-Caveat Lector-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> -Caveat Lector-
>
> My, my getting testy aren't we.
>
> In a message dated 1/14/99 11:58:24 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >> -Caveat Lector-
> >>
> >> Gee, hypocrite hawk, how come we are not still doing this today? Taking
> slaves in warfare? I mean the Bible says we can; sez H. Hawk.
> >
> >We, who? I'm not, for one reason, because I'm not fighting any wars at this
> >time... Maybe later.
> =====
> Well, let us see, hawk didn't answer this question. Just some 'cute' words.
> =====
I told you why "we" are not taking slaves in warfare.. One reason is because I am
not engaged in any applicable warfare in which slaves might be taken.. Another
reason is, as I have said many times, I do not want any slaves. If by "we" you
mean the United States, I cannot answer for the govm't... I could only presume
that they would rather kill people than take slaves. It doesn't mean that they
necessarily have an aversion to slavery... and in fact (to keep this topical), I
venture there are plans (conspiracies) in the pot right now to enslave people.
> >> So a slave has his personal sovereignty? I would submit that his personal
> >> sovereignty has been stolen. You just continue to show yourself to be an
> >> ignorant hypocrite.
> >
> >And you continue to show yourself the equivalent of a gradeschool fool... I
> think whatever you are doing, you are needed somewhere as the village idiot.
> =====
> Again, hawk has not answered any question or dealt with the issue at hand but
> has resorted to name calling and more 'cute' answers. I submit again, does a
> slave have personal sovereignty?
> =====
I do not know the definition of words or phrases you concoct. If by "personal"
you mean "as an individual" and "sovereignty" you mean absolute control over his
affairs, then my answer is "No, a slave does not have personal sovereignty." In
fact, neither do non-slaves.
> >> Did Jesus have long hair?
> >
> >I don't know...
> =====
> Hawk can you please tell me what rules are valid in the Old Testament and
> which aren't?
> =====
Which "rules" are you asking about? I don't know how you are using the word,
"valid." If you mean do the "laws" of Leviticus have jurisdiction over
Christians, the answer is "no." If, for instance, you mean "The 10 Commandments,"
the answer is "None of them." and I base that on, among other passages, Romans
7. There are many passages (particularly entire book of Galatians, and much of
Ephesians) that teach specifically, "If you wish to apply any portion of the law
upon yourself as an obligation, then you must apply all of it. It is a package
deal." However for you, as a Celtic Bhuddist, whatever in the hell that is, it
ALL applies to you, according to my understanding of New Testament doctrine on
this matter.
Hawk
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
