Slavery, The Bible, and Infidelism

>>>>The Abolition Movement was the culmination of BAD THEOLOGY, centered around Unitarian/Universalist belief. It was a humanistic, knee-jerk reaction to perceived ills. Until that movement there was never a problem with Baptists and slavery.<<<<<

Your ideas do not seem to be clear in the above text. Could you elaborate on this a little more?

 

Mark O Said:
Do you believe the word of God Commanded slaves to obey and respect their masters, whether those masters were believers or unbelievers?

Jimmy C: As has been pointed out to you on many occassions, the type of slavery practiced during biblical times had few parallels to our pre civil war slavery. My personal thought is the slavery practiced in biblical times was more like our employer/employee relationships of the modern era. Precivil war slavery was cruel, inhumane and unjust. If it were a sin for them to escape, I think that sin would have been right up there with overeating.


Ken H. Said:
1) I don't buy that argument for an instance. The North had about 4 times more men to use as soldiers, a much larger navy, and a much larger industrial base. Personally, I think if the South had had a larger population, the good guys would have won. Remember might does not make right. Just because the Yankees won doesn't mean they were in the right(I believe they were in the wrong).

Jimmy C:
Granted, the north had more men and a better industrial base, but for the most part, their commanders were no match for the south's. Look at all the times the Hebrews were far outnumbered and the Lord brought them victory. If the Lord had wanted the south to win, they would have.

Ken H:
2) I don't buy that argument, either. We have had the largest economy in the world for decades, even before World War I. And we have the greatest military force the world has ever known since World War II. Besides, the slaves were freed about 140 years ago. Now it is true that racism was a problem in the South and particularly in the North, for about 100 years after that, but that is still not slavery, and all people groups must deal with prejudice in their hearts.

Jimmy C
Yes, the slaves were freed 140 years ago, but it was not until the late 60s that any sort of equality began to emerge. Being rasied in the south myself, I did not understand the myriad of problems that faced African Americans, but over the years I have made many friends who are African American, through the course of many hours of conversation I have a much better understanding of thier problems. And yes, I think that many of our problems as a nation stem from the slavery that we imposed on that race of people. I do not however believe in reparations to African American.

 

O.K. Dr. Griffith, you have clarified your position on "rabid abolistionists". If you had lived in 1860, and if you had been a prominent politician so that you would have had some influence, what would your position have been on slavery? Would you have:

1. been against slavery

2. been for slavery

3. been neutral toward slavery

Would you have sided with the south in support of slavery or would you have gone north to fight with the union armies?

 

>>>>That "peculiar institution" was fast dying. 19/20 Southern families never ever owned a slave.<<<<

What evidence do you have that it was dying? I think the census records show that the number of slaves was increasing. One of my relatives during that time was Elijah Hanks, a Baptist preacher in Tennesee and slave owner. He was also a cousin of Abraham Lincoln.

 

I think they were the good guys. But it's all about point of view. I'm sure the Japanese didn't think the Allies were the "good" guys.

Ummm...No. I think back to the miniseries "North and South". There was a scene after the slaves were freed and as a group were leaving a plantation they saw their former master. The master asked them to stay and help with the farming. He offered to pay them. The slaves declined. The former master asked why would they would want to leave since the plantation was their home. The former slave looked right at his former master and told him the plantation was NEVER his home.

 

Originally posted by ChurchBoy:
You don't think the Allies were the good guys in World War II?[/QUOTE]

Not quite so. You cannot base historical truth on one's point of view, perspective, or feelings. One side in WWII faught for what was right, the right of a nation to exist without being attacked and invaded by another. The other fought for what was wrong aggressive world domination.

Ummm...No. I think back to the miniseries "North and South". There was a scene after the slaves were freed and as a group were leaving a plantation they saw their former master. The master asked them to stay and help with the farming. He offered to pay them. The slaves declined. The former master asked why would they would want to leave since the plantation was their home. The former slave looked right at his former master and told him the plantation was NEVER his home. [/qb][/QUOTE]Ummmm...

Sorry, but one should not rely on T.V. miniseries for accurate historical information. Remember who makes the movies and that Hollywood has it own aganda that it pushes.

