Christianity & the Old South (USA)

[Dodo_David]

In one of the threads of the "Christianity Board Starting Point" forum, a debate arose about the role of Christianity in the USA's Old South.

Being that such a debate is inappropriate for that other forum, I wish to continue that debate in this forum.

Now, on to the debate.

*******

It has been claimed that "Never did a flag represent a more Christian population than the Confederate flag for the Southern people."

How do you respond to this claim?

 

[aspen]

Well if you believe white supremacy, classism, and slavery is Christian you have a point. Oh and rebellion....

 

[Dodo_David]

Back in college, I took a class in U.S. history from the beginning of European settlement in North America to the end of the U.S. Civil War.

In the class, I learned that the southern English colonies were establish primarily for the purpose of economic gain.

The northern colonies were established primarily for the purpose of providing liberty to the settlers, especially religious liberty.

While slavery was permitted in all colonies during the time of English rule, slavery fell out of favor in the northern colonies because its inhabitants considered slavery to conflict with their religious beliefs. Being true to God's instructions was more important to them than pursuing economic gain.

When, in 1776, the USA's founding fathers were discussing their plan to declare independence from England, those from the northern colonies wanted to openly criticize King George III for permitting the continuation of slavery in the colonies. However, such an open rebuke of slavery would have been counterproductive at the time, because the northern colonies needed the cooperation of the southern colonies for any pursuit of independence to succeed.

It was only after the USA secured its independence from England that northern politicians began pressing for limitations to slavery.

For awhile, there was an uneasy truce among the states while the southern states had more political power in D.C. All of that changed as the balance of power shifted with the admission into the Union of additional states that were free states.

With Congress now in control of the free states, the election of a northern President would threaten the economic system of the southern states, which was dependent on slave labor. Thus, when Abraham Lincoln was elected President, the southern states declared independence.

The formation of the CSA had nothing to do with any attempt to preserve the Christian faith. Instead, the CSA was formed to prevent the elimination of slavery within those states. The motivation was economic in nature, not religious.

Once the U.S. Civil War began, northern soldiers (in part) perceived themselves as fighting for the cause of freedom for African slaves, because to those soldiers, such slavery was contrary to biblical commandment of "Love your neighbor as yourself".

Since then - as I and others have stated elsewhere - the Confederate battle flag has been perceived as representing a time when white southerners tried to serve two masters. On the one hand, they claimed to love God. On the other hand, their actions showed that they had no love for their black brothers and sisters.

1 John 4:20-21 states, "Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. And he has given us this command: Anyone who loves God must also love their brother and sister."

Keeping people enslaved so that one can have free labor isn't an act of love. Racial discrimination isn't an act of love, either.

Today, plenty of white Protestant Christians in the southern USA do not consider the Confederate battle flag to be a representation of their Christianity.
Instead, the flag reminds them of a time when the teachings of the Bible were compromised for economic gain.

I realize that some southerners will disagree with what I said here. Well, so be it.



[Personal Note: The events during the U.S. Civil War are a part of my human persona. The homes of my Alabama ancestors were burned to the ground by Union soldiers.]

 

[Quantrill]

I object to the title 'Christianity vs the Old South'.

The South was and is Christian. We are the 'Bible Belt'. We believe the Bible is the Word of God and our source of authority. The Old South believed the Same.

Your title is bigoted and bias. For one to defend the South, you have made it to where we are already against Chrsitianity.

My statement which apparently you didn't like was that 'Never did a flag represent a Christian people more than the Confederate flag did the Southern people.

That is not saying the Confederate flag is a Christian flag. I never said it was, and It wasn't meant to be. But the people it represented were very Christian.

So, you see. You're starting off or are trying to get me to start off on a wrong footing.

Quantrill

Well if you believe white supremacy, classism, and slavery is Christian you have a point. Oh and rebellion....

Well if you believe white supremacy, classism, and slavery is Christian you have a point. Oh and rebellion....

Are you a slave of God and Christ? Ummm? Were you purchased by Him? Ummm? Were you? What was the redeeming price? Are you to proud to be a slave of God and Christ? Are you? Ummm?

Quantrill

 

[aspen]

Are you a slave of God and Christ? Ummm? Were you purchased by Him? Ummm? Were you? What was the redeeming price? Are you to proud to be a slave of God and Christ? Are you? Ummm?

Quantrill

Not according to Jesus......John 15:15

 

[Dodo_David]

I object to the title 'Christianity vs the Old South'.

The South was and is Christian. We are the 'Bible Belt'. We believe the Bible is the Word of God and our source of authority. The Old South believed the Same.

Your title is bigoted and bias. For one to defend the South, you have made it to where we are already against Chrsitianity.

