timberlandko wrote:Frank and Set aren't suggesting you defend anything, real life; they just want you to come to grips with the reality that a biblical case for slavery can and has been made, a circumstance - and just one of many - which nicely points up the contradictions and hypocracy of Christianity. You needn't defend such things at all; indeed, it would be unfair to expect such philosophic gymnastics of someone of your persuasion. On the other hand, your ongoing failure to address the issue speaks volumes.
Timber,
Use is not the same as misuse.
A Biblical case cannot be made supporting the American slave trade. I have nothing to "come to grips with" concerning the slavery issue. I neither owned slaves nor condoned those who did.
The attempt at "guilt by association" to try to claim that any Christian shares responsibility for every act of every other Christian or anything that is even CALLED Christian, is nothing but a cheap broadbrush.
I do not share guilt for the Inquisition, simply because it was engineered by those claiming Christ's name and blessing upon it.
The same goes for the American slave trade.
The "volumes" that are speaking to you are in your own imagination. You are without doubt a legend in your own mind. But your tar and feather tactics don't work here.
Again, your refusal to understand is purposeful, obviously, not accidental. You think you can shame Christians by pointing out the faults of other Christians , or those that call themselves Christian. You are destined to fail.
Why don't you deal squarely with the claims of Christ and Christianity itself instead of flimsy cop-outs like this?
Your insistence that I "fail to address the issue" is a smokescreen, since it is not my issue to address. Let me say it one more time, my agreement is with the abolitionist, not the slave holder.
Perhaps you can understand it another way. Do all drivers of automobiles share collective guilt for the sins of drunk drivers or hit-and-run drivers?
Use is not the same as misuse. Figure it out.
