[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

The Victims of Benny Hinn: 30 Years of Spiritual Deception.

Trump Is Planning to Send Kill Teams to Mexico to Take Out Cartel Leaders

The Great Falling Away in the Church is Here | Tim Dilena

How Ridiculous? Blade-Less Swiss Army Knife Debuts As Weapon Laws Tighten

Jewish students beaten with sticks at University of Amsterdam

Terrorists shut down Park Avenue.

Police begin arresting democrats outside Met Gala.

The minute the total solar eclipse appeared over US

Three Types Of People To Mark And Avoid In The Church Today

Are The 4 Horsemen Of The Apocalypse About To Appear?

France sends combat troops to Ukraine battlefront

Facts you may not have heard about Muslims in England.

George Washington University raises the Hamas flag. American Flag has been removed.

Alabama students chant Take A Shower to the Hamas terrorists on campus.

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne

Deadly Saltwater and Deadly Fresh Water to Increase

Deadly Cancers to soon Become Thing of the Past?

Plague of deadly New Diseases Continues

[FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi

Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus

Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson

Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests)

What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer

Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic?

War in Ukraine Turns on Russia

what happened during total solar eclipse

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman

Vibe Shift

A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound.

Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages

When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements

CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles

Title: Walter E. Williams --- What's Gone Wrong With Democracy
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Mar 23, 2015
Author: Walter E. Williams
Post Date: 2015-03-23 14:35:49 by tpaine
Keywords: None
Views: 16940
Comments: 96

Walter E. Williams

What's Gone Wrong With Democracy?

The Economist magazine recently published "What's gone wrong with Democracy ... and what can be done to revive it?" The suggestion is that democracy is some kind of ideal for organizing human conduct. That's a popular misconception.

The ideal way to organize human conduct is to create a system that maximizes personal liberty for all. Liberty and democracy are not synonymous and most often are opposites. In Federalist Paper No. 10, James Madison explained, "Measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority." Democracy and majority rule confer an aura of legitimacy and respectability on acts that would otherwise be deemed tyrannical.

Let's look at majority rule, as a decision-making tool, and ask ourselves how many of our life choices we would like settled by majority rule. Would you want the kind of car you own to be decided through a democratic process, or would you prefer purchasing any car you please? Ask that same question about decisions such as where you shall live, what clothes you purchase, what food you eat, what entertainment you enjoy and what wines you drink. I'm sure that if anyone suggested that these choices be subject to a democratic process, we would deem it tyranny.

Our Founders saw democracy as a variant of tyranny. At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph said, "...that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy." John Adams said, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." Alexander Hamilton said, "We are now forming a Republican form of government. Real Liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of dictatorship."

By the way, the word democracy appears in none of our founding documents.

The Founders of our nation recognized that we need government, but because the essence of government is force, and force is evil, government should be as small as possible. The Founders intended for us to have a limited republican form of government where human rights precede government and there is rule of law. Citizens, as well as government officials, are accountable to the same laws. Government intervenes in civil society only to protect its citizens against force and fraud, but does not intervene in the cases of peaceable, voluntary exchange. By contrast, in a democracy, the majority rules either directly or through its elected representatives. The law is whatever the government deems it to be. Rights may be granted or taken away.

Alert to the dangers of majority rule, the Constitution's framers inserted several anti-majority rules. In order to amend the Constitution, it requires a two-thirds vote of both houses, or two-thirds of state legislatures to propose an amendment, and it requires three-fourths of state legislatures for ratification. Election of the president is not done by a majority popular vote, but by the Electoral College.

Part of the reason for having two houses of Congress is that it places an obstacle to majority rule. Fifty-one senators can block the wishes of 435 representatives and 49 senators. The Constitution gives the president a veto to thwart the power of 535 members of Congress. It takes two-thirds of both houses of Congress to override the president's veto.

If you don't have time to examine our founding documents, just ask yourself: Does our pledge of allegiance to the flag read to the democracy, or to the republic, for which it stands? Or, did Julia Ward Howe make a mistake in titling her Civil War song "The Battle Hymn of the Republic"? Should it have been "The Battle Hymn of the Democracy"?

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2015 CREATORS.COM

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 94.

#10. To: tpaine (#0) (Edited)

Ok. So, Walter Williams has written an article against democracy. He spends a lot of time telling us how much the Founders detested democracy. That's swell.

They created a restricted-franchise republic that preserved special rights for a certain class (which completely erased the rights of a quarter of the population). Their system lasted for 72 years, then exploded in an orgy of blood.

The Founders' model was not a success, because they did not create a free country.

The model that came out of the "reset" of the 1860s was a more centralized oligarchy. And it doesn't work either.

So, the Founder's hated democracy and monarchy. They liked republics, so they founded one. It failed within a decade and was replaced by another one, which failed in three generations. We're in the fourth or fifth generation since the Civil War, and our current republic is falling apart as well.

What can we take from this all? Democracy doesn't work. Monarchy doesn't work. Republics don't work. Nothing works for very long.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-03-23   15:20:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: Vicomte13 (#10)

"They created a restricted-franchise republic that preserved special rights for a certain class (which completely erased the rights of a quarter of the population)."

"Population" refers to people. Slaves weren't people. They were property. Just sayin' how it was.

Full rights were extended to those with the most to lose -- wealthy, adult, white males with property. Who in their right mind would allow women, the poor, and the uneducated to vote?

The Founders were wrong? Look around your "enlightened" society where everyone votes and tell me it's working.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-03-23   18:30:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: misterwhite, Vicomte13 (#17)

"Population" refers to people. Slaves weren't people.

Art. 1, Sec. 2, Cl. 3:

Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

The slaves were considered persons. The interest held in a slave was legaly considered a property interest, but that did not transform slaves into non-persons. They were each counted as one complete person in the census. By unanimous agreement of the States, for representation purposes in the Congress, only 60% of the aggregate of such persons was counted.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-03-23   20:55:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: nolu chan (#33)

"The slaves were considered persons."

