Slave Owners' Prayers

@suzianne said
Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Not at all, because unlike you I don’t duck out of direct debate about what I do or don’t believe.

So no, not familiar at all.

@divegeester said
Why are people thumbing down these posts?

Because FMF's inferences are presumptuous, misleading and smack of intellectual quackery.

I didn't thumb down. I gagged while reading the OP.

@divegeester said
Not at all, because unlike you I don’t duck out of direct debate about what I do or don’t believe.

So no, not familiar at all.

I see no debate about it. What I do see is you claiming I don't want to answer when I've talked about this many many times. If you couldn't be arsed to listen the first five or six times, what will you not listening a seventh time accomplish?

@suzianne said
If you don't believe in the efficacy of prayer, why else would you care about anyone's prayers?

Why? Because I am interested in the views of people who DO believe in the efficacy of prayers specifically in the context of the moral issues surrounding Christians owning slaves.

@suzianne said
The OP is just a fishing expedition for quotes you can hang over people's heads for the next six months. Your target? Christians, of course.

Well then, if you are a Christian who might say something about Christians owning slaves ~ and about the possible efficacy of their prayers ~ that's difficult to defend morally speaking, then watch out. Go defensive. Dont give any "quotes". Deflect. Lash out at the motives of the person who's asking the awkward question. Oh, wait. This is exactly what you have done.

@suzianne said
I see no debate about it. What I do see is you claiming I don't want to answer when I've talked about this many many times. If you couldn't be arsed to listen the first five or six times, what will you not listening a seventh time accomplish?

I see, so what you are now claiming is you have had 5 or 6 full on debates in this forum and I have missed them all.

I see.

@secondson said
Because FMF's inferences are presumptuous, misleading and smack of intellectual quackery.

The only 'presumption' in the OP is that Christian slave owners did pray to give thanks to their God and to ask for His support and blessing. There's nothing "misleading" about it. But if the question has you stumped, so be it.

@secondson said
I gagged while reading the OP.

What is it about Christian slave owners praying to their God, or speculating about the content and efficacy of their prayers, that made you "gag"?

@fmf said
There's been a fair bit of discussion here over the years ~ indeed there have been plenty of confident assertions ~ about the Christian God answering the prayers of Christians including specific claims that such prayers were heard and answered and conjecture about the efficacy of other's prayers regarding their gratitude and their needs.

[b]What do you believe or imagine was t ...[text shortened]... ked that their slaves would work harder and give birth to lots of children who would also be slaves?

According to the bible God hears and responds to, the prayers of the righteous and those who keep the commandments of Christ. God ignores the prayers of the wicked and sinful. The act of owning slaves is not a sin in the bible. What is a sin is ill-treating slaves.

@rajk999 said
According to the bible God hears and responds to, the prayers of the righteous and those who keep the commandments of Christ. God ignores the prayers of the wicked and sinful. The act of owning slaves is not a sin in the bible. What is a sin is ill-treating slaves.

'The act of owning slaves is not a sin in the bible.'

Maybe the bible got that one wrong, then.

@indonesia-phil said
'The act of owning slaves is not a sin in the bible.'

Maybe the bible got that one wrong, then.

I doubt it.

@rajk999 said
According to the bible God hears and responds to, the prayers of the righteous and those who keep the commandments of Christ. God ignores the prayers of the wicked and sinful. The act of owning slaves is not a sin in the bible. What is a sin is ill-treating slaves.

Thanks for your straightforward answer.

@suzianne said
I see no debate about it.

So has Rajk999 settled the debate with his take on it, to your way of thinking?

@fmf said
So has Rajk999 settled the debate with his take on it, to your way of thinking?

Do not take my words out of context. To do so cheapens them (no doubt your aim) and thereby, you.

@suzianne said
Do not take my words out of context. To do so cheapens them (no doubt your aim) and thereby, you.

Do you think Rajk999's take on it is correct?