Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Slavery: Christian Excuses
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


(1)
Message 16 of 82 (654782)
03-04-2012 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Buzsaw
03-04-2012 8:31 AM


PRESSED WRONG BUTTON. STAY TUNED
I assure you we are waiting at the edge of our seat to hear what your racist ass has to say about slavery.

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Buzsaw, posted 03-04-2012 8:31 AM Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Phat, posted 03-04-2012 10:10 AM hooah212002 has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


(1)
Message 17 of 82 (654783)
03-04-2012 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by hooah212002
03-04-2012 9:04 AM


Excuses are like...
Thing is, with offhanded comments like that, you become no better than Buzsaw. Christians have no excuse for bad behavior, nor does anyone else. We are all accountable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by hooah212002, posted 03-04-2012 9:04 AM hooah212002 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by mike the wiz, posted 03-04-2012 5:30 PM Phat has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 18 of 82 (654804)
03-04-2012 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Trixie
03-04-2012 6:39 AM


Re: Repugnant!
y. Where do we find in the teachings of Jesus that it's OK to own and beat slaves? We don't. If the Gospels are inerrant and the OT is inerrant, then, Houston, we have a problem. We're left with the idea that God is capricious, doesn't remember what he's said previously, or does remember and doesn't give two hoots
Those are non sequiturs.
"We're left with the idea that God is capricious, doesn't remember what he's said previously, or does remember and doesn't give two hoots "
That is very much a narrow way of thinking.
You have PROPOSED a dichotomy between the Old Testament and the New Testament, but it is what we would call a false dichotomy. The real Jesus was very Jewish indeed.
We also have studied these issues, when we do our bible study each week, and there is a difference between God's permissive will and God's perfect will.
Circumstantial Priority is at play in the Old Testament. We see it is rife in that God, "allows" man to fall, allows Abraham to try and make God's will come to pass instead of having the patience to wait for Izaac, "allows" people with faith to have more than one wife.
These historical events show that God, in His ultimate plan for salvation, was willing to "look past" certain sins.
I would say that there isn't a contradiction between Jesus' teaching and the Jewish scriptures, the real problem is that compromising Christians and atheists, do not have any interest in understanding the bible as a cohesive entity. Therefore I do not agree with the claimed contradictions.
Logically, look at it now - Jesus has said that we will be cleansed from sin, as we are the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus. Therefore does that mean that God WANTS us to do all of the sins we even still do as Christians?
The bible never hides the deeds of men. This does not bring the bible to it's knees, it shows that it is a book of reality.
You jumped to many conclusions in this post, about a great deal of different topics, without providing much in the way of proving anything.
It's simply not true that we don't understand science, but again, reality is not that simple. There will be Creationists that don't understand science, and Creationists that do. There will be young Christians still on milk, that make comments that do more harm to the bible than good, and there are those who truly study the bible, and it does not mean the bible is any less true if such people are a bad example, as that is the same form as a straw-man argument, in a sense.
I would ask people to actually look deeper into the bible, try and understand why God allowed certain events to take place at certain times in history.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Trixie, posted 03-04-2012 6:39 AM Trixie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Coragyps, posted 03-04-2012 5:31 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 21 by Trixie, posted 03-04-2012 6:10 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 28 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-04-2012 7:59 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 19 of 82 (654805)
03-04-2012 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Phat
03-04-2012 10:10 AM