Only for the apportionment of representatives and direct taxes.

And, technically, they were "other persons". They had no more rights than a table or chair.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-03-24   10:54:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#52. To: misterwhite (#49)

And, technically, they were "other persons". They had no more rights than a table or chair.

Which is why that system and its culture had to be destroyed. If it would not peaceful cede it power and stop committing evil, it had to be uprooted by force. And it was.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-03-24   11:31:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#54. To: Vicomte13, misterwhite, nolu chan, Y'ALL (#52) (Edited)

Nolu Chan --- "The slaves were considered persons."

misterwhite ---- And, technically, they were "other persons". They had no more rights than a table or chair.

Vicomte13 --- Which is why that system and its culture had to be destroyed. If it would not peaceful cede it power and stop committing evil, it had to be uprooted by force. And it was.

To reiterate, Walter Williams points remain unrefuted: ----

-- "Our Founders saw democracy as a variant of tyranny. At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph said, "...that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy." John Adams said, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." Alexander Hamilton said, "We are now forming a Republican form of government. Real Liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of dictatorship."

tpaine  posted on  2015-03-24   13:06:52 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#56. To: tpaine (#54)

To reiterate, Walter Williams points remain unrefuted: ----

-- "Our Founders saw democracy as a variant of tyranny. At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph said, "...that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy." John Adams said, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." Alexander Hamilton said, "We are now forming a Republican form of government. Real Liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of dictatorship."

Refuted? No.

However, what the Founders set up, their Republic, WAS a horrendous tyranny. When a quarter of the population of a country are chained slaves, that country is a monstrous joke of a nation, hideously evil and worthy of destruction, not something to be PROUD of.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-03-24   13:23:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#58. To: Vicomte13 (#56)

--- what the Founders set up, their Republic, WAS a horrendous tyranny. When a quarter of the population of a country are chained slaves, that country is a monstrous joke of a nation, hideously evil and worthy of destruction, not something to be PROUD of.

--- What the Founders set up, our Republic, IS a tremendous success. despite the fact that a quarter of the population of a country were chained slaves, freed after nearly 80 years of a 'war on slavery'...

Our country is something to be PROUD of.

Your attitude towards our country is disgraceful.

tpaine  posted on  2015-03-24   13:37:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#65. To: tpaine (#58)

Your attitude towards our country is disgraceful.

My attitude is just. The country's history is what is disgraceful.

The Catholic Church also has a disgraceful past. But guess what? Catholics man up about it, are honest about it, admit the sins, and have fixed it. We don't DEFEND the evils of the past, we call them evil, and we call the men who committed them erroneous and sinful.

What is disgraceful is to look at a treasonous asshat like George Washington, standing there priggishly "for liberty", shooting down his own British countrymen to obtain this liberty, whingeing that slaves the British freed had to be RETURNED at the end of the war, and then holding slaves until the day he died, thereby making a joke out of any claim he fought for human liberty. He committed murder and treason in his own quest for personal power. He attained it: he died the wealthiest man in America, with a plantation still full of slaves. Flaming hypocrite.

Were we speaking of a Pope, the execrations would be hurled, and rightly too.

It is no different when we speak of a man who went out and killed thousands of people for "The proposition that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty..."

I hold Washington to the same standard that people (including me) hold the Popes of old. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy. What those Popes and Washington did was disgraceful.

It is not disgraceful to call them out on it.

We had to have a Civil War and a million dead BECAUSE the Founders were greedy, weak men with feet of clay, hypocrites, who were willing to commit treason and kill their own countrymen in order to gain power, but who were not willing to strip down some of their own personal wealth in order to live up to what they declared.

And as a direct result of their fecklessness and the crappy and incomplete system they erected, it all fell into civil war two generations later with a million dead, and then apartheid for a century after that. We're STILL dealing with the overhang of their hypocrisy.

The Revolution, given its justification, was THE moment to wipe the slate of slavery clean and do it right. The French, after all, freed THEIR slaves (and their Jews) in THEIR Revolution. We could have also, but the slavers who commanded the Revolution here did not. They betrayed their own principles and left us a freakish Frankenstein of a system, towering in its evil and hypocrisy, that could not survive scrutiny on its own principles, and that DID NOT.

I am not disgraceful for telling the truth. Washington was disgraceful for having fought a revolution for freedom but then being a petty, greedy little asshole of a man - the wealthiest man in America could not bring himself to part with ownership of his slaves BECAUSE HE WAS A SMALL SPIRITED GREEDY LITTLE MAN.

The system that he and his comparably hobbled and morally crippled co- conspirators, Jefferson and the Rutledge and the other rich Southern slavers who won the revolution and were the nations leaders after the war - this system collapsed of its own illogic. An "empire of freedom" with a quarter of the population chained slaves? What a joke! What a FOUL DISGRACE OF A LAND. IT NEEDED to be destroyed, and it WAS, in Civil War.

Civil War was not necessary. Had the greedy little killers Washington and Jefferson and Rutledge been big men - had they been as BIG as hero-worshipping Americans make them out to be, then these shitstains of men would have taken the hit in their personal wealth and FREED THEIR OWN SLAVES in order to LIVE UP TO the principles for which they DECLARED THE RIGHT TO KILL MEN!

BUT THEY DID NOT!

Which means they were, IN FACT, the petty little men that I call them. The country they ripped away, so they could rule it themselves, like local Mafiosi holding men in chains, was such a ramshackle, crappy structure, so riddled with the incongruities that THEY LEFT THERE (because they were GREEDY and SMALL and would not free their slaves), that it fell apart "Four score and five" years later.

Nobody spares the corrupt, evil, contemptible Renaissance popes. They did great evil when they were SUPPOSED to be stewards of Good, stewards of God. Nobody gives them any quarter, and they don't deserve any.