 

>>>>I personally would not have held slaves. I would not have preached AGAINST it, though, and would have supported missionaries taking slaves with them to the field. Where can I find a text?<<<<<


Don't you think slavery is wrong just on a common sense basis? Lincoln made the statement that if slavery is not wrong, then nothing is wrong. How would you answer him? Don't you think slavery is contrary to the spirit of Christianity, for instance contrary to the Golden Rule?

 

>>>>As far as the mistreatment of slaves, I agree it is wrong, but it does not chang the obligation of the slave to obey the master. <<<<<<

The above is easy to say when you are not the one who is a slave. I suspect that you would sing a different tune if you were the slave.

 

>>>>>>>>Actually, there were blacks who fought - willingly - for the Confederacy. It was their homeland that was invaded by the North as well. And, as research will show you, attitudes towards blacks in the the North were certainly no better, and maybe worse, than they were in the South.<<<<<<

I don't think that the actual election results from the North support your contention in the last part of the paragraph above. Lincoln made quite clear that his views about blacks were much more tolerant than slave holders and he was elected in the North. All sorts of elections touched on the issue of racial attitudes in both North and South, and the results are totally contrary to your claim. What data do you have to support your claim? As for blacks fighting for the Confederacy, there were some, but they were greatly outnumbered by those who fought for the Union. Some blacks had good relations with their masters, but that has also been noted in the "Stockholm Syndrome" where hostages sometimes develop good relations with their captors, so I would not consider that an objective measure. There were many more instances, especially in music for that era, in which the blacks cheered for the north and made fun of their masters when they could. And there was great fear in the south of slave rebellions, with some justification.

 

I would question that but I am talking about Yankees in general. Evidence - in the 1970's the worst opposition to bussing was in Boston, Massachussetts. Boston was not a part of the CSA. 'nuff said.

 

>>>>What would Abraham Lincoln know about being a Christian? If he was saved at all, he didn't even love Christ enough to be baptized an join the church.<<<<<<<

How about answering his logic without getting into his Christianity? Mark, I wonder how many blacks come to hear your sermons? Do you consider them candidates to be saved? I suspect that they would not listen to you to any great extent, with you spouting this sort of idea. I know that in Wynne, Arkansas you are surrounded by blacks and by whites who often dislike them.

 

>>>>>I would question that but I am talking about Yankees in general. Evidence - in the 1970's the worst opposition to bussing was in Boston,<<<<<

You cannot extrapolate from the 1970s to the 1860s with any degree of validity. Besides, if you think that is valid, the general opposition to integration in the south, in the 1950s and 1960s was much greater than in the North.

 

And I bet there are racists where you are, too(wherever that is). There are just as many racists(in all races) in every part of the USA as there are in the South. To claim otherwise is to deny human nature. Just look at Boston, Massachussetts in the 1970's and Los Angeles, California in the 1990's.

 

>>>>>>>By the way, Lincoln also said that if he could, by keeping all the slaves in bondage, preserve the Union, he would do so. What a hypocrite that makes him, if, in fact, he actually believed that slavery was the mother of all sins.

The only reason we think slavery is such a horrid evil is because we are so full of pride we don't like the idea of another man telling us what to do. Well tell me this, if God sees fit, in His providence, to make me subject to another man, who am I to complain of it?<<<<<<<<

Lincoln was entirely consistent. He thought that there was little he could do about slavery, in terms of freeing the slaves. And he thought that preserving the Union was more important than the issue of slavery, apparently. I submit that his ideas about slavery and race were more Christian than yours. As for God's providence making you subject to this that or the other, let me suggest that this is an assumption on your part. It is an assumption, which may not be correct, that God decides every last detail of life. Frankly, I think it is a silly assumption.

 

There you go again! Because we were right back into the struggle over States' rights. You liberals really hate freedom as embodied in States' rights and freedom of association.

 

>>>>>>There you go again! Because we were right back into the struggle over States' rights. You liberals really hate freedom as embodied in States' rights and freedom of association. <<<<<<

I maintain that you ought not to have the freedom to maintain separate and highly unequal school systems for two races of people. Yes, I am willing to see your "freedom" reduced in that regard so that another race can have an education equal to yours. Don't tell me that the segregated school systems were equal. I am older than you and I was there.