Re: Excuses are like...
Christians have no excuse for bad behavior, nor does anyone else
But what is bad behaviour if moral relativism is the game we are playing? Nobody can agree as to what is "right".
Nowadays, abortion is permissable, morally speaking, but it could be termed as "murder" from another place of argument.
How can you be so concerned about a moral collapse where there is no such thing, ultimately, as "bad" behaviour.
You see, the secular philosophy, falls because it has no foundation. There is nothing to fight for if you are fighting from your own values because who is to say you are right? Maybe I am right, and you are wrong?
As Christians, we have no excuse for bad behaviour, apart from that we have a sinful nature like everybody else.
Every system, every political and secular system has not been able to eradicate sin. Are atheists seriously, "concerned" about Christian behaviour? No, they just have a DESIRE to see the Christian look bad, appear bad.
This is not a noble course of action. A noble course of action might be to say, "well, perhaps this person condoning slavery is attempting to justify the bible to the best of his ability, or perhaps he only wears a Christian name-tag, or perhaps he is wrong, even though he had a good motive". Wisdom allows us all of these potential conclusion, whereas foolishness says we should believe one, silly conclusion, that "the bible as literal is wrong, and Christian morality stinks". Well, that kind of "thought" might qualify for the front of a T-shirt in my book, but that's all.
But if those comments are genuinely racist - this doesn't prove anything about Christianity or Christian morals. (Lol, what a meaningless and modern term) - all it proves is that another sinner exists.
People sin for innocent reasons, and for guilty reasons, sometimes people commit actions they would not normally commit. We as Christians can only shine according to the measure of grace God has given us. We can still be wrong about things, but does this mean we are evil? No, it might mean the person has a good motive and yet does something evil.
Atheists play the moral high ground when they are standing on a foundation of quick-sand. They think that if they can show that we sin, that Christianity is wrong. They don't know that this simply does not follow. At no time did God say we were not sinners. He has always showed favour with sinners, this does not say anything about Him other than He has treated us with undeserved kindness.
My faith in God does not incorporate, "Christian morals", I don't have any, I merely allow, to whatever degree I will let Him, the Holy Spirit to sanctify me. As it is written, "though the outer man decays, the inner man is renewed day by day" (paraphrase)
Just my own thoughts, I won't stay to debate, mate, that's pointless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Phat, posted 03-04-2012 10:10 AM Phat has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 20 of 82 (654806)
03-04-2012 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by mike the wiz
03-04-2012 5:14 PM


Re: Repugnant!
...do not have any interest in understanding the bible as a cohesive entity.
OT, I realize - but there is a very good reason for that, Mike.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by mike the wiz, posted 03-04-2012 5:14 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by mike the wiz, posted 03-04-2012 6:14 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3705 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 21 of 82 (654808)
03-04-2012 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by mike the wiz
03-04-2012 5:14 PM


Re: Repugnant!
Yes, Jesus was Jewish, very Jewish, but did He ever own a slave? Did He ever teach that it was right to own a slave? Did He ever teach that if your slave died of a beating by you, everything was OK as long as the slave didn't die that night, but died the following day?
Or did He teach "do unto others", "love thy neighbour". Also, where does that leave the commandment "Thou shall not kill"?
You say
These historical events show that God, in His ultimate plan for salvation, was willing to "look past" certain sins.
All well and good, but some literalists don't see it that way. In fact on the forum mentioned earlier, one stated that he couldn't say if owning a slave was a sin because of what is said in the OT. I find that to be a terrible indictment on the inerrantist position. If they are unable to tell whether something is morally right or wrong without it being spelled out for them, then God help us all if they ever lose their faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by mike the wiz, posted 03-04-2012 5:14 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by mike the wiz, posted 03-04-2012 6:45 PM Trixie has not replied
 Message 60 by ramoss, posted 03-08-2012 12:50 PM Trixie has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 22 of 82 (654809)
03-04-2012 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Coragyps
03-04-2012 5:31 PM


Re: Repugnant!
For me, and I mean this genuinely, there is only one explanation that makes sense to me, considering the 100% proof positive existence of sin, and that is what the bible says from the start.
For me, no other religion or compromising Christian or atheist has given me an adequate explanation of what I know to be true about myself and everyone else.
If there is a brilliant explanation of why the OT is wrong then I would love to hear how death came before sin, for example, or how millions of years of killing is a good way of designing, or whatever.
People do give answers but ultimately those answers KILL the New Testament theology.
If death is just natural then why should I care than a man called Jesus died on a cross?
If death is the result of sin, then I can say, like Paul, "oh wretched man that I am, who will free me from this body that is subject to death".
Don't forget, when you know God personally, it is not as hard to accept the scriptures.
For me - the bible, it can be very hard to defend it, but for me, I can't PRETEND it does not explain life. For me, it explains life, why it is the way it is. The ugliness of the Old Testament, most of those problems are God dealing with a sinful people. To a degree, He can give them a law, and put up with them, or He can just destroy them. The law had to show that it was not the solution, the NT tells us it had to be harsh, it tells us that the plan of salvation was ultimately through Jesus Christ.
Without the OT, what is atonement? What is the payment for sin? Did not God kill animals to clothe (cover) Adam's and Eve's sin? Right from the beginning God shows He is God by showing that His justice is absolute, but that He would desire mercy, in His plan of salvation, by becoming the killed.
Those condemnations of the OT, they all DEPEND on a specific view and goal. It is much, much, much easier to throw it out, than to actually find solutions, and dig deeper.
Half the things you believe about the OT would probably be down to thinking according to modern Greek, logic, etc...and not understanding the Hebraic thought pattern, which was infinitely different, you wouldn't believe the wrong conclusions you can come to simply by having a dismissive attitude and a certain way of thinking. If you are determined to condemn the bible, it is very easy to find a way to condemn it. This in itself says more about the person than it does about the bible. This is the problem, people, "insist", for example, that a bat is a bird, but an "owph" is a "flying thing", this is an example of Hebraic thinking, compared to modern thinking.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Coragyps, posted 03-04-2012 5:31 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by NoNukes, posted 03-04-2012 6:38 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 82 (654810)
03-04-2012 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by mike the wiz
03-04-2012 6:14 PM


