Evolution? How?

From: "The Higher Law" in Its Application to the Fugitive Slave Bill. A Sermon on the Duties Men Owe to God and to Governments. Delivered at the Central Presbyterian Church on Thanksgiving Day, by Pastor John C. Lord:

Citation 1a:

The existence of domestic Slavery was expressly allowed, sanctioned, and regulated by the Supreme Lawgiver, in that divine economy which He gave the Hebrew state. The fact is open and undisputed; the record and proof of it are in the hands of every man who has in his possession a copy of the Bible. All the ingenuity and art of all the Abolitionists in the United States can never destroy the necessary conclusion of this admitted divine sanction of Slavery...
Citation 1b

[referring to conscientious objectors to slavery...] Such honest but mistaken persons should remember, that if the institution of slavery is necessarily and from its nature sinful now, it must always have been so; as universal principles admit of no change, and their argument is, therefore, an impeachment of the benevolence of God, and a denial of the supreme authority of the Gospel, as a system of ethics...
... I would affectionately warn all who have named the name of Christ, and who have been betrayed by passion or sympathy into such a position, to see to it before they take the inevitable plunge ... into the gulf of infidelity.


From: A scriptural, ecclesiastical, and historical view of slavery, from the days of the patriarch Abraham, to the nineteenth century. Addressed to the Right Rev. Alonzo Potter ... By John Henry Hopkins, Episcopal Bishop of Diocese of Vermont:

Citation 2a:

The pamphlet published in January, 1861, to which you have so kindly referred, is at your service, in its original form; as I have not found, in the numerous answers which it has drawn forth, any reason for changing my opinion. On the contrary, those answers have only strengthened my conviction as to the sanction which the Scriptures give to the principle of negro slavery, so long as it is administered in accordance with the precepts laid down by the Apostles.
Cit. 2b:

... [Abolitionists] contend that it is a moral evil -- a positive sin to hold a human being in bondage, under any circumstances whatever, unless as a punishment inflicted on crimes, for the safety of the community. Here, therefore, lies the true aspect of the controversy, and it is evident that it can only be settled by the Bible. For every Christian is bound to assent to the rule of the inspired Apostle, that "sin is the transgression of the law," namely, the law laid down in the Scriptures by the authority of God-the supreme "Lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy." From his Word there can be no appeal. No rebellion can be so atrocious in his sight as that which dares to rise against his government. No blasphemy can be more unpardonable than that which imputes sin or moral evil to the decrees of the eternal Judge, who is alone perfect in wisdom, in knowledge, and in love. With entire correctness, therefore, your letter refers the question to the only infallible criterion -- the Word of God. If it were a matter to be determined by my personal sympathies, tastes, or feelings, I should be as ready as any man to condemn the institution of slavery; for all my prejudices of education, habit, and social position stand entirely opposed to it. But as a Christian, I am solemnly warned not to be "wise in my own conceit," and not to "lean to my own understanding." As a Christian, I am compelled to submit my [new page] weak and erring intellect to the authority of the Almighty. For then only can I be safe in my conclusions, when I know that they are in accordance with the will of Him...
Cit. 2c:

The first appearance of slavery in the Bible is the wonderful prediction of the patriarch Noah: "Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be to his brethren. Blessed be the Lord God of Shem, and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem, and Canaan shall be his servant." (Gen. 9: 25.) The heartless irreverence which Ham, the father of Canaan, displayed toward his eminent parent, whose piety had just saved him from the deluge, presented the immediate occasion for this remarkable prophecy; but the actual fulfillment was reserved for his posterity, after they had lost the knowledge of God, and become utterly polluted by the abominations of heathen idolatry. The Almighty, foreseeing this total degradation of the race, ordained them to servitude or slavery under the descendants of Shem and Japheth, doubtless because he judged it to be their fittest condition. And all history proves how accurately the prediction has been accomplished, even to the present day.
We come next to the proof that slavery was sanctioned by the Deity in the case of Abraham, whose three hundred and eighteen bond-servants, born in his own house, (Gen. 14: 14,) are mentioned along with those who were bought with his money, as proper subjects for circumcision. (Gen. 17:12[?]) His wife Sarah had also an Egyptian slave, named Hagar, who fled from her severity. And "the angel of the Lord" commanded the fugitive to return to her mistress and submit herself. (Gen. 16: 9.) If the philanthropists of our age, who profess to believe the Bible, had been willing to take the counsel of that angel for their guide, it would have preserved the peace and welfare of the Union.

