Why is owning slaves a bad thing ?

uscitizen said:
homophobia.
Click to expand...

Ignoring, as usual, that homophobia is an inaccurate term, as Damocles already mentioned the basis for Biblical interpretations of homosexuality is in Romans (a book of the New Testament) as well as Leviticus. Furthermore, as far as stoning is concerned, you know as well as I do that the majority of Christians (i.e. non-crazy, mainstream Christians) do not want to see all homosexuals killed (or even any homosexuals killed).
 
It is still the scripture they use to justify their stance against gay marriage, insurance benefits to gay partners, etc...
But you are correct it is just a further inconsistency of christians.
 
uscitizen said:
It is still the scripture they use to justify their stance against gay marriage, insurance benefits to gay partners, etc...
But you are correct it is just a further inconsistency of christians.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. Romans is used, because the old Jewish law does not apply to Christianity...part of the purpose of Jesus' arrival.

You will find that most of the inconsistencies attributed to Christianity are passages taken out of context and misrepresented.

EDIT: I will give you that crazy Southern Evangelicals still use things as the Old Testament and take it as literal truth...but I am not one of them and that is not my Christianity (nor real Christianity, in my mind).
 
You have to remember that the new and old testament were just a bunch of random writings of important people. What was included was decided upon by the Romans in about 400 AD. The very well could have decided against including some and for others. It's stupid to think that it's literally "The word of God". That's the same old line of thought, that if you attached stones to an accused person and sank them in the sea, if they were innocent God would've saved them.
 
Watermark said:
You have to remember that the new and old testament were just a bunch of random writings of important people. What was included was decided upon by the Romans in about 400 AD. The very well could have decided against including some and for others. It's stupid to think that it's literally "The word of God". That's the same old line of thought, that if you attached stones to an accused person and sank them in the sea, if they were innocent God would've saved them.
Click to expand...

That's why only the New Testament is seen as literal, if you belong to the real Church.
 
Watermark said:
But the New testament was put together in the same way.
Click to expand...

But I find it much easier to believe that Jesus saying something is literal, as opposed to the Earth being literally made in 7 days.

EDIT: By that, I am referring to Jesus' dialogue...dialogue is much easier to believe than literal Biblical creation.
 
uscitizen said:
If you believe in an all powerful god, heaven, eternal life, etc why would creation be a problem ?
Click to expand...

Because of geological fact that shows the world was created over a long period of time...now, as I have said in other threads, I believe that God is responsible for the mechanics of the Universe, the way in which the world was created, and the spark of creation...

But it is idiocy to claim that the Earth is 6000 years old and that Man was up and walking on the 7th day of its existence.
 
gonzojournals said:
Because of geological fact that shows the world was created over a long period of time...now, as I have said in other threads, I believe that God is responsible for the mechanics of the Universe, the way in which the world was created, and the spark of creation...

But it is idiocy to claim that the Earth is 6000 years old and that Man was up and walking on the 7th day of its existence.
Click to expand...

yep god did a great job of fooling our geologists and such :D

that 6,000 yr old thing is crap, nowhere in the bible does it say this. huge gaps could exist between genesis and the rest of the bible, etc.
 
uscitizen said:
If you believe in an all powerful god, heaven, eternal life, etc why would creation be a problem ?
Click to expand...
An all powerful being could easily make billions of years pass in a single day and could use evolution to do what we know eventually came true.
 
uscitizen said:
Now that I have your attention.
Why is owning slaves of any race a bad thing to most Christians since the bible very clearly states it is fine as long as you treat them well ?

I am not even sure Jesus spoke out against slavery, but i could be wrong on that point.
Click to expand...


As I recall it was the Democrats who were so hot on owning slaves. In fact, didn't they try to secede from the Union over the issue? :pke:
 
I have never heard the democrat angle on the civil war ? However republicans and demoncrats are not what they used to be back then.
 
uscitizen said:
I have never heard the democrat angle on the civil war ? However republicans and demoncrats are not what they used to be back then.
Click to expand...
All the Southern slave owners were Democrats. The Republicans fought this issue for years politically, until the Democrats walked out of Washington. After the war the Republicans passed their first Civil Rights Act in 1868, followed by the Acts of 1875, 1957, 1960, 1964, and 1968. All were opposed by majorities of the Democratic party.
 
In the South the parties are largely reversed...many of the Southern Democrats are what you would call Republicans in other states.
 
gonzojournals said:
In the South the parties are largely reversed...many of the Southern Democrats are what you would call Republicans in other states.
Click to expand...

The strongest coalition of the Republican Party of 1854 was the intellectual offspring of the Federalist Party of Adams, Hamilton, Jay, Washington, Pickering, the Pinckney Bros. and so forth. They were very much conservatives. There were many extremists within the party ranks, but the thinkers and organizers were traditional conservatives.

The Democratic Party at that time was the intellectual child of Jeffersonian populism, and owes its existence to founders like Jefferson, Madison and Monroe, and to organizers such as Jackson and Van Buren.

The Republican Party has always been an unstable confederation of factions, including conservatives (dominant for a long time), classical liberals and libertarians for the most part, with many other interests getting in on the action. Take a look at how fragile it really has been:
1860 - Party rallies behind Lincoln and wins; Civil War ensues.
1876 - The war over, Grant's cabinet corruption destroys party cohesion. GOP nearly loses.
1880 - Party cannot agree on a candidate for pres, randomly picks Garfield.
1884 - Party cohesion gone again, Cleveland wins, just 19 years after the Civil War!
1888 - Thanks to the EC, Harrison wins the election
1892 - Cleveland wins again.
1896 - 1912: Thanks to the Panic of 1894, the GOP rallies behind businessman, McKinley, and then Progressives, TR and Taft. Huge victories.
1912 - TR splits party, Wilson wins.
1920 - Angry and embittered about WWI and postwar recession, Party rallies behind Harding. GOP dominates the 1920's.
1932-1952: Great Depression, WWII, onset of Cold War keeps GOP out of power.
1952 - Tired of losing, the country tired of Truman, coalition unites behind Ike.
1957-1960: Coalition weakens, economy goes into downturn.
1964 - Party nominates Goldwater, coalition falls completely apart!
1968-1976: Party wins in aftermath of JFK/LBJ leadership. Nixon shatters it all.
1980-1992: Reagan reunites coalition which includes former Democrats.

New Faction enters GOP - Jeffersonian Populism, curteosy of Reagan Dems. Thanks guys.

1994-2004: Republicans take over Congress and effective leadership carries 2000 election, despite impeachment and other major political blunders by same leadership.

2004: War on Terror keeps sizable party coalition together.

Conclusion: GOP remains a fragile coalition of factions. It has changed little over time, while the Dems have gone from populism to Wilsonianism to New Dealism to Neoliberalism as the domineering factions. Populism, introduced into the GOP in 1980, is the only significant change. While a minority, it compromised with other factions, abandoning its longstanding support of FDR and New Deal liberalism, challanging neoliberalism, and evolving into neoconservatism. It is now competing with conservatism in the election, with populist Huckabee challanging conservatives McCain and Romney, and other other factions represented by Giuliani and Paul.
 
Southern Man said:
All the Southern slave owners were Democrats. The Republicans fought this issue for years politically, until the Democrats walked out of Washington. After the war the Republicans passed their first Civil Rights Act in 1868, followed by the Acts of 1875, 1957, 1960, 1964, and 1968. All were opposed by majorities of the Democratic party.
Click to expand...

strange how the parties have now switched around concerning blacks. maybe it was the broken promises the republicans made to the blacks back then ?
some things never change ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top