Re: Repugnant!
If there is a brilliant explanation of why the OT is wrong then I would love to hear how death came before sin, for example, or how millions of years of killing is a good way of designing, or whatever.
Your argument is not logical. If the Old Testament is wrong, then none of those things necessarily need an explanation. But perhaps chasing that down is a bit off topic.
I take it that you don't believe that slavery as practiced in the US was a sin.
I have to admit to never having given the idea of whether slavery was a sin much thought, because not being a sin in the Old Testament sense, has always seemed to me to be an awfully low hurdle for determining whether some behavior is reprehensible and evil.
If death is just natural then why should I care than a man called Jesus died on a cross?
If death is natural, might not eternal life in heaven still be valued?

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by mike the wiz, posted 03-04-2012 6:14 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by mike the wiz, posted 03-04-2012 6:47 PM NoNukes has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 24 of 82 (654811)
03-04-2012 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Trixie
03-04-2012 6:10 PM


Re: Repugnant!
You are using very selective words, called, "epithets". For example, the term, "slave" or the way you are phrasing alleged texts. First you have to prove that slavery is in the bible according to a specific definition of slavery. You have not provided what the text says. Does the original Hebrew use the word slave, and what do we, as modern people, define as slave, hyper-specifically?
I could say I am my boss's slave in that he can threaten me if I do not comply. If God "allowed" a type of servanthood, did you ever consider the possibility that He allowed this to be permissive, for the benefit of the group, because He knows something you don't know?
From our angle on history, we can make some pretty silly basic logical errors, by "seeing" it according to relative morals. Slavery is just a term, what I need is truthful evaluation, a willingness to examine, why we need the epithet loaded, term, "slavery", or the epithet loaded term, "homophobia" or "fundamentalist". All of these hit-terms usually turn to dust when the Christian genuinely uses his brain to answer such tenuous argument. Audiatur et altera pas.
If you quote the OT text, you will find that you are actually putting your own spin on the text, for example look at the spin you put on this comment;
"Did He ever teach that if your slave died of a beating by you, everything was OK as long as the slave didn't die that night, but died the following day?"
I am not a stupid person, therefore as a person of thought I am going to ask some very hyper-specific questions about such assertions.
What was the reason the servant was being beaten, for example? What, specifically, according to Hebraic thinking at the time, did they want to establish, logically speaking, in regards to the person dying the following day? Is it what Trixie thinks, and must we obey Trixie's understanding of it rather than reasonably evaluating it?
You see, you WANT it to be regarded as something which is, "bad" which people call, "slavery". My fair response is to request that you prove that it was exactly the same slavery you are defining, to explain why slavery is "bad" and then prove this kind of bad-slavery is what took place in the OT, rather than using the epithet, "slavery". (Google "epithets")
There are some very strange laws in the Old Testament, some of them can be understood if you dig more into them, some of them, although they seem ridiculously harsh, are actually deterrents, for example, and there is no evidence that such a law came to fruition in real history, at all.
You see, your very specific way of interpreting the texts, is certainly a subjective way. I appreciate why on the face of it, a syntax-understanding might be appealling because it appears to us, as generally decent people by our own standards, that the law is foul. Often we are misunderstanding God's purpose through ignorance as He doesn't always divulge what He wanted from such laws. For example, historical events or culturally acceptable realities might be lost on us.
For example, Christ said, "Let He who is without sin cast the first stone".
Think about it, God was more interested in a love for obeying the law, with the individual Himself, rather than an eagerness to see the punishments of the law. But in the OT, He specifically states that the people are evil.
A lot of the laws, they make for perfect cherry-picking for atheists, but they forget that God was dealing with a certain people at a certain time, that He had His own reasons for certain laws, sometimes to simply scare the people through deterring them or making examples.
I don't believe that by making a relativist moral-attack on the bible will make it false.