The Declaration of Independence is a great document that declares lofty morals, indeed, perhaps the ONLY moral principles on which murderous rebellion CAN be justified. But then the drafters and ratifiers of the document DID NOT DO THAT. ALL they did was manage, with the help of the Kingdoms of France, Spain and Holland, to replace British rule with home rule. They didn't treat men as equal, ever, even during the Revolution. They didn't MEAN it. They merely SAID it as a pretext to cover over what was simply treason and insurrection.

The slaves remained chained. America wasn't a free country, even colorably, until 1865. And 1865 happened because of another war, not because the SYSTEM that the Founders made worked. It didn't work. The central corruption was there for the world to see, and could not be hidden.

The American Republic, with slavery, was a public disgrace from its declaration UNTIL the slaves were freed in 1865. THEN it had at least a CHANCE of being something worthy of praise. Before that? Pfffft.

You say my attitude is disgraceful. But I say the country itself was disgraceful until slavery ended, and the Founders were a disgrace. And I'm right.

Now you're going to bellow like idolators whose sacred cows have been gored. I'm burning idols that need to be burnt. Americans do not spare their criticism of the Popes of old, or the cardinals of the present, for the monstrous sins of the past or the pedophilia of the present. And they SHOULDN'T! For those men are goddamned disgraces in the Church of God, sullying that which was founded by Christ. I don't apologize for them. I criticize them too.

And I apply the same unsparing truth and clarity to the United States, a far lesser thing of lesser importance than the Church of God and Jesus Christ.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-03-24   14:03:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#72. To: Vicomte13 (#65)

You say my attitude is disgraceful. But I say the country itself was disgraceful until slavery ended, and the Founders were a disgrace. And I'm right.

No, I'd say you're quite demented about this subject.

Rave on, if you must.

tpaine  posted on  2015-03-24   16:22:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#74. To: tpaine (#72)

No, I'd say you're quite demented about this subject.

Rave on, if you must.

Oh, I shall. For mine is the voice of VICTORY. We won. My ideas won. Those with the opposite ideas were never persuaded, and are not persuadable.

You know that sign that VxH posts, about "permanent hostility". Well, that's me: I am a deadly enemy of slavers, segregationists, and those who attempt to impose or justify the imposition of those standards in society. Because of the evil that has done in our past, it had to be cut off in blood, and it WAS.

And that was a good thing.

However, the original lesson was not learned fully. And so once again, a century later, the forces were arrayed a second time. THIS time, the segregationists had the good sense to realize that they were outnumbered, outgunned and could not win, so they surrendered and did not fight. They murdered a few people, and rotted in prison or were executed for it. The rest sullenly submitted and still are in that state.

Occasionally on chat boards they poke up their faces. And I put the heel of my egalitarian boot right between their eyes every time they do it.

You're damned right I will rave on. The fundamental equality of all men before the law is not negotiable in any way. Those who seek it, urge it, or seek to defend it, at ANY point in the history of our republic, are my mortal enemies, and I will wage war on them in the present, and on their memory. They gave no quarter to their slaves, and I will give no quarter to them. And my side won all the wars and battles. My principles are the law now, not Washington's, with his divided mind about slavery. And not Lincoln's either, with his earnest desire for a White America. No. America always was, and always will be, a place of all people, all of them equal.

That's where we've come out, and that's where we SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALL ALONG. France got there with their Revolution. WE didn't. Why? Because of the moral weakness of our Founders, their greedy narrow self-interest.

We had to get there by killing their grandchildren in great numbers. That's their fault. They should have dealt with their own sins and not propagated them further. They were willing to MURDER the British soldiers over principle, but they refused to put the restraints upon themselves.

Unacceptable.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-03-24   16:31:48 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#78. To: Vicomte13, Y'ALL (#74)

So, the Founder's hated democracy and monarchy. They liked republics, so they founded one. It failed within a decade and was replaced by another one, which failed in three generations. We're in the fourth or fifth generation since the Civil War, and our current republic is falling apart as well.

What can we take from this all? Democracy doesn't work. Monarchy doesn't work. Republics don't work. Nothing works for very long.

Vicomte13 posted at #10

You posted the above yesterday.. --- Today: ---

The fundamental equality of all men before the law is not negotiable in any way. Those who seek it, urge it, or seek to defend it, at ANY point in the history of our republic, are my mortal enemies, and I will wage war on them in the present, and on their memory. They gave no quarter to their slaves, and I will give no quarter to them. ---- And my side won all the wars and battles. -- - My principles are the law now, not Washington's, with his divided mind about slavery. And not Lincoln's either, with his earnest desire for a White America. No. America always was, and always will be, a place of all people, all of them equal.
Dementia anyone?

tpaine  posted on  2015-03-24   17:20:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#82. To: tpaine, Vicomte13 (#78)

[Vicomte13] America always was, and always will be, a place of all people, all of them equal.

That is an ideal and a political sales pitch. No such place has existed in the recorded history of man.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-03-24   18:03:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#84. To: nolu chan (#82)

That is an ideal

It is.

What is not an ideal is this: You shall not kill.

THAT is a commandment, from God, the one and only.

For a land such as America to gain its independence, a war must be fought against the established legal order. Wars mean killing, lots and lots of it. They mean breaking the law of God.

If you're going to initiate war, which is to say, if you're going to upset the peaceful order and start killing people to have your way, you had better have a justification strong enough to justify the killings you will inevitably commit. You do not have to justify them to other men - men are always ready to kill other men for advantage. No, you have to justify the killing before God. God is your judge, jury and executioner.

What, then, justifies killing on such a large scale before God? The desire to have local government? Nowhere does God suggest that a form of government is worth any bloodshed. Because of taxes? God said "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars."

What then? To prevent killing? Yes. If the government that rules you is murderous and marauding, you have the right before God to kill its agents and overthrow it to stop the murder. However, the British government was not marauding the colonists. There were taxes, and there were impositions, but even the so called Boston Massacre involved a riot scene, not a case of cold-blooded imperial murder (and the death toll was low).

