The distribution of your message dated Thu, 07 Jan 1999 10:29:21 -0600 with
subject "Re: Stampeding Bison" has been rejected because you have exceeded the
daily per-user message limit for the CTRL list. Other than the list owner, no
one is allowed to post more than 7 messages per day. Please resend your message
at a later time if you still want it to be posted to the list.
------------------------ Rejected message (60 lines) --------------------------
Received: from mail2.ballistic.com (mail2.ballistic.com [208.211.146.6])
by listserv.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.8)
with ESMTP id LAA20170 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Thu, 7 Jan 1999 11:30:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ballistic.com (tpm2-162.ballistic.com [208.211.146.162]) by
mail2.ballistic.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA05325 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Thu, 7 Jan 1999 10:29:34 -0600
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 10:29:21 -0600
From: Hawk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Conspiracy Theory Research List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [CTRL] Stampeding Bison
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
"Howard R. Davis III" wrote:
> -Caveat Lector-
>
> Hawk wrote:
> >
> > > But slavery was an evil institution.
> >
> > That is merely your opinion, and it does not comport with the Bible. You are
>welcome to it, and you are
> certainly not alone in that opinion. But I base my criteria on "stronger stuff"
>than personal opinion. By
> the way, at one time I would have agreed with you. I was "compelled" to study
>slavery in order to support
> my position that it was evil, but my study resulted in forcing me to reject my
>initial beliefs concerning
> it. As you may have gathered, I am VERY libertarian in my political philosophy. As
>a libertarian, I would
> have to reject slavery, either an an owner or a slave. But as a Christian, I
>cannot condemn it.
> >
>
> In his long post there is much which I am in total agreement with. However, the
>above is not my view. I
> believe that Hawk would be correct if he were only to use the old testiment as
>reference. However, I believe
> that Jesus set a higher standard when he said that we should do unto others as we
>would have them do unto
> us. I don't believe the ownership of slaves is compatable with that admonishment.
You are, of course, welcome to draw any conclusions you wish from a text that says
nothing whatsoever about
the institution of slavery. There are a number of New Testament passages that speak
DIRECTLY to the issue,
and not a single one of them even remotely criticizes the institution of slavery... In
fact, the opposite is
true. Slaves are told to "be good slaves, industrious, honest" etc. Masters are told
to supervise/manage
their slaves without resorting to intimidation and brutality. Oenesimus, a run-away
slave, was told to
return to to his master, and Paul told the master, Philemon, that he would personally
recompense him for
whatever Oenesimus might have stolen or cost him in lost productivity. If slavery
were immoral, and the
biblical writers spoke of the institution many times, they were strangely remiss for
not criticizing Christian
slave-holders.
> (Though I can understand the problem of those who (like Jefferson) inherited slaves
>and did not understand
> what to do about the situation). I don't, however, believe that Jesus would have
>called upon his disciples
> to take up the sword against their owners.
You may speculate all you wish about what Jesus might have said. But an honest study
of the issue of slavery
will not lead to the conclusion that it is immoral.
Hawk