I think it is the height of ilogicallity (if nothing is objectively wrong you can only say the bible is wrong subjectively, TO YOU)- you can see the likes of Dawkins revel, and I mean revel in this cherry-picking not because Dawkins is moral, except by his own relative standard, but by making God seem foul, people will then also deem God to be foul, therefore, "false". Picking up on a term like "slavery" might invoke a certain historical picture of black slavery into peoples mind, and then the bible becomes, guilty by association, instead of being logically "guilty", according to a sound syllogism.
one stated that he couldn't say if owning a slave was a sin because of what is said in the OT. I find that to be a terrible indictment on the inerrantist position. If they are unable to tell whether something is morally right or wrong without it being spelled out for them, then God help us all if they ever lose their faith.
It is not an indictment of the inerrantist position, in the sense that looking to people's views, will not affect the truth-value of scriptures in a literal context.
If a person can't tell what is morally right or wrong that does not mean you are morally superior, or that literalist Christians are more "sinful", (generalisation)what it means is that there are grey areas in a grey world. Perhaps they haven't thought of it intelligently, but that is not the bible's fault.
In a perfect system, you will not have to lie to save somebody's life, whereas you might in a imperfect system. This means that it can be ALWAYS wrong to lie, in a perfect system, elementally speaking, because you will never face a situation where it is more "right", to lie, it being the lesser evil. It seems to me that God chose lesser evils at times, in history. I do not associate the servants of the OT with the historical slavery of black Africans, which is absolutely pivotal to your whole argument, and which has not been logically shown to be the case.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Trixie, posted 03-04-2012 6:10 PM Trixie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by NoNukes, posted 03-04-2012 7:11 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 29 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-04-2012 10:19 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 25 of 82 (654812)
03-04-2012 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by NoNukes
03-04-2012 6:38 PM


Re: Repugnant!
It will still be valued. I can be wrong, I am quite open to being wrong, but then who was Jesus' father? Was He the God of nature red in tooth and claw?
It is a worldview which fundamentally explains sin, like no oether view.
I don't think I can choose to not believe it though, mate, I honestly am convinced.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by NoNukes, posted 03-04-2012 6:38 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by NoNukes, posted 03-04-2012 7:14 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 30 by anglagard, posted 03-05-2012 2:24 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(4)
Message 26 of 82 (654813)
03-04-2012 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by mike the wiz
03-04-2012 6:45 PM


Re: Repugnant!
What was the reason the servant was being beaten, for example? What, specifically, according to Hebraic thinking at the time, did they want to establish, logically speaking, in regards to the person dying the following day? Is it what Trixie thinks, and must we obey Trixie's understanding of it rather than reasonably evaluating it?
Surely you must understand how evasive your answer is.
The reason for the beating is not at issue. We know that because the law in question would allow for the beater to be prosecuted if the slave did not live for at least one day after the beating.
If you think such a beating is justifiable, then I think the onus on you is explain why rather than insisting that asking us to imagine why.
Fundamentalists are always accusing liberals of being relativists. But if your position is that understanding the OT requires immersing ourselves in Hebrew culture to the point where a homicidal beating is justified based on the time it takes a man to die, that would seem to be relativism of the highest order.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by mike the wiz, posted 03-04-2012 6:45 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by mike the wiz, posted 03-05-2012 6:17 AM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 27 of 82 (654814)
03-04-2012 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by mike the wiz
03-04-2012 6:47 PM


Re: Repugnant!
I don't think I can choose to not believe it though, mate, I honestly am convinced.
I'm not questioning your beliefs. I am questioning your arguments.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by mike the wiz, posted 03-04-2012 6:47 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 28 of 82 (654815)
03-04-2012 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by mike the wiz
03-04-2012 5:14 PM