What about to end slavery? To break people free of their chains of servitude? Well, yes. Under God's law, to kidnap a man and sell him was a death penalty offense.

In 1775, the Bostonians staged a revolt over nothing that could justify killing. The war spread. There was no particular justification for it that would stand up before God. The Americans didn't want to pay taxes, some members of a mob got shot in a standoff situation. The government was repressing guns. None of these things justifies killing under the laws of God.

But then the delegates met in Philadelphia and made their case to the world: "We hold these truths to be self-evident," they wrote, "that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Well, now, those are fine pretty words, but contained in two of them are genuine rights before God that would justify rebellion and bloodshed: the right to live, and the right to be free.

By this point, the British had responded to the theretofore unjustifiable rebellion with excessive force of their own, particularly the unleashing of Indian tribes on the frontiers against American colonists.

To protect yourself and others from death justifies violence, and to throw off the chains of slavery: these things justify a war, and killing.

However, for those justifications to truly exist, you have to actually mean them. You have to DO the things you claimed as the basis for your right to kill. Otherwise, you're a hypocrite. God excoriated hypocrites.

The Americans killed their own countrymen, by the thousands, over a claimed right to liberty as equal men before God. But they clamped down the chains of slavery on a quarter of the population, and kept them there.

Suddenly, their justification is gone. Now they're just killers again, killers seeking their own fortune, seeking their own power. The "freedom" they claimed was not the right to live as free, equal men. It was, rather, the right to live without taxes they didn't control, the right to run their own show, and the right to continue to grind their boots into the backs of other men.

A quarter of the population were slaves. They were kept in chains throughout the war. Washington demanded the return of all slaves liberated by the British. "All men are created equal?": "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? For the whites only. The justification dissolves into farce, into rank hypocrisy, and those who rebelled and killed, and those who led them, reduce themselves thereby to the role of rank murderers and oppressors, nothing more.

So yes, that notion of a place of all people, all equal, was indeed an ideal And it is the only ideal that justifies the existence of the country in the first place. Without THAT ideal, Washington and his ilk were simply murderers, America was a rebellious province, and the just outcome would have been for the United States to have been destroyed like the Confederacy was, and its leaders hanged as murders and traitors, which they were.

Those ideals are everything. Without ideals that are true and just, there is never a justification for using violence. America proclaimed a just ideal, but didn't even try to live up to it. This doesn't seem to perturb you.

Once upon a time, when I was a young man I joined the military to defend this country. The Cold War was on, the Soviets were a menace to liberty everywhere: so we perceived them, not unjustly. People like me will serve an ideal. Take away an ideal, though, or render it a sham (as the Republican Party has done with their repeated campaigning on a set of ideals which they then swiftly betray once in office), and you will get mercenaries, but you will not get men like me. I'll risk my life and fight for an ideal. I won't do either for an abstract "form of government" that serves no ideal but power and money, nor for a "flag". A flag is a piece of cloth. What matters is the ideals that move the men who carry it. Have the wrong ideals, and you can go hang yourself in your pretty flag.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-03-24   21:11:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#88. To: Vicomte13 (#84)

It is.

What is not an ideal is this: You shall not kill.

THAT is a commandment, from God, the one and only.

That isn't his only commandment.

Now just for arguments sake.

If thou shall not kill is a commandment.

and the Bible tells you how to treat slaves. Never mentions fighting a war to free them.

Then the Civil War was disobedience to God. If your side won. Did the winning side keep the one commandment you mentioned? Did they act in accordance with the way slaves were to be treated?

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-03-25   0:44:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#89. To: A K A Stone (#88) (Edited)

If thou shall not kill is a commandment.

and the Bible tells you how to treat slaves. Never mentions fighting a war to free them.

Careful.

Be very, very careful when speaking of the commandments of God. For God is real, and his commandments were and are real, not a game. Heaven, and Hell, are always watching and always listening, and God will not be mocked.

There is slavery in the Bible, yes, but let's bore straight into what the commandments of God on the subject actually SAY.

First, almost all of those commandments about slavery appear in the Torah, and were given to the Jews. Jesus has some things to say on the subject as well...and what he has to say is EVEN WORSE for the slaveholder than what God said to Moses.

Let's go through the slavery provisions in order of their revelation. As each plank of God's law is laid down, you will see that what is being erected is the scaffold on which the American slaveholder hanged himself.

First, in Genesis, there is no mention of slavery in the time of Adam or before the Flood. God does not give rules for the handling of slaves, or give any suggestion that men are permitted to enslave other men.

He DOES make clear, in his dialogue with Cain, that if a man does well, other men will turn to him and follow him, and he will "regulate in them", meaning he will set the rules over them. But this is only because a man does well.

Cain, of course, does NOT do well. He kills instead, and God curses him from the land and sets him to wandering on account of it.

After the Flood, as Noah and his family are leaving the Ark, God gives a definitive commandment: men are not to shed men's blood, and that if they do, by man their blood is to be shed.

There is no law of slavery given.

Next, we see the life of Abraham. We see a slave woman, Hagar, badly abused by Sarah after being commanded to bear a child for Abraham. We see Abraham, at Sarah's demand, drive the woman with her child out into the desert twice, to die. And we see God make a covenant with Sarah and her son, Ishmael, twice, and in that covenant God promising Ishmael lands, prosperity, a very great seed, and to be right there alongside of, and in the face of, Isaac and his seed, for the ages. This, of course, is precisely what has happened. For the Jews are Isaac, but the Arabs are Ishmael, and God made covenants with BOTH. And most particularly, because of the treatment of Hagar the slave, and Ishmael, the first son of Abraham, by Abraham and by Isaac's mother, God promises that the Ishmaelites will be a problem for the (later) Jews though the ages. Whoever expects the Jews to beat the Arabs for good, or for there to be a long and happy peace between them, fails to read his Scriptures. Because of Abraham's mistreatment of one slave woman and her boy, God has promised that the Ishamelites will vex the Israelites until the end. The Jews don't get to win. Both sides have a promise to live in that land, and both lands will, uneasily and unhappily, all because of those oppressive actions of Abraham and Sarah long ago.

