Spirituality
21 Mar 11
25 Mar 11
Originally posted by Proper KnobThe words of Jesus are the authority for Christianity, not
Listen, there's no need to get tetchy. They are not my words but words from a Baptist minister, i would say take it up with him but i'm sure he is long since dead. He wrote the book not me, i'm merely quoting what he wrote.
The fact is Christians were involved in the slave trade, the reason the American Baptist movement split was because of the slave ...[text shortened]... ren't just my words but historical facts. I can post links for you to look over if you like.
the words of a Baptist minister, or of a Catholic Priest, or
even the Pope. You should spend more of you time reading
the Holy Bible to see what Jesus said. Then you would have
better knowledge to determine if others are really representing
Christianity or just pretending.
25 Mar 11
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsYour missing the point completely, i don't care whether people are representing the Bible or just pretending. It's irrelevant to me. You stated this in an earlier post -
The words of Jesus are the authority for Christianity, not
the words of a Baptist minister, or of a Catholic Priest, or
even the Pope. You should spend more of you time reading
the Holy Bible to see what Jesus said. Then you would have
better knowledge to determine if others are really representing
Christianity or just pretending.
And Christianity in America had nothing to do with the people who sold Negros into slavery.
I've demonstrated you are wrong. The Southern Baptists were invloved in the slave trade, their involvement in the slave trade was the reason for the creation of the Southern Baptist movement in the first place. I even provdided quotes to show you how they justified their actions using scripture.
Now whether their actions are compatible with Christianity is irrelevant to this thread. The fact is Christians were involved in the slave trade.
Do you deny Christians, in this case Southern Baptists, were involved in the slave trade in America?
25 Mar 11
Originally posted by Proper KnobI was talking about Christianity not the Southern Baptist.
Your missing the point completely, i don't care whether people are representing the Bible or just pretending. It's irrelevant to me. You stated this in an earlier post -And Christianity in America had nothing to do with the people who sold Negros into slavery.
I've demonstrated you are wrong. The Southern Baptists were invloved in th ...[text shortened]... deny Christians, in this case Southern Baptists, were involved in the slave trade in America?
You can very easily become a member of the Southern Baptist
and still not be a Christian. I know for I was once a member
of the Southern Baptist at 12 years of age, without knowing
hardly anything about Christianity. The fact that some
members ot the Southern Baptists were involved with the slave
trade in not relevant to my statement. But of course you don't
understand this because you don't understand Christianity.
You can call me a liar if you want, but I stll stand by my statement.
25 Mar 11
Originally posted by RJHindsthat's exactly what twhite is arguing. aspects in the bible can be used to justify just about anything. and in this case with the slavery you don't even have to twist anything. a dude did something stupid, kinda like a frat boy drawing a penis on a drunk friend face so noah curses his grandchild and all his descendents to be slaves to shem and his descendents. even if you play the "its a mistranslation" card, you can't deny canaan and all his descendents were condemned to be "something" to shem's descendants and that something isn't pleasant.
What I am saying is that your are taking a story in the Holy Bible about
something that happen and twisting its meaning into a justification for
slavery by Christianity. This is probably because you do not understand
CHRISTIANITY. No, I am only a Christian layman. I probably could
not help you. You don't appear to want help to undestand and would not ...[text shortened]... about the truths of
Christianity with a different attitude. I hope one day you will seek it.
yes, a smart christian would understand that christianity is about love compassion and fluffy things. and those smart christians know that the killing of people in jericho is wrong. some (including myself) choose to simply ignore that story as a fabrication. but i digress. the point is, the bible is full of gruesome stuff and it CAN be used by fundies who take everything in the bible literally (or by unscrupulous people trying to get the fundies to do something) to justify a lot of gruesome acts.
25 Mar 11
Originally posted by Zahlanzia smart christian would understand that christianity is about love compassion and fluffy things - Zippy
that's exactly what twhite is arguing. aspects in the bible can be used to justify just about anything. and in this case with the slavery you don't even have to twist anything. a dude did something stupid, kinda like a frat boy drawing a penis on a drunk friend face so noah curses his grandchild and all his descendents to be slaves to shem and his descenden ...[text shortened]... us people trying to get the fundies to do something) to justify a lot of gruesome acts.
Yes with the exception that Jesus of course is portrayed as an all conquering hero
who will put to death those who are opposed to Gods will, what is it Zippy about this
statement that yet evades you,
(Matthew 10:34-36) . . .Do not think I came to put peace upon the earth; I came to
put, not peace, but a sword. For I came to cause division, with a man against his
father, and a daughter against her mother, and a young wife against her mother-
in-law. Indeed, a man’s enemies will be persons of his own household.
