POLITICS
Just wondering what you all think of the McCain/Palin ticket?
Any thoughts on Palin's speech last evening.
I know it's dangerous to talk politics. But I am finding it is more dangerous to talk about the Church.
posted by Bob Carder @ 2:12 PM
24 comments
24 Comments:
Well, I thought her speech was really good, but McCain has never really stood for true conservatism, so until he changes that, I'll be casting my vote for Ron Paul.
Given the only two viable candidacies (I'll not throw my vote away), I'm happy to vote for McCain/Palin. I think she adds a lot to the ticket. But they aren't going to save America (neither are the other two). I did not see Palin's speech or McCain's or Obama's...
I hope McCain and Palin live up to their promises of reform, reduced taxes, and smaller government. I'm not holding my breath. Washington corrupts. Power corrupts.
Chad, I don't think it will be possible to vote for Ron Paul. He's not on the Republican ticket. Is he running as a third party candidate? It's a pity his voice goes unheard in national politics. That's what happens when you go against the herd. The major parties marginalize you. Why didn't he speak at the RNC? Fortunately, Paul has a rabid base of 20-somethings who want the kind of change he's promoting.
My question for those reading this post: Should we talk politics from the pulpit?
McCain made a brilliant move when he nominated Palin as his running mate. When they both spoke at the Republican Convention I found myself totally convinced that they will do as they claim. I actually believe them.
I never believed a word Hillary said. And now Obama is using Hillary to counter balance Palin.
That's a bad move on Obama's part.
Michelle and I got an absentee vote card for McCain in the mail yesterday. Man, I can vote today if I want to. Who ever thunked it.
I'm not throwing my vote away either. I do want every hint of Clintonism liberal far removed from the oval office.
We need someone in the oval office who respects it as much as we Americans do.
i say that they both SAY convincing things, but i stopped trusting talking politicians a long time ago.
In Texas, you can request a ballot with write in options (I'm sure it's like that in other states too). I'll be writing in Ron Paul's name.
I don't consider that throwing away my vote. I consider it a vote for true change for a candidate that actually has a record of being a true conservative and who has consistently voted for smaller governemnt, less taxes, etc.
As far as every vote counting, I think the study Freakonomics conducted on voting showed pretty convincingly that every single vote cast is actaully irrelevant, so it doesn't really matter who we vote for.
This is the first presidential election I get to vote in and McCain has really impressed me! I kinda feel alone in my generation though (all those Obama crazies). Hopefully they won't show up. But I certainly will be casting a ballot for the Grand Old Party this year!
How many people did McCain kill in Vietnam?
I don't know who I am voting for yet. I was disappointed in Palin's speech. John McCain and Obama have been belittling each others records and stance on issues but I felt Palin crossed the line in a speak that was mocking and showed no respect. John McCain's speech redeemed things however so I still do not know how I will vote. Both canidates represent somethings (different things) that I strongly believe in.
Don't like voting for the nigger?
You're right, Bob, black people do darken the white house.
Go back to biblical principles and re-introduce slavery.
david, hmmm I can't tell if you are very angry, a debater, looking for someone who has better answers or all three. I admire straight forwardness though and you have that but not so much the over the edge offensiveness.
Martilou, you Christians are the ones with the offensive Bible that supports slavery.
Why do you place so much importance on a text written by ancient, superstitious tribe dwellers?
I bet you are too gutless to put Biblical principles into practice in your own life.
You are piss-weak.
I never going to support slavery, in fact I repented to African/American brothers on behalf of America when we had the 45,000 pastors gathering in Atlanta for reconciliation and with tears streaming down my face.
David loves to hide behind his over the top jabs. But he would not likely say what he says to Marty face to face. I know Marty and she can hold her ground with you. She is not whimpy at all. I'd love to look you in the eye, David.
Who are you really? Where do you live? Who do you worship? What is your phone number, I want to speak directly to you. Come on oh brave one. Can't wait to get together with you for real.
I am tolerating you here. When will you bring substance to the table?
Bob, looking at my calendar, I have the year 2035 free. Choose any date, except 1 June 2035. Location: any country in the southern hemisphere that is a big exporter of minerals and commodities, is a large island, and has a population of less than 30 million.
David, I happen to like chatting with you. So tell me why you think the Bible supports slavery and I will tell you why I think it doesn't.
Exodus 21:2-11
If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free. "But if the servant declares, 'I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,' then his master must take him before the judges. [a] He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.
"If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do. If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.
Leviticus 25:44-45
Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
Colossians 3:22
Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord
Titus 2:9-10
Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive.
The above biblical quotations do not sound like condemnation of slavery. They provide support in the form of a legal framework, or appropriate conduct towards an institution that, at the time, was undoubtedly an economic necessity for a large part of the world's population.
Instead of recommending an alternative way to structure society so that slavery was unnecessary, the Bible merely goes with the prevailing status-quo. There is no radical message of transformation in the Bible with respect to slavery.
Why then is it that Christians were the first and most hard-core abolitionists? Why was it that people like William Wilburforce and John Newton in England and the Quakers and others in America pressed so strongly to end slavery? Were they going against the grain of what the Scriptures say? No. I don't think they were. God has no favorites. God created everybody equal. He created every man and woman in his image his heart is saddened when we force ourselves over the innocent.