God set the pattern: people who mistreat slaves can expect that their descendants will be vexed by the descendants of those slaves until the end of time...or until something changes. The change comes with Christ, but only if the slaver and the slave both embrace the concept that they are brothers, and repent and forgive the past. If they don't, if EITHER SIDE doesn't, then the descendants of slavers can expect misery for themselves and their descendants until the end of the world, or until the descendants of the slaves forgive them.

God set that pattern with Isaac and Ishmael. Essentially, God set the Arabs at the throats and heels of the Jews until the end of the world, with the Jews NEVER getting to win or be completely in peace, BECAUSE Abraham and Sarah drove Hagar and Ishamel into the desert to die. The only way out of God's covenant with Ishmael and Hager for EITHER Ishamel OR Isaac, for the Arabs OR the Jews, is for the Ishmaelites to relinquish THEIR covenant and the Israelites to relinquish THEIRS, and both follow the NEW covenant of Jesus, the Christ, who taught that the slave and the master are brothers, when they are in Christ, and who commanded the master to treat his slave as he would himself want to be treated, and vice versa.

The Arabs and Israelites are at each other's throats until they convert to Christ, because God MADE IT THAT WAY, because Abraham and Sarah imposed a child on a slave woman, and then drove her and the child into the desert to die twice. The cruelty of Sarah and Abraham resulted in God making a covenant with the slave woman and the slave boy that is every bit as powerful as the covenant he made with Abraham, Isaac and Israel. He promised that the Ishmaelite would also be in the land, and that his hand would be against his brother Isaac, and that he would make of Ishmael many great nations...that would be vexations to Isaac.

And that is what happened. When you see Arab and Israelite fight, recognize that God has ordained that the Arab will not win and destroy the Israelite, but ALSO that the Israelite will never win and drive out the Arab. Rather, he has ordained, by parallel covenants with two sons of the same father, that they will be at each others throats FOREVER, without the ability to resolve it. THAT is the legacy of pain for his own people that God left as the result of the mistreatment of an Egyptian slave woman and her boy.

It's a somber story. And the only way out of that covenant of perpetual duelling without victory is for BOTH to leave that old covenant and flock to the new covenant in Christ, in which the slave and the the master are brothers, and everybody does to everybody else as he would have done unto himself, and in which there is no domination.

And that's just the FIRST example of slavery. Thanks to the rigors of Abraham's and Sarah's slavery of Hagar, Israel will suffer torment from the Arabs until the end of time - or until they convert to Christ. Very bitter legacy of slavery, that, and it is a COVENANT OF GOD that it be so, not an accident. If Americans think they will EVER be free of the legacy of slavery, they should look at what God did to Isaac and his descendants, because of what Abraham and Sarah did to Hagar and Ishmael. The only way out for Arab and Jew, or for American, is to be submissive Christians and repent of the sin - admit that one is without excuse - and then behave as Christ taught. Anything short of that, and you can expect that the children of Ishmael will have their hands against you until the end of time, and you can expect that God will never let you win, just has he doomed the Israelites to never be able to free themselves of being harrassed by the Ishmaelites. Slavery bears bitter fruit forever, because God has ordained it to be so, and he did so by COVENANT. We read the convenant of Abraham. We seem to glance over God's covenant with Hagar and Ishmael. Look back at it, and you realize the bitter fruit and PERPETUAL unease that God has set out for the slaver and his heirs.

Moving forward, we come to the sons of Jacob. And what do we find? We find that the one who would become greatest of them all, Joseph, was sold into slavery by his own brothers. Ignominious. And note well who BUYS this great Israelite Patriarch: passing Ishmaelites. And look where they sell him: Egypt, the Egypt of Hagar's origins and the Egypt of Ishmael's wife's origins.

But note too the HOPE that is in this story. Joseph is a slave in Egypt, and he never escapes that function. Even as Grand Vizier, he is nevertheless the slave of Pharaoh...but his slavery DOESN'T MATTER, because Pharaoh sees his ability and elevates him above all others except himself. This prefigures the way that Ishmaelite and Isaacite, Egyptian and Hebrew, slave and master can one day be: it won't matter anymore. But for that to happen, Pharaoh must be great and visionary. The Pharaoh of Joseph was, and the Israelite people survived on account of him. But the Pharaohs of later days were more in the traditional slave master line.

This did not work out well for them.

Of course we know what happened to Egypt and to Pharaoh in the days of Moses: the terrible plagues, afflictions, calamities and death that God inflicted on the Egyptians. We should remember well that Pharaoh, left to his own devices, might very well have relented early on, but that God did not let him. It was GOD who hardened Pharaoh's heart, over and over again, SO THAT God could slaughter Egyptians, destroy their country, ruin them and wreck them and lay them low, rendering them a horror.

It was not enough for God to bring his people out of Israel. It was not enough to defeat the Egyptians. God kept hardening Pharaoh's heart so that God could MAKE AN EXAMPLE of the Egyptians, grind them like flour, beat them into the mud, break their gods, slaughter their livestock. And then, finally, when the grieving Egyptians let the Israelites go, indeed demanded they leave, God softened their hearts and heads so that they piled their gold and gems and finery on their slaves. "Please leave us, here is all of our money."

When God brought the slaves out of Egypt, he brought them out of a land that he had devastated by plague, pestilence, locusts, hail, boils, darkness, and upon whom he'd inflicted the death of the firstborn on every family. And THEN he had them hand over their gold and gems and silver and brass and fine herbs to the slaves as the slaves left, as PAYMENT for all of that theretofore unrequited labor.

So, up to the end of Genesis, we have had only three examples of slavery:

In the first, the greatest moral failings of Abraham and Sarah come through their harsh mistreatment of a slave woman and her son. And for this, God does not revoke his covenant with Abraham, but he makes ANOTHER covenant, with the slave woman and her son, to make it such that Abraham's descendants will NEVER be completely at peace in the land of the covenant, that they will always be vexed and have to face the descendants of Ishmael.