Re: Repugnant!
It's simply not true that we don't understand science, but again, reality is not that simple. There will be Creationists that don't understand science, and Creationists that do.
Unfortunately, both of the creationists who do took a vow of silence when they entered the Trappist monastery.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by mike the wiz, posted 03-04-2012 5:14 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(9)
Message 29 of 82 (654824)
03-04-2012 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by mike the wiz
03-04-2012 6:45 PM


X
You are using very selective words, called, "epithets". For example, the term, "slave" or the way you are phrasing alleged texts. First you have to prove that slavery is in the bible according to a specific definition of slavery. You have not provided what the text says. Does the original Hebrew use the word slave, and what do we, as modern people, define as slave, hyper-specifically?
Very well, let's look into this.
Let's use the letter X where the NIV says "slave" and see what we can make of it.
An X is "property" (Exodus 21:21, Leviticus 25:46). People are "forced" to become Xs (Jeremiah 34:16). Xs are "held in bondage" (Jeremiah 34:9, Jeremiah 34:10). The opposite of X is "free" (Deuteronomy 32:36, 1 Kings 14:10, 2 Kings 9:8, 2 Kings 14:26). To cease being an X is to be "freed" (Exodus 6:6, Exodus 21:26, Jeremiah 34:9, Jeremiah 34:10). The masters of Xs "oppress them with forced labor" (Exodus 1:11). An X may be "bought" (Leviticus 22:11, Leviticus 25:44, Ecclesiastes 2:7) and "sold" (Leviticus 25:42, Deuteronomy 24:7, Esther 7:4, Job 3:19, Psalms 105:17). An X may be given as a gift (Genesis 20:14) or bequeathed by his master to his children "as inherited property" (Leviticus 25:46). If through negligence someone causes the death of an X, compensation is paid to his "master" not to his family (Exodus 21:32). It is legitimate to beat an X with a rod, so long as the beating is not so severe that the X dies as a direct result of the beating (Exodus 21:20-21).
Moreover, the slaveowning cultures of the classical Greeks and Romans translated X as δούλος (slave) in the Septuagint and servus (slave) in the Vulgate, respectively.
You ask "What do we, as modern people, define as slave, hyper-specifically?" A modern English definition of "slave" is as follows (from the Free Online Dictionary):
One bound in servitude as the property of a person or household.
And here's Wikipedia:
Slavery is a system under which people are treated as property to be bought and sold, and are forced to work.
Now, this is exactly what the OT describes. Xs are "held in bondage", they are "property", they are "bought" and "sold", and they are "oppressed with forced labor". It seems, then, that the correct English word for X is in fact "slave".
You see, you WANT it to be regarded as something which is, "bad" which people call, "slavery". My fair response is to request that you prove that it was exactly the same slavery you are defining, to explain why slavery is "bad" and then prove this kind of bad-slavery is what took place in the OT, rather than using the epithet, "slavery". (Google "epithets")
In the end, there is no point in arguing about words. If you refuse to call these people slaves, I cannot make you do so. In that case, let us think of another word for their status. Let us call them "snaves". A snave is a human being whose legal status is as property, who may be bought, sold, given as a gift or inherited, who is forced to work for his owner and may be beaten at his owner's discretion.
Now, let us say, if you wish, that the Bible never mentions slavery. It does, on the other hand, have a great deal to say about snavery. So, tell us, please, is it right or wrong to ensnave another human being? Should it be a crime to be a snave-owner, or to traffic in snaves? If it is wrong, why does the Bible institutionalize snavery rather than condemn it?
You may wrangle with words, but you cannot deny the substance of the thing whether you call it slavery or snavery: such a state existed, whatever you choose to call it. Now let us hear what you think about the moral status of snave-drivers.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by mike the wiz, posted 03-04-2012 6:45 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by mike the wiz, posted 03-05-2012 6:44 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 30 of 82 (654836)
03-05-2012 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by mike the wiz
03-04-2012 6:47 PM


Re: Repugnant!
So Mike the Wiz, instead of the sermon where you praise yourself over all others, would you like to answer a rather simple question?
Are you in favor of human slavery or not?
A simple yes or no will suffice.

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider. - Francis Bacon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by mike the wiz, posted 03-04-2012 6:47 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Theodoric, posted 03-05-2012 9:10 AM anglagard has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024