The third proof that slavery was authorized by the Almighty occurs in the last of the Ten Commandments, delivered from Mount Sinai, and universally acknowledged by Jews and Christians as THE MORAL LAW: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his man-servant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's." (Exod. 20: 17.) Here it is evident that the principle of property -- "any thing that is thy neighbor's" -- runs through the whole. ... I am equally aware that the wives of our day may take umbrage at the law which places them in the same sentence with the slave, and even with the house and the cattle. But the truth is none the less certain. The husband has a real property in the wife, because she is bound, for life, to serve and to obey him. The wife has a real property in her husband, because he is bound, for life, to cherish and maintain her. The character of property is doubtless modified by its design. But whatever, whether person or thing, the law appropriates to an individual, becomes of necessity his property.

The fourth proof, however, is yet more express, as it is derived from the direct rule established by the wisdom of God for his chosen people, Israel, on the very point in question, viz.: "If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years shall he serve [new page] and in the seventh year he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself. If he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have borne him sons or daughters, the wife and the children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself." (Exod. 21: 2-4.) Here we see that the separation of husband and wife is positively directed by the divine command, in order to secure the property of the master in his bond-maid and her offspring.


- Martin
p.s.: There's much more of that sort of Divine and Bible justification for slavery by that and other men of "God", just as evil and egregious if not more so. But I honestly couldn't stomach to read and cite any more of it.

There is no question you are right about the Hebrews in general. They were arrogant, They committed every imaginable sin. The only thing they had going for them was the faith of Abraham and their eventual acceptance of the law. I say acceptance of the law, not obedience to it. In order for the prophecy of Genesis 3:15 to bear fruit, a line of descendants needed to be established to identify the seed. If God had not protected the Israelites they would have vanished into well deserved oblivion.

CI; I really think you have set out in this case to simply drop a turd in the punchbowl. You and I have posted back and forth long enough for you to know my stated beliefs about God and creation. Why do you imply that I am stating something so obviously contrary?

Perhaps I should have said the reason for reporting the story of Abraham's test was probably to illustrate the anguish felt by God. Would that have made more sense?

The bible devotes many words to Jesus' sacrifice. I'm not asking you to believe any of it. All I would hope for is feedback on my interpretation of the scriptures.

Not that I feel impugned by your perception of my beliefs. You well know I can fight back and enjoy doing so. But, it would be a fine thing if every so often a point could be made.

Neo, apparently, you misunderstood me . . . here, allow me to state clearly what i mean:

It just appalls me that someone so literate, perceptive and endued with a ready wit clings to the scriptural babbling of an ignorant and hateful nomadic tribe of millenia gone by.

If you are right, then perhaps I am a literate, perceptive and witty fool. Maybe that's why I enjoy your posts so much.

Sorry; I couldn't resist.

Straight lines are always to be exploited, even if one needs to manufacture them first. No apology necessary.

I really do value your posts. You know?

Thank you . . . there is indeed no accounting for taste . . .

Some scholars believe that God did not tell Abraham to sacrifice Isaac but to just sacrifice... A burnt sacrifice is internal not external in Judaism... Abraham became confused by how the pagans sacrificed their young to the Gods and considered the same thing... Had Abraham sacrificed Isaac Jesus Christ would never have been born... God would have never tempted Abraham to nearly cut off our salvation for a simple show of vanity...

When God appeals to us,obeying without twinkling is the wisest solution and very natural to men.Whatever the sacrifice...

It seems, Jesus, that there is precious little you do without twinkling in the process.

A spiritual seeker is subjected to doubts and conscious crises in his life,it is this that makes the difference with a Master of Wisdom who has unshakeble will power whatever the circoumnstances or obstacles.

No Jesus, you're no Master of Wisdom, you're just a poor deluded man who seeks comfort in fuzzy-thinking and babbling nonsense which has a spiritual sound.

The man who seeks evil in others possess evil within himself.

I've neither sought nor found evil in you, Jesus, and i've never asserted that there is anything the least bit evil about you. Therefore, by your definition at least, i do not possess evil within me.

Evil is not merely something that you can see in horror movies.
It is seeking faults in others.

I'm sure that to the extent that you wish to portray yourself as a Master of Wisdom, it is convenient to protray those who won't agree with that as evil. It is beneath dignity, however, and your definition of those possess evil within because they seek it in others kicks in with a vengeance in this case. But i don't buy it, i don't think you are evil, merely deluded.

hmmmmmmmm...... who might do that........?

Your post proves what I have been saying al along: The clergy have used the bible as an ambidexter implement to justify their own wrong ideas.
That slavery was permitted in bible times was no justification for the cruel institution of 19th century US.

Here we have another believer who is afraid to believe a very important bible story.

Galatians 3:28

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.