Why would he keep slavery in the Bible then, you ask? Well let's take a look at it. First, slavery in the Bible was not even close to the type of slavery in the colonial world of our past. It was more of an indentured servant type. Slave of the ancient Jewish culture became slaves to pay off debts and whatnot. It was required that they be released after a certain pre-agreed time or when the debt had been repaid. That is the first type of Biblical slavery. The second type is slavery of prisoners of war. Captured enemy soldiers would become slaves...this was actually smarter than simply killing them or putting them in prison. If you kill the enemy or put him in prison you lose a significant amount of potential work. Slavery made those POWs productive. And finally, the biblical slavery was humane. Masters respected their slaves. Slavery was more of a business agreement between slave and master. They did not go and seek out slaves as we did in Africa. Our type of African enslavement was certainly wrong. But to an extent, biblical slavery can be justified.
Now of course slavery is not the best system we can have. Workers should be compensated for their work. So I think the Bible takes an abolitionist stance in regards to slavery. If you go to the book of Philemon, you will find that Paul pleads for Onesimus's release. Onesimus was a runaway slave that came to know the Lord. He then returned to his master and the book of Philemon is Paul's plea to Philemon to release Onesimus from bondage.
You see, you have to take the Bible in context and you often have to read it "as a whole." It is good that we no longer have slavery in the US. Please remember who gave us the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments...Christians who read their Bible and saw that every man and woman is equal before God; Christians who saw that slavery (particularly in its Anglo-American form) was wrong.
Thanks for your comment though, David. Sorry if I stole any of your thunder Martilou. Feel free to add wherever necessary.
Slavery is also a good analogy of our bondage in sin. Christ died on the cross to redeem us from that slavery to sin. And believe me, that bondage is far worse than the man-made slavery institution. Christ sets captives free. He set me free. He can set you free if you let him. There is no better way to live this life than with Jesus Christ. And that, my friend, is the radical message of transformation that you will find in the Bible. I hope that you can come to discover that wonderful Truth: that Christ came to set us free; that we would have life, and have it more abundantly!!
Phil, my original assertion was that the Bible supported slavery. Your argument that the Bible tried to take a reasonable and civilized approach, either compared to the times or later time periods simply underlies that fact. The abolitionist stance you argue is a slender thread against the overwhelming acceptance of the institution - if you are honest, its not much of an argument.
As for why Christians numbered amongst the abolitionists, the obvious counter-question is if slavery was wrong then why didn't the first Christians condemn it. If something is morally wrong, it is morally wrong for all people for all time.
As for the message of Christ setting us free, what evidence is there that this is a radical message of transformation? All I see is thousands of sects and denominations squabbling over doctrine and the best way to "do church".
Here is a suggestion to all Christians: Just get one, clear message out to the world. Isnt 2000 years enough time to clear up doctrinal differences?
David, remember slavery is a sin. Holding people captive against their will is a sin. Those sinners condoned slavery and held slaves. Jesus came to redeem us from all of that.
Slavery was a part of the Old Testament time period and culture, it is the bi-productof the fall of humankind in the garden when sin enetered the world, it was not sanctioned by God to hold people captive. He never told us we could go and hold slaves as our own. God did use examples of slavery through Old Testament writers. He does call us to become bond servants or slaves to Him. We are sold out slaves to Jesus in that He is God and He alone is God.
David you are helpful in bringing historicity into the dialogue. We appreciate your research, indeed.
To David, my answer to your question: ENOUGH. But not enough to keep him from being captured.
When they tried to release him early he refused to be released ahead of anyone else who deserved to go. So he stayed in the slum, he further sacrificed for his country.
That's what we Americans do. We put others ahead of ourselves, we even put other nations ahead of our own economic security. That's what we are made of.
We'll even keep Russia or China from bombing your home town if we need to to protect you.
The concept of why the Bible appears to support slavery is a vast one. David is quite right those verses exist and we cannot pretend they are not there. I will offer a short version of my study. How we perceive God working throughout history, redeming the world, drawing it back to himself, closing the gap where sin makes its home determines how we see this issue. how we read the Bible--as a narrative or as a line by line instruction manuel effects our understanding of these passages.
It is also important to recognize the cultural nuances of the time and places of the Biblical narrative. (I am just now studying some of these). I believe God works through us human beings and he does this in his own timing. He respects our free will so he only works as much as we allow him. His statues about slavery in the old Testament are progressive for the time period and seem to actually serve to protect, in some cases, the slave. We have to continue to move forward with the redemption of all things in mind. The OT statutes are only the beginning. It is evident from where we are today on the issue of slavery that God is continuing his freeing of the captives. Creation was at God's command but redemption is a process. The key verses for me in understanding this seeming contradiction between the slavery verses and the redemption verses is Matt. Chapter 5. Jesus is clearly telling us that the law was just a shawdow to bring us to Christ and that the law is not thrown out but fulfilled in Christ. Understanding what it meant for the law to be fulfilled in christ opened the door of understanding of Scripture and all the contradictions we think we see.
It a fantastic study! If the law is not thrown out but fulfilled than that changes how we look at everything. The shifts in the way man was to look at slavery in the old testament (which were extreme in those days) found it's fulfilment in the sacrifical love of Christ that shifts the view of slavery all the way to freedom. Freedom is such a huge principle in Scripture! so that leaves us with Paul and Peter's statements--That's another long explanation that I will put off to another time but I believe it has to do with politics and priorities and of course that Scripture is a narrative not a line by line instruction manuel.
Post a Comment
<< Home