yes..the Bible is clear on slavery...it says it ain't cool. there have been tortured misinterpretations, for sure. and i'm not talking ultimately about legal practices...i'm just stating a thought i had on it. take it for whatever you will. i wasn't saying we should make policy based on my thought here.
I suspect that there are also Republicans out there that are actually hearing the candidates answers to these questions.
do we really need to rehash this here? Joe Liberman spoke to this last night, to considerable (APPLAUSE) from the T-R-A-N-S-C-R-I-P-T: "I didn't need George Bush to convince me that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the United States of America. John McCain and I wrote the law that made it national policy to change the regime in Baghdad. (APPLAUSE) This man was a homicidal maniac, killed hundreds of thousands of people, did have weapons of mass destruction in the '90s, used them against the Kurdish Iraqis and the Iranians, admitted to the United Nations he had enough chemical and biological to kill millions of people, supported terrorism, tried to assassinate former President Bush. I repeat: We are safer with Saddam Hussein in prison than in power. (APPLAUSE)" looks like he's a guy who can think for himself, a quality i admire...
What!?!? Hang on, I'll get the Bible out...the part where it tells runaway slaves that they are stealing, and should go back to their masters, and be good slaves.
One who believes that the simple matter of drastically changing the familial underpinings of human civilization and short-circuiting the natural cycle of human sexuality and reproduction is only a 'wedge' issue with mostly political ramifications should look in the mirror for an accurate illustration of naivete.
well, one idiot who took this position last night was Edwards. he has essentially the same position as GWB, just w/o the threat of a constitutional amendment if the courst insist on taking the issue out of the voters hands. he also didn't really seem too conversant w/ the defense of marriage act- it looked liked he hadn't been briefed on it. however, in perhaps the only good point he made last night, sharpton said issues like gay marriage are too important to be "left to states rights" and should be decided on a national level, something i suppose the defense of marriage act and the potential constitutional amendment, neither of which i support, are designed to achieve. this is an issue that cuts across a lot of demographic/ideolgical lines.
I think that many on the Right are so opposed to gay marraige because gays getting married contradicts their stereotype of homosexuals as promiscuous, decadent, perverts. The image of stable, wedded, mainstream gay couples interferes with their rantings about glory holes, fisting, and gerbils.
Some gay people would certainly see this as a core issue. These gays don't vote Republican since the Republicans and its social conservatives are openly hostile to them. I suspect that these gays also realize that the marriage issue is a state's issue. Having a Presidential candidate take a stance of this (or any other state's) issue just is not all that relevant and is done at the expense of letting the Republicans dictate the agenda with their wedge issues.
If two adults want to get married, what do you care? Live and let live. Hell, they'll even pay more taxes.
Taking detailed notes on what Sharpton is saying? Hmmm. Now there is an opinion (Sharpton's) that really matters. Not!!!
why are social issues inherently "wedge" issues? why should we be allowed o debate them in the same fashion we debate tax cuts or the Iraq War? is the war any less of a wedge issue? it certainly seems more people differ on the war than they do on gay marriage. i've seen polls that say something like 70% of americans oppose gay marriage. and i read it in the NYTimes, so i know it must be true...
Ephesians 6;5-8 Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bound or free Colossians 3;22-25 says the exact same thing. Timothy 6; 1-2: Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, becase they are bretheren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. And note, eyeservice and menpleasers as referred to in Ephesians and Colossians is referring to slaves who only work hard when there masters can see them, but 'slack off' when alone.
Do you support making gay people and/or people who participate in a "gay lifestyle" illegal? Do you think that most people will have to rethink their sexuality (that choice they made way back in their youth) if gay marriages become legal? Do think gay marriages will send the wrong message to our youth that being gay is a legit decision? The gay coupling that you think will be the fall of Western Civilization is a matter of fact already. The only thing they lack is the certificate and the rights that go with it. Now who is being naive?
Jesus says the first commandment is to love God with all your strength...the second commandment is to love you r neighbor as you love yourself. I'd certainly argue that slavery is implicitly dealt with right there. Jesus definitely used slaves/servants as metaphors in parables. I Cor. 7:22-23 -- For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. this may be what you're talking about...but i'm not sure it justifies slavery...i think it's a message to slaves about how to act in light of Jesus Christ..but not a message in support of a tyrannical system. Ephesians 6 4Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord. 5Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. But how about this: 1 Timothy 1 9We also know that law[1] is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers--and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.
Do me a favor and show me where I indicated that gay marriage would lead to the fall of Western Civilization.
Uh, none of this, with the possible exception of the assassination attempt is a threat to the US. As the N-I-E R-E-P-O-R-T stated, Saddam represented no threat to the US. The fact that there is one less bad man in power is a good thing, but not the removal of a threat to us, as per your statement about needing the UN's approval on "US security issues".
This is a message for slaves to treat their masters with respect...that being insolent will not win them to their message about Christ...it is not an endorsement of slavery: I'll even use the KJV, if you like that better... Timothy 6 1 Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. 2 And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. But again...this same writer..later puts slave traders up there with liars, murderers and adulterers as those who do evil.
Funny how you keep equating servants and slaves. I thought you said you were smart? No MacB, read your sig, servitude to the lord is what Paul is really trying to get at.
1) How is it implicitly dealt with? You are assuming that slavery would have ben recognized at the time as contrary to loving your fellow man, which is a modern idealogy. And particularly how can you consider it implicitly dealt with when, as I showed it is explicitly dealt with elsewhere? It seems so obvious to us now that slvery would have been a recognized wrong, but that's simply not the case. Slavery has been the status quo for the vast majority of human history. 2) The very fact that Jesus uses slaves in many parabols...and yet never decries slavery is seen by many to be among the strongest failings and signs of approval, but I left that out because you were negative towards interpretaion. SO I included the literal passages and you haven't addressed them/ max, plain and simple, do those passages tell slaves to be good slaves, to be towards their masters as towards God, yes or no? 3) And the passage on slave traders as a negative comment is not a comment on slavery, nor does is counter the passages which plainly countenace it. Slave traders were renowned throughout history as negative characters, not because of the ills of slavery, but because they were usually lower class, corupt, and dishonest. The phrase evolved into the Americanism " horse traders", which had a negative comment without decrying owning horses.
