both your father and mother.
Anytime you see the "not as bad as" defense, see it as depravity on display.

 

[atpollard]

Why ask the question, your post proved I never said slavery is the greatest evil possible. I did imply slavery is as demonic as it gets.

You said ...

Note the consistent misrepresentation of my view to hide the truth.

Since you reject my question, I will rephrase it as a statement:

Since "as demonic as it gets" [your exact words] and "the greatest evil possible" [my paraphrase] convey the same meaning, I did not misrepresent your view to hide the truth; you have borne false witness against me.

[Talk to the hand.]

 

[Van]

You said ...
Since you reject my question, I will rephrase it as a statement:
Since "as demonic as it gets" [your exact words] and "the greatest evil possible" [my paraphrase] convey the same meaning, I did not misrepresent your view to hide the truth; you have borne false witness against me.
[Talk to the hand.]

Those presenting falsehood like to charge their victim with their malfeasance.

]Here is a link to an article on misuse of scripture to rationalize slavery.
How Christian Slaveholders Used the Bible to Justify Slavery

 

[just-want-peace]

Those presenting falsehood like to charge their victim with their malfeasance.

]Here is a link to an article on misuse of scripture to rationalize slavery.
How Christian Slaveholders Used the Bible to Justify Slavery

I don't have a dog in this fight, BUT, refer to post #26 and see the escape - honorable - that was available to you. Now I know this applies to some others as well, BUT AGAIN, you could have nipped all this at the start had you so desired!

I speak from experience cuz I've done the exact same routine before, and repented after my PRIDE withered a little and saving face was off the table. So much bandwidth AND unneeded heat could have been avoided so easy IF-----! I now try to ask the intended meaning if I am going to challenge a statement, unless it is very pointed and unequivocally blunt.

Even now, if I have misread your intents, I apologize and am open to correction!

MARANATHA