In the second, a descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob becomes a slave of Pharaoh, and through him, the Israelites come into Egypt, and the whole of Egypt is reduced by Joseph to service to Pharaoh.

In the third, God hardens Pharaoh's hearts and makes an example of Egypt for all time, leading the Israelites out with the wealth of Egypt in their hands.

There is no good news for slavers in Genesis. If the Bible ended there, one would say that not only does God never endorse slavery, but in fact he slaughters one slaving society and pillages it for the slaves, and he choses slaves as his own people. But he even punishes his own people, going forward forever, by forever putting a brake on their security in the form of the descendants of a slave woman and slave boy that the great Abraham abused.

It's not an appetizing prospect to be in the role of Sarah and the Israelites, faced forever with Ishmaelites in the land with their hands against you. And it's not an appetizing prospect to be Pharaoh or the Egyptians possessing Israelite slaves. God makes covenants with slaves to punish the descendents of the masters forever, and God makes a new people out of slaves, calls them his own, and slaughters, ruins and impoverishes the slavers. And that's just Genesis.

Maybe the plantation owners can find more hope in what comes next.

Next, the Chosen People - the ones God made his own - were slaves. He CHOSE them as slaves, and so much of what he teaches them is BECAUSE they were slaves. He makes the point of taking a non-nation and making it HIS People. For it wasn't just the descendants of the body of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who were the Israelites who came out of Egypt, but ALSO the many, many other slaves and people who came out with them: ALL of these people became the Hebrews, through the Mosaic covenant, circumcision, and the occupation of the land of Israel.

The only people that God ever chose as his own, and gave a country, and ruled directly, were not even an ethnic entity until they were unified by the Exodus and Sinai. There was a leavening of linear descendants of Abraham in their midst, but huge numbers of others. What they had in common was that they were Egyptian slaves, that God had killed and destroyed Egypt and pillaged Egypt of its wealth and given it to these slaves. He took the lowest of people, in the eyes of men, and made them HIS people - and he killed and pillaged and beat down their slavers into the mud, even opening the ocean to let the slaves cross and then closing it in to drown the entire army.

Slavers should look at Exodus and TREMBLE. They have set themselves in the role of the Egyptians and Pharaoh. And how did that work out for the Egyptians? And by WHOSE HAND were the Egyptians destroyed. Even when the Egyptians might have saved themselves by relenting early, GOD DIDN'T LET THEM. He kept on hardening Pharaoh's heart. He kept FORCING Pharaoh, against Pharaoh's will, to take a hard position SO THAT he could openly slaughter more Egyptians, and torture them more, and pillage them more, and leave them an utter ruin. And even at the end, he hardened the hearts of Pharaoh and his army one last time, so that he could drown them all in horror in the ocean, and leave a monumental story for all time that it's a really bad idea to be the slavers.

Remember, too, that simple commandment against killing. It's stern and direct and simple. How does one man enslave another? By threatening to kill him if he does not submit. Every act of submitting a man to slavery is predicated on the threat of committing the crime of murder. Slavery is maintained by the permanent threat of murder. Slavers, EVERY slaver, is a man who threatens to commit one of the worst and most persistent of all crimes that God condemns in order to maintain a sort of control that he could not maintain without the threat of murder.

Slavery can only be maintained by murder. Every slave ever killed by a master was murdered - and the master is a murderer. Every master who ever had a slave killed is very likely roasting in hell. It is a perilous thing to be involved in an enterprise that can only exist because you are willing to commit the crime of Cain and of Pharaoh and the Egyptian overseers. To maintain slavery, you have to have murder in your heart and be willing to use it. And that will get you thrown into Hell.

There is no refuge for the slaver, really, and note that God didn't LET the Egyptians repent. He didn't LET Pharaoh back down. He kept hardening Pharaoh's heart. GOD DID NOT ALLOW THE SLAVERS TO REPENT. He forced them to continue their slavery, and then he tortured them, and killed their first born, and drowned their whole army. God does not always let men repent and turn back to him. And the largest class of people that he didn't LET repent were the Egyptians under Pharaoh, and the SUBJECT MATTER of God's hardening of the heart was the maintenance of slavery.

God forced the Egyptians to maintain slavery past the point of pain SO THAT he could slaughter them in horrible ways and torment them and destroy them by his naked power SO THAT anybody who would dare be a slaver could look at Egypt for all time and know what to expect from God as punishment for the crime.

Remember: the slaver is Pharaoh and the Egyptians. The Chosen People were the slaves. How did that turn out for the slavers? ANd remember, GOd has also tortured his Chosen People for all time with the Ishmaelites, the Arabs, never letting the Jews win, BECAUSE the mistreatment of a slave woman and his mother, Ishmael and Hagar, caused God to make a covenant with THEM every bit as permanent as the one he made with Abraham.

Think on those things WELL, you who would dare to try to defend slavery based on the Bible. Think of these things BEFORE we get to the laws that God gave the Hebrews at Sinai regarding slaves in Israel.

Remember what God did to Abraham and Sarah and their descendants, the Jews, for all time: vexing them with the Arabs. Remember what God did to Pharaoh and the Egyptians. Remember that God CHOSE SLAVES as his people.

And remember that God will not be mocked.

Remember all of those things and think REALLY HARD if you want to try to defend slavery and slavers.

Remember, too, how God hardened everybody's hearts in America in the 1850s and 1860s. Remember how very devastating the Civil War was. Also remember that, to prolong it so that it could not simply be about secession or preserving the Union, God gave some early victories to the slavery power, SO THAT that would FULLY resist, everywhere. And remember how bitter the destruction and breakup and disaster was when the end came. Remember how God's Terrible Swift Sword of justice came down, and remember how badly the slavery power was destroyed.