Indeed, it this very watering down, this all inclusive, namby pamby secular liberalism
that has made the word of God invalid in your eyes., smart Christians that disown
the words of Christ are not Christians at all, they are something else!
25 Mar 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobiejust to be clear, are you thinking jesus is actually talking about a real sword? or is he talking about a change in how people think? and how a man might find himself opposed in ideology with his father clinging to the old ways?
a smart christian would understand that christianity is about love compassion and fluffy things - Zippy
Yes with the exception that Jesus of course is portrayed as an all conquering hero
who will put to death those who are opposed to Gods will, what is it Zippy about this
statement that yet evades you,
(Matthew 10:34-36) . . .Do not think ...[text shortened]... Christians that disown
the words of Christ are not Christians at all, they are something else!
do you think the sword means war, with killings?
do you think this quote, even if we accept it as absolute true (even if we know the scriptures were written several years after jesus's death), is enough to offset countless others portraying jesus as a hippie (i say hippie in the nicest way)? how about the one saying we should love our enemies? how about the one saying we should offer more cheeks for beating? how about the one asking the dudes not to kill the hooker even if god supposedly said to kill hookers ever since moses?
i am not going to argue with you how you accept some passages but not others, how you think not killing the whole town of jericho means christianity is getting watered down and turned into an all inclusive, namby pamby secular liberalism (and you say that is a bad thing). been there, done that, got bored and left.
i have just pointed out this particular quote and how wrong your interpretation of it is.
25 Mar 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Zahlanziclearly Christ is talking metaphorically, never the less, you have put forth the proposition that Christianity is all, nice and fluffy, clearly the Christ had different ideas.
just to be clear, are you thinking jesus is actually talking about a real sword? or is he talking about a change in how people think? and how a man might find himself opposed in ideology with his father clinging to the old ways?
do you think the sword means war, with killings?
do you think this quote, even if we accept it as absolute true (even if we k t.
i have just pointed out this particular quote and how wrong your interpretation of it is.
You have done nothing of the sort, for i did not state that it meant a literal sword, so please stop the pretence. Where if fact does this idea that Christianity is all fluffy arise from? did not the Christ state that Christians would be persecuted? Did he not state that they were, in a metaphorical sense, to take up their torture stake for they would be objects of hatred, where indeed is the fluffiness that you allude to, for as far as i can discern, it does not exist, not in scripture nor in practice.
what in fact you have done, is what you always do, you assume, and on making an assumption, you form an argument on the basis of your assumption.
25 Mar 11
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsI don't think you're lying, but i do think you're completely wrong.
I was talking about Christianity not the Southern Baptist.
You can very easily become a member of the Southern Baptist
and still not be a Christian. I know for I was once a member
of the Southern Baptist at 12 years of age, without knowing
hardly anything about Christianity. The fact that some
members ot the Southern Baptists were involved with the s nderstand Christianity.
You can call me a liar if you want, but I stll stand by my statement.
1. Baptists are a denomination of Christianity, that's a fact.
2. The Southern Baptist Convention are one of the 31 baptist groups or conventions in the US, they have 45,010 congregations and 16.2 million members, that's a fact.
3. The Southern Baptist Convention were involved in the slave trade, that's a documented historical fact. They even apologised for it in 1995.
Whether i understand Christianity or not is irrelevant to this discussion. You made the statement that Christians were not involved in the American slave trade, i've pointed out why you are wrong. If you think i'm wrong please kindly point out which of my above three points is false and we'll take it from there.
25 Mar 11
Originally posted by Proper KnobHere is a quote of history information I found on the web:
I don't think you're lying, but i do think you're completely wrong.
1. Baptists are a denomination of Christianity, that's a fact.
2. The Southern Baptist Convention are one of the 31 baptist groups or conventions in the US, they have 45,010 congregations and 16.2 million members, that's a fact.
3. The Southern Baptist Convention were involved i ...[text shortened]... kindly point out which of my above three points is false and we'll take it from there.
"The Quakers spoke out against slavery during the colonial period but they were the only religious movement to do so. Anglicans worked among the slaves and attempted to Christianize them.
II. The church's stand after the revolution
Mainline Protestantism tried early on, but without success, to deal with the slavery issue. In 1784, the Methodists voted to expel members who bought and sold slaves but they decided to give slaveholders a year to free their slaves on penalty of expulsion. Methodists found such statements unenforceable and they withdrew them.
