Does Slave state=Gay state?

[Evangelical]

I was reading Philemon the other day, and it is notable that Paul is not critical of slavery. Onesimus was a runaway slave and Paul overlooked this fact and asked Onesimus to retun to his slaveowner, Philemon who was also a Christian. The book actually discusses how a Christian ought to be treated, because Roman law would encourage slavery, Paul shows how a Christian slave should be treated by a Christian master far more fairly, and if at all possible, should be sold into freedom should the Christian slave request it.

Slavery then, and in all honesty the slaves of the South, probably didn't really ask for freedom, not out of fear, but in Rome's case, they were runaways from debt, and in the South's case most blacks simply didn't know what freedom was.

But reading Philemon I thought of how profoundly different the seemingly normal viewpoint in the Bible (if you have slaves, whatever, if you don't have slaves, don't get slaves); the abolition movement was.

That is to say, abolitionism took work for a Southerner to come to terms with, because they had slaves and there was no greater motion in Philemon to do anything about it.

Of course, this is a narrow view of the New Testament and ultimately a wrong one as Paul always did encourage the release of slaves, but intelligently, sort of how Thomas Jefferson saw it ending, not simply an overthrow of the system all at once.

Eventually a Christian Rome would emancipate slaves.

Either way, this same view point strongly has changed among post-Christians, regarding homosexual marriage.

And now the Christian/Post-Christian lines are being drawn.

And I believe as there are hundreds of thousands of married homosexuals from Gay states, the issue will become even more divisive and partisan as Christians refuse to accept Gay Marriage.

Ultimately I think this will turn ugly, just as no one in instigating the sale of Negros south to the Slave States, to make Northern Free States, could have forseen the Civil War (even South Carolina as it seceded thought the North would compromise and the North thought the secession was a bluff).

I am saying that the gay marriage issue today, seemingly harmless, will create as powerful a rift in the US as slavery did, because the Bible can divide people that way.

Jesus Christ did say he came to bring a sword, because it would pit brother against brother, and he was specifically referring to the sorrowful conflict between Christians and non-Christians over the truth.

 

[Luissa]

so what are you really trying to say?

 

[Evangelical]

I find it tough to articulate because of how long I'd have to make it to explain all prior points about the Civil War and antebellum South and such.

But, I was trying to reconstruct how blind a person must have been to the issue of slavery in 1780, and how wide open mens' eyes were by 1850 regarding their position on slavery.

Today, Christian and Post-Christians are rather blind to the issue of gay marriage, it's only just beginning.

But soon, as gays are married, the issue will become bigger and our eyes will be wide open, just as filled as uncompromising as to slavers and abolitionists then.

 

[Evangelical]

Also before the civil war, churches began splitting over fundamental issues; that has happened now, with the Episcopal Church. Interestingly it split over north-south divisions. This is because the civil war was caused by an age old conflict since the 1600s, Christian-Left vs. Christian-Right in America.

And you can trace those two groups ideologies all the way to the present, the Christian-Left evolving into the Post-Christians.

And you can bet they will come head to head in conflict.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

I find it tough to articulate because of how long I'd have to make it to explain all prior points about the Civil War and antebellum South and such.

But, I was trying to reconstruct how blind a person must have been to the issue of slavery in 1780, and how wide open mens' eyes were by 1850 regarding their position on slavery.

Today, Christian and Post-Christians are rather blind to the issue of gay marriage, it's only just beginning.

But soon, as gays are married, the issue will become bigger and our eyes will be wide open, just as filled as uncompromising as to slavers and abolitionists then.

One major flaw in your thinking is that the economy of the south depended upon slavery. Their livelihoods and lifestyles were dependent upon the suffering of others. They irrationally saw Blacks as sub-human, but they were not incorrect that they would have to give up their way of life when slavery ends.

Those opposing gay marriage stand to lose exactly nothing except the clearly deluded notion that marriage is somehow a sacred, religious symbol and that gay marriage will somehow devalue their own marriages. Unlike the slave-dependent South, they stand to lose nothing real or tangible. If these so-called Christians are willing to wage violence to protect a sacred definition of the word marriage, they are dumb, petty and morally bankrupt. But I guess that wouldn't be news.

 

[Shogun]

I tellya.. it's a total MYSTERY why dogma junkies are having tough times filing the pews these days...

 

[Evangelical]

I find it tough to articulate because of how long I'd have to make it to explain all prior points about the Civil War and antebellum South and such.

But, I was trying to reconstruct how blind a person must have been to the issue of slavery in 1780, and how wide open mens' eyes were by 1850 regarding their position on slavery.

Today, Christian and Post-Christians are rather blind to the issue of gay marriage, it's only just beginning.

But soon, as gays are married, the issue will become bigger and our eyes will be wide open, just as filled as uncompromising as to slavers and abolitionists then.

One major flaw in your thinking is that the economy of the south depended upon slavery. Their livelihoods and lifestyles were dependent upon the suffering of others. They irrationally saw Blacks as sub-human, but they were not incorrect that they would have to give up their way of life when slavery ends.

Those opposing gay marriage stand to lose exactly nothing except the clearly deluded notion that marriage is somehow a sacred, religious symbol and that gay marriage will somehow devalue their own marriages. Unlike the slave-dependent South, they stand to lose nothing real or tangible. If these so-called Christians are willing to wage violence to protect a sacred definition of the word marriage, they are dumb, petty and morally bankrupt. But I guess that wouldn't be news.

No, I have taken that into account, while I feel that economics is a powerful motivator, and there is an economic issue involved with Gay Marriage; I think religion and belief is equally powerful and Gay Marriage pushes into that category.

Christians stand to lose more than a slaveholder could ever lose by the threat of emancipation for at least emancipation could mean compensation.

Also I wouldn't exactly call black slaves "suffering". They lived longer than any other demographic in the US until their emancipation and subsequent derision from their masters. It's simply a proven fact that the abolitionists slandered the institution of slavery for its cruelty in order to make slave life look worse than wage-life in New York City, but the reality is at the time immigrants in tenements working in factories in the North were far worse off than slaves ever were in the south.

Slaves only had to work about 3 months out of the year.

 

[Gunny]

I find it tough to articulate because of how long I'd have to make it to explain all prior points about the Civil War and antebellum South and such.

But, I was trying to reconstruct how blind a person must have been to the issue of slavery in 1780, and how wide open mens' eyes were by 1850 regarding their position on slavery.

Today, Christian and Post-Christians are rather blind to the issue of gay marriage, it's only just beginning.

But soon, as gays are married, the issue will become bigger and our eyes will be wide open, just as filled as uncompromising as to slavers and abolitionists then.

In other words, just another analogy comparing apples to oranges with no real relevance. Black slaves were enslaved because of the color of their skin, something they could do nothing about.

Gays are denied special rights that cater solely to their behavior, because of their behavior, and no other PROVEN reason. Special rights that in fact would be discriminatory.