Think back to Sarah and Hagar, to Egypt and the Hebrews, and to the Confederacy, and note well the side that God has taken in each case. Note who won, and note how awful the slavers were brought law.

Remember that in discussing this, we are speaking of the living God who did these things and gave the rules we will look at next. And remember, if you defend slavery, you are not doing so in the abstract: you are defending Egypt and Pharaoh. Remember what God did to them and ask yourself what you can possibly GAIN by taking the side of evil and defending it.

Slavery is evil. It has always been imposed and maintained by murder and the threat of murder, which is evil. All slavers are evil. And all men who defend slaves and slavery are evil, for they are defending murderers and the threat of murder. Slavers are Pharaoh and Egypt. Slavers are the people in path of Sherman's March. Look what God did to all of them and THINK AGAIN before trying to defend murderous evil slavers. Even if their names are Jefferson and Washington. They were slavers. They were Pharaoh. And that is Not Good.

Now let's look at what God actually said to the Hebrews about slavery, the actual LAW of slavery.

Many people have said that Old Testament supports slavery. Everybody who says that is either a liar or an ignoramus. To be an ignoramus means just that: to be ignorant, to not know what is actually written. Ignorance can be dispelled with knowledge. I have laid out what the Bible says regarding the slavery of Hagar and Pharaoh and Egypt, above. Also what the Bible says about murder. You're not ignorant of what God did to the slavers. Now I'm going to lay out the Law of Sinai on slavery. After you read it, you will realize that God did not condone slavery at all: he made it quite hard and expensive, actually. And then Jesus comes along and essentially makes it impossible: you can't keep slaves and keep the commandment to do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and to not kill, and to not dominate. It can't be done.

So, once you read and think you will no longer be ignorant.

But consider the case of those men who were NOT ignorant, who DID know what the Scriptures said, what God said and did. And who, nevertheless maintained slavery anyway, and who maintained a "Scriptural" argument FOR slavery. THOSE men were liars. They were deceivers, agents of Satan sent to try to deceive the ignoramuses into following them into darkness. No, the Bible does NOT condone slavery. It limits it in painful and expensive ways in the Old Testament, and makes it impossible to maintain as true slavery in the New. And anyone who tells you otherwise is an agent of Satan trying to deceive you.

Starting with the fact that slavery can only be imposed through murder and the threat of murder, and that God damns murderers and has commanded against it since Cain and Abel; and then proceeding through the Covenants that God made with slaves (Hagar and Ishmael), the lofty role that God gave to a slave, Joseph, and the utter torment and destruction of a slaving nation, while chosing His People, His Chosen and most precious, specifically from a people who were slaves he freed, we have have the grounds to see what he said at Sinai.

At Sinai, God reiterated: Do not kill. He imposed the death penalty for murder, including for murder of a slave. He also forbade kidnapping, stealing men and selling them. He imposed the death penalty for this as well.

If you cannot kill or kidnap, how can you make slaves?

There were only three ways to make slaves under God's law:

(1) People sold for crimes, because they could not pay their judgments; (2) Prisoners of War; and (3) People who were already slaves, who were purchased from others.

There was no other way to make a slave under God's law. Satan will leap forward and say "See, God justified slavery in the Scripture!" No, God did not. These are the BEGINNINGS of the bounds on slavery. There is MUCH more to follow.

But let's look at those three cases: in the first case, to be reduced to slavery for non-payment after judgment, is a process of being reduced through courts, for financial reason. This is not debtors prison, it's debtors' labor. The conditions on this are very thick in the Law of God. One rule that stands above all others is that Hebrews can NEVER be reduced to slavery, not even for debts. Never. No Hebrew slaves. Hebrews become indentured servants instead, only until retirement of the debt or the seventh year, whichever comes first. And then the Hebrew indentured servant is not only released, but his master MUST PAY HIM for his services. He cannot send him away empty handed. So, there is no Hebrew slavery in the Bible, and the "master" has to provide for his servant, and has to pay him, and has to let him go.

The servant may be compelled by law to BE a servant, to pay a debt, until the next sabbatical year. Note that this means that the MAXIMUM term of Hebrew indentured servitude for debt is 6 years, but it could be as little as a month, if the sabbatical year comes in a month. It is not a "rolling six year period" - it is only until the next fixed sabbatical year, 6 years in the worst case.

Note all of the conditions and restrictions here. Debts can be redeemed, and even if the full six years have to be worked, the master must feed and clothe and house and not mistreat, not treat as a slave, and PAY at the end.

And the Hebrew is still a Hebrew, and still has full legal rights. This is akin to a military indenture. It's certainly not slavery.

What happens if you force a Hebrew into actual slavery? Death. And, since to force a man into slavery you have to threaten murder, you're already in the hazard. If you actually kill him: death. Kidnapping: death. Sale: death. Make him work on the sabbath: death to the "owner". And the Israelite judges won't ENFORCE slavery on Hebrews, so if a man claims a Hebrew a slave, and the Hebrew defies him and walks away, there is no slavery. If the would be master beats him, then he is guilty of assault and is himself beaten. No slavery of Hebrews.

Oh, and the other two classes? Prisoners of War and Foreign slaves purchased? They could always BECOME Hebrews by conversion, and conversion to God was NOT something that the owner of a slave could prohibit. God is more important than slaveowners property.

Which means that every OTHER slave in Israel: Prisoner of War OR Foreigner purchased, always had freedom at his option, if he were to choose to convert.

Now consider American slavery: Most black slaves were Christians. Under the Law of God, believers could not be kept as slaves. If they were, the putative owners were to be put to death. Under the law of God in the Torah, the Bible, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were to be put to death: they held believers as slaves.

Any black slave who converted had to be instantly manumitted to the status of indentured servant, at worst, or freed outright. He could never be held as a slave at all after his conversion. And even if indentured, the indenture must end no later than 7 years later. Such is what the Bible actually SAYS. And those who claim otherwise are liars and agents of Satan, seeking to justify what God renders quite impossible.