Virginia Baptists denounced slavery in 1789. Kentucky's Elkhorn Baptist Association tried to draft a resolution against slavery in 1791 but it proved a hot potato and the association dropped it.
Presbyterian synods in New York and Philadelphia as early as 1787 called for members to gradually end slavery. By 1792, the Presbyterian General Assembly voiced concern over the institution and most Presbyterians agreed slavery should end. At the same time, Presbyterians felt gradual emancipation would work best. By 1815, Presbyterians declared the buying and selling of slaves "inconsistent with the Gospel." In 1818, George Bourne, a fiery anti-slavery preacher, insisted on slavery's cessation. Bourne's Presbytery felt his attitudes degraded the minister's office and they removed him. Bourne appealed to the General Assembly. Pro-slavery men loaded the Assembly and saw Bourne expelled but that same Assembly resolved that slavery was "inconsistent with God's law."
26 Mar 11
Originally posted by RJHindsWhat relevance does this have to do with my questions above?
Here is a quote of history information I found on the web:
"The Quakers spoke out against slavery during the colonial period but they were the only religious movement to do so. Anglicans worked among the slaves and attempted to Christianize them.
II. The church's stand after the revolution
Mainline Protestantism tried early on, but without success, ...[text shortened]... elled but that same Assembly resolved that slavery was "inconsistent with God's law."
26 Mar 11
Originally posted by Proper KnobThe relevance is that you ignore what the principles of Christianity
What relevance does this have to do with my questions above?
has done to stop slavery, while magnifying what some Baptist did.
If they had been following Christian principles they would not have
done what you say they did. When Jesus said, "Do unto others as
you want others to do unto you", do you really think he was
promoting slavery of the Negros?
26 Mar 11
Originally posted by RJHindsThe relevance is that you ignore what the principles of Christianity has done to stop slavery, while magnifying what some Baptist did.
The relevance is that you ignore what the principles of Christianity
has done to stop slavery, while magnifying what some Baptist did.
If they had been following Christian principles they would not have
done what you say they did. When Jesus said, "Do unto others as
you want others to do unto you", do you really think he was
promoting slavery of the Negros?
No i haven't. You made the claim that Christians were not involved in the American slave trade, i've demonstrated this is clearly false and you now accept it as so -
If they had been following Christian principles they would not have done what you say they did.
This is what we've been discussing in this thread, your belief that Christians weren't involved in the slave trade. I am well aware of the Christian involvement in the abolition of slavery in America and here in England.
26 Mar 11
This was an entertaining thread in which the lack of agreement amongst christians regarding the slavery issue was evident.
Thread 134669
26 Mar 11
1 edit
No atheists were ever supporters of slavery, nor were they partakers of its benefits. I would go so far to say that it was a Christian who invented the A-Bomb and another two who dropped it on both Japanese cities. It was also a Christian who invented chemical warfare and a Christian who decided that capitalism would be the dominant economic model of the modern world, ensuring the richest Christians owned and controlled the majority of the world’s wealth, keeping the poor atheist in poverty. Christianity is the religion responsible for all the poor victims of internet beheadings, online pornography, gambling debt, identity theft and computer viruses. Christianity should take the blame for it all. Atheists are however humanities representatives of harmony, perfection, peace and love. I wish I was an atheist safe in my contented world where the dammed Christian carried the cross of the worlds shame.
26 Mar 11
Originally posted by Proper KnobThere you go twisting what I say again for your own purposes.
[b]The relevance is that you ignore what the principles of Christianity has done to stop slavery, while magnifying what some Baptist did.
No i haven't. You made the claim that Christians were not involved in the American slave trade, i've demonstrated this is clearly false and you now accept it as so -
[quote]If they had been following Christi ...[text shortened]... are of the Christian involvement in the abolition of slavery in America and here in England.[/b]
You quoted me right once, and that was:
"And Christianity in America had nothing to do with the people who sold Negros into slavery."
You seem not to want to understand that a person can call himself a Christian
and not follow the teachings of Jesus the Christ. As I pointed out to you
earlier, a person belonging to a Christian organization is considered a Christian,
even though, he does not follow the teachings of Christianity. Would you
think it is reasonable to blame Christianity for any bad things I did when
I was 12 years old after I had become a member of Calvary Baptist Church
in Tyler, Texas, USA? I suppose you would, so you don't even have to
answer that question.