dagblog - Comments for "Ted Nugent: Obama is Still President. I've Let The Country Down"

Crickets in response Appears

rmrd0000 — Mon, 03 Feb 2014 04:49:30 +0000

In reply to Well, I think I can stand on

Crickets in response

Appears that you have a relatively isolated opinion given modern Christian thought. You might try reading some more modern interpretations of the Bible. You will find that there is disagreement on the reasons for the destruction of Sodom.

Understanding of the Bible changes. It used to be taught that God had cursed Blacks and said that they would be permanent slaves to Whites. Turns out that a drunk guy embarrassed that his son had seen him naked and drunk uttered that nonsense. The Curse of Ham was non-existent. You might still mistakenly be considering that a Pro-slavery episode.

Well, I think I can stand on

rmrd0000 — Mon, 03 Feb 2014 04:39:38 +0000

In reply to Well, I think I can stand on

Well, I think I can stand on what I said.

Sounds like what a lazy reporter would say after the published story is found to be full of crap.

Dude I provided names of a

rmrd0000 — Sun, 02 Feb 2014 19:37:47 +0000

In reply to Well, I think I can stand on

Dude I provided names of a number of slave revolt leaders who used the Bible as validation of their anti-slavery message. Several were Church leaders. I noted passages that instruct slaves to flee if possible. I also noted the clear instruction not to be slaves of men. I noted the question of whether Onesimus was actually a slave.

I would point out that there were abolitionists who used Philemon to argue that slavery was not a Christian position, but we would still be left with your unchanged opinion. You have concrete thought on this issue. It is of little concern since important figures read something else in the passages.

Perhaps you could provide links to those individuals who support your pro-slavery view of the Bible. I will counter with other scholars.

Well, I think I can stand on

Aaron Carine — Sun, 02 Feb 2014 15:20:41 +0000

In reply to Dude, you are wrong Denmark

Well, I think I can stand on what I said. The Pauline letters explicitly condone slavery.

I understand that you can't

rmrd0000 — Sun, 02 Feb 2014 13:26:54 +0000

In reply to Dude, you are wrong Denmark

I understand that you can't see a liberating message in the Bible. The fact is that others did. Given a choice between the liberating message heard by Denmark Vesey, Nat Turner, John Brown, Gabriel Prosser, David Williams and others as opposed to the slavery message heard by Aaron Carine, I obviously go with the freedom message.

Regarding Philemon, I find the arguments of Allan Dwight Callahan compelling. The idea that Philemon was a slave may be in error. If this is true, the Philemon pro-slavery argument withers away, I think that questioning beliefs are a strong part of Christianity.

Martin Luther King Jr found a liberating message in the Bible and said that Christians could support the oppressive practice of Jim Crow. Again given the choice between the message heard by MLK and the one heard by Aaron Carine, it is easy to choose MLK.

Here is an article from the PBS series "Slavery in America" noting the role Christianity played in many slave rebellions. The slaves were hearing a different message than the one you received.

Dude, you are wrong Denmark

AnonymousRm — Sun, 02 Feb 2014 12:56:32 +0000

In reply to Dude, telling slaves to seek

Dude, you are wrong

Denmark Vesey, for example, formed a Methodist church that served as the focus for his thoughts on the Biblical view of slavery, from his Wiki page

He urged his congregation to break free from slavery, and he quoted verses from the Bible to give them encouragement

Vesey had a Biblical basis for his rebellion,

Dude, telling slaves to seek

Aaron Carine — Sun, 02 Feb 2014 12:40:02 +0000

In reply to You conveniently overlook

Dude, telling slaves to seek their freedom(I don't think he was urging them to rebel) isn't the same as telling people they have no right to own slaves. He told slaves to be loyal to their masters. Vesey, Turner, and Brown didn't say that. If Onesimus was a slave(rmrd says some people don't think he was, although it seemed clear to me, at least), then if Paul opposed slavery, he would have said so to Philemon.

Here is an article about

rmrd0000 — Sun, 02 Feb 2014 05:23:23 +0000

In reply to If you would like a response

Here is an article about forms of slave resistance in Ancient Rome.

If you would like a response

Resistance — Sun, 02 Feb 2014 04:59:56 +0000

In reply to I don't think that Turner,

If you would like a response to the highlighted "not to be servants of men". I'll be glad to show you the Real context.

Paul would never have told Christians, to rebel against Caesar and help in a revolt of the slaves. Which would have given more reason, for the Romans to charge the Christians with sedition.

It should be noted that there

rmrd0000 — Sun, 02 Feb 2014 04:24:43 +0000

In reply to You conveniently overlook

It should be noted that there is a question whether the original text labeled Onesimus a slave. The case against Onesimus being a slave was argued by Allen Dwight Callahan in the Harvard Theological Review.

Callahan expanded his view in a book, "The Embassy of Onesimus"