Now let's move to the other cases: the foreign slave purchased by money, and the Prisoner of War.

These were indeed slaves, and could be kept as such. However, note what slavery MEANT. The slaveowner was under the following laws:

(1) If he killed his slave, he was a murderer and was to be put to death. (2) Complete rest on the Sabbath for slaves. Make a slave work on the sabbath, be put to death. (3) No sexual rights to slaves. The sexual laws applied to slaves and masters. A man could have sexual relations with a slave woman, but thereby she became his wife, was no longer a slave, and had conjugal rights, inheritance rights, rights to support. And a woman captured in war had to be allowed 30 days to grieve before she could be married. Sexual relations meant marriage. (4) No prostitution in Israel. The slaver who prostituted a woman was guilty of abomination. So, sexual relations with slaves converted them to wives. Sodomite relations with slaves got the Hebrew executed. (5) Maim a slave, the slave is freed: poke out an eye or knock out a tooth, the slave is freed. (6) Instant freedom if the slave converts: Hebrews can never be kept as slaves (and slaves cannot be prevented from coming to God). The slave, under the law, always had the key to liberty in his hands: he need turn only to God. (Did the Jews always respect this law? Who knows. Those who didn't were guilty of enslaving a Hebrew, and God's law imposed death upon them. If the law was not enforced, that was because the Jews were evil and corrupt and disregarding God's law, not because of the Scriptures). (7) Manumission of slaves in the 50th year Jubilee. Again, this doesn't grant fifty years of slavery. The Jubilee happens on fixed years. For example: this year, 2015, is a 49th year. Next year is the 50th year Jubilee. Were this Israel, Prisoners of War enslaved this year MUST be released next year on the Jubilee.

So, now, let's compare God's law of slavery - OLD TESTAMENT slavery, to American slavery.

(1) American slaves were Christian. All slaveholders of Christians were to be put to death under God's law, and the slaves were automatically free. So, all American slavers were damned to death by the Scripture, if the Scripture is basis for slavery.

(2) American slaves, being Christians, were really indentured servants. They had to be PAID for their work at the end of their service. It is a violation of God's law to send them away empty handed. Theft deserves double restitution. The American masters owed their slaves restitution.

(3) Hebrews are not to be sold. If sold, death. All slave marketeers and their transporters and bidders in the American slave system were all to be put to death under God's law. Everybody who sold a Christian faced execution under the law.

(4) American slaves were killed by their masters. The masters must be put to death as murderers.

(5) American slaves were maimed by their masters. They must be set free.

(6) Even pagan slaves were to be set free under the Jubilee, and simply become foreigners in the land. There was no American sabbatical. Slaves were for life, and slavery was inherited. This broke God's law.

(7) If you have sexual relations with a slave, you have married her and she has rights. Sally Hemmings and her daughters were rightful heirs, under God's law, of Jefferson's estate. They could not be excluded.

(8) No prostitution. The exploitation of black women in American slave brothels is punished by the execution of the operators, under God's law. The men who used the slaves married them and were liable to pay the rape price, to them.

(9) You shall not oppress a foreigner. Once freed, the black American had identical rights to any other American, under God's law.

In short, God's law did not condone slavery - it severely limited it. And under God's law of slavery, all of the Black slaves were free because they were Christian, and everybody holding them anyway was to be put to death, and all of those men who screwed black women were in fact married to them in the eyes of God, and their descendants by the body have legal rights to inherit their property.

Nothing like American slavery at all. American slavery was utterly pagan, and American slavers were damned by God either UNDER the Law of God, or OUTSIDE of it. For outside of it, there was the standard command to not kill, and American slavery was maintained by murder.

So, what can save the soul of those damned American slavers? Well, they could say "That's the OLD TESTAMENT, but WE are subject to Christ!"

Uh oh.

Christ. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" Christ. "As you measure, so it shall be measured out to you" Christ. "Do not dominate one another"...that Christ.

There is nowhere to go and nowhere to hide under God's law or certainly Christ's law. Slavery was utterly evil, everybody who practiced it, including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, were despicable pieces of shit who have no defense before God for what they did in EITHER testament.

Everybody who defends American slavery in any way is a servant of Satan. It was totally evil, and did not respect any of God's laws concerning slavery. God's laws severely restricted slavery and made it essentially optional: any man that submitted to the one true God by conversion was immediately freed of slavery. Thus could any foreign slave or POW become a Hebrew, by conversion.

God's law of slavery did not CONDONE slavery. It PROHIBITED it against God's people, and punished anybody who enslaved a Jew by death, and it led foreigners to God by giving them freedom and equal status as one of God's people.

God USED slavery as a vehicle to bring people to him individually, and free them.

THAT is the Biblical law of slavery.

AMERICAN slavery was a hellishly evil institution that respected NOT ONE of God's laws of slavery in either Testament. Every man who preached that it did was a servant of Satan, pure and simple, because there's no word for it.

Paul and Onesimus and Philemon? The slave returns to you, and he is your BROTHER. Can a man of God enslave his brother? Can he? It's not a juridical question.

There is nowhere to hide from God on this. His word is clear, and strict. American slavery was an abomination. Everybody who practiced it will be very lucky to not end up in hell.

Anybody who still defends it, in any way, is an evil fool and a servant of Satan.

Don't be a servant of Satan. It doesn't end well. It didn't end well for the slavers in America either. They lost most of what they had, were destroyed, lost family members in a war for Satan. Then they died and probably went to Hell. Damned and doomed for their evil. Indefensible. Unjustifiable. And their preachers who gave them religious arguments in FAVOR of slavery over against the actual obvious written words of Scripture: servants of Satan and agents of hell, doomed and damned.

American slavery was an abomination before God. It was totally evil and indefensible.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-03-25   11:12:48 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#94. To: redleghunter (#89)

Bitter herbs.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-03-25   11:38:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 94.

        There are no replies to Comment # 94.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 94.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com