Show this to anyone who denies that Slavery was supported by Christians, based on what's in the Bible.

Prior to the Civil War there were no shortage of very charismatic pastors who gave very passionate sermons on the biblical merits of slavery. All of the secessionist efforts can be traced back to those sermons for enthusiastic support.

Meanwhile today you have no shortage of neo-confederates who try to rewrite history claiming the war was about “states’ rights” (it wasn’t), and by “states’ rights” they mean the “right” to discriminate against the same people who had to bear the heaviest burden of that evil. Not surprisingly they are using the same book to justify their hate.

It can be used any which way. I was just reading on DU how an act of omnicide can be referred to as a cleansing.

But you have the right to assign whatever meaning you want to text. You do not have the right to decide what constitutes the acceptable meaning.

From the thread https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218298838

The flood is a metaphor for cleansing.

Like using water to baptize.


On the other hand, one hopes that Mr. Crockett has a better knowledge of hsitory that he does of science.

And I have stated that often enough. But I will not add a lengthy addendum to every single reply elaborating on that.

"can be"

as in "The Flood can be a metaphor for cleansing."

There that wasn't so hard was it?

But I rarely see responses to opinion pieces on DU asking for clarification.

And in this group, the same few persist in asking "is this your opinion" when I have stated that when I cite the opinion of others, it will be linked to an outside article.

But apparently YOU do.

Nice set of double standards there, gil.

No wonder no one takes you seriously.

Must be everyone else who's stupid, and not you who are unclear (or just being hypocritical).

You be you, gil. Demonize and dehumanize those who hold different opinions. Keep acting how you think Christians should.

Strong words.

Be best.

They describe what you are doing perfectly.

Using the term "choir" implies that the individuals responding to you aren't acting on their own accord. You are implying they are led by someone like a conductor. As such, you hope to imply their opinions aren't real and therefore can be disregarded because they are mindless repeaters. You're dehumanizing them.

Same thing with your "11th commandment" insanity - you used to fling that around whenever someone expressed a negative opinion about religion. Your reasoning was that those individuals are just mindlessly criticizing religion without any good reason, only following the edict of your fictional commandment. (Which was always perplexing anyway, because why would any non-believer be obsessed with following a "commandment"? Your analogy there was just wrong from the get-go.) But again, you're dehumanizing them by reducing their opinion to a reflex. No actual thought went into it, just following orders.

"Decider" is good example of the demonize part. You shove that one at people to made it seem like they're being unreasonable authoritarians, stomping over all other viewpoints.

I suspect you never will, because I and others have asked you to many times, but how about you try engaging in actual discussion with us fellow human beings instead of using these dismissive and insulting words?

Or perhaps you're just religiously convinced that you're doing the Christian thing by attacking and insulting. Whatever.

As I've said repeatedly, in my opinion, you're doing a GREAT job showing how your religion is useless when it comes to making someone a better or more moral person. You keep on being you.

One of MM's recently deleted threads contained an example of what happens all too frequently in this group. It is not dialogue, it is much more like an attack. And, for the record, I was not a party to the dialogue.

Edited to add:
Here is the thread, and the example of dialogue.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218298410

I'll let readers be the judge. You keep being the best Christian you can be, that's all I ask. Clearly you love to follow "an eye for an eye" given your infatuation with retributive justice. That's what Jesus taught, right?

Yes, the readers can read your replies there. And elsewhere.

Your shortcut insults are inaccurate.

Eventually they make a lump and the rug has to be taken out and shaken.

Feh!

But when they call other interpretations "bullshit" they are demonstrating exactly what I wrote about.

What people write is their opinion. Period. I make that clear in my signature line, for myself. Why? Because people don't get that what people write on pubic discussion boards is just their opinions. Nothing more. I'm not sure you get that, either. What you write is just your opinion as well, when you bother to write something. What you copy and paste in this group is just someone else's opinion, which people may or may not be interested in knowing.

My comment was for those who reject other interpretations as "bullshit". Those who define other opinions as "bullshit".

Trump's for example. Am I being intolerant, do you think? To say an opinion is "bullshit," is merely an opinion about that opinion. It's not, you know, personal. It's about and idea, not a person. So, it's not an ad hominem attack. It's a brief statement about an idea. Now, I'd prefer a more complete statement, but sometimes, needs must.

It instructs Hebrews to take their slaves from the tribes around you. It lets you pass them down as property. It lets you beat them as much as you want as long as they can walk after a few days. And if you want to trick one of your fellow Hebrews who's already an indentured servant into staying on, you can give him a wife from your female slaves, and at the end of his servitude, he can leave like he wants, but if he wants to stay with his wife and any kids that he's fathered, he has to commit to being a slave for the rest of his life.

Of course, that's Old Testament some people will say as if that matters as Jesus said he didn't come to change the law, and he also admonished slaves to obey their masters.

What a small, impotent god that cares about your shellfish eating habits but not owning another human.

TlalocW

... to have been labeled as the "bible for slaves"...or...if "slaves" is unpalatable to you...

Days, weeks, months must have gone into making it. What a sick mentality they must have had to keep up an effort of deception for such evil ends for so long.

that support the practice of slavery, but it was only possible because those passages were there in the first place.

If only Jesus had preached specifically against slavery during his earthly ministry. Imagine how much less misery there might have been in the world over the last 2000 years, if Jesus had said something like, "You know all those scriptures that endorse slavery? That is no longer valid. No one who follows me may own other human beings, ever." But sadly, the stories don't have him saying anything like that.

Such a wasted opportunity for a supposedly all-loving god.

Jesus was all-knowing, just like his dad. So, if he didn't say it, but said other things...there it is...the "Word of God." So, see, slavery's alright with Jesus, apparently.