My statement which apparently you didn't like was that 'Never did a flag represent a Christian people more than the Confederate flag did the Southern people.

That is not saying the Confederate flag is a Christian flag. I never said it was, and It wasn't meant to be. But the people it represented were very Christian.

So, you see. You're starting off or are trying to get me to start off on a wrong footing.

Quantrill



Are you a slave of God and Christ? Ummm? Were you purchased by Him? Ummm? Were you? What was the redeeming price? Are you to proud to be a slave of God and Christ? Are you? Ummm?

Quantrill

I have changed the title of this thread. I agree that the original title was in error, and I apologize for it.

Anyway, we Christians remain creatures of flesh while we still have our mortal bodies, and as such creatures of flesh, sooner or later we all try to serve two masters. The flesh wants to serve one master, while the spirit wants to serve the other master.

This attempt to serve two masters was on display in the Old South in the form of slavery and racial discrimination.

Were (and are) the Christians in the Old South worse sinners than the Christians in other states? No, of course not.

Were (and are) the Christians in the Old South spiritually superior to the Christians in other states? No, of course not.

As for the claim that the Confederate battle flag represents a Christian population, I find that claim to be flawed.

The old Confederacy didn't come into existence in order to promote the Christian faith. Instead, it came into existence to protect behavior that was blatantly non-Christian. The Confederate battle flag originally represented a population that supported behavior that was blatantly non-Christian.

If the so-called "Bible Belt" is in the southern USA, then it is there in spite of the Old South's history of slavery and racism, things that are non-Christian.

Over the years, churches in the Old South have publicly apologized for supporting the slavery and racism that used to thrive in the Old South.

 

[Quantrill]

Not according to Jesus......John 15:15

So your were not purchased by God? Paul recognized his servitude. Rom.1:1' Paul a servant of Jesus Christ'.

1Cor.6:20, " For ye are bought with a price: " Does that include you?

Quantrill

I have changed the title of this thread. I agree that the original title was in error, and I apologize for it.

Anyway, we Christians remain creatures of flesh while we still have our mortal bodies, and as such creatures of flesh, sooner or later we all try to serve two masters. The flesh wants to serve one master, while the spirit wants to serve the other master.

This attempt to serve two masters was on display in the Old South in the form of slavery and racial discrimination.

Were (and are) the Christians in the Old South worse sinners than the Christians in other states? No, of course not.

Were (and are) the Christians in the Old South spiritually superior to the Christians in other states? No, of course not.

As for the claim that the Confederate battle flag represents a Christian population, I find that claim to be flawed.

The old Confederacy didn't come into existence in order to promote the Christian faith. Instead, it came into existence to protect behavior that was blatantly non-Christian. The Confederate battle flag originally represented a population that supported behavior that was blatantly non-Christian.

If the so-called "Bible Belt" is in the southern USA, then it is there in spite of the Old South's history of slavery and racism, things that are non-Christian.

Over the years, churches in the Old South have publicly apologized for supporting the slavery and racism that used to thrive in the Old South.

I appreciate the change of title.

Why did God give provisions for slavery to Israel under the Old Covenant? Why, as I asked aspen, are we as Christians 'bought and paid for' ? We went for an extremely high price, yet we are still bought and paid for. I am a slave of God and Christ. Are you?

So, how do you say slavery is non-Christian. Please don't say, the laws to Israel don't pertain to us, as we do learn from them. We are not under them but we learn something of God from them. And Jesus paying the price for us, is New Testament.

And Paul writing to Philemon concerning his runaway slave Onesimus, never once chastises Philemon for having a slave. He seeks Onesimus freedom but that is not the same. Philemon 1-25 You can compare Paul's returning the slave to his owner just as our Article 4 of the Constitution required.

Churches that have turned away from God and the Bible apoligize for a lot of things they shouldn't.

Quantrill

 

[Dodo_David]

The slavery mentioned in the Old Testament was nothing like the slavery in the Old South, and neither was the slavery in ancient Rome.

In the former, slavery was only temporary and voluntary. In the latter, the slavery was the work of people who worshiped false gods, and the latter slavery could be temporary.

No, Paul did not rant against Roman slavery, but he did encourage slaves to obtain their freedom if they could.
Had Paul ranted against Roman slavery, then he would have been prosecuted by the Roman Empire for promoting civil unrest.
Spreading the Gospel took priority over any attempts to eliminate social injustices.

People who love their neighbors as themselves don't force their neighbors into slavery.

The slavery practiced in the Old South was the product of godlessness that was started by English authorities prior to the American Revolution.
It continued for as long as it did because white southerners were more concerned about pleasing their flesh than they were about pleasing God.

[Speaking in my human guise] I, too, am a descendant of people who lived in the Confederate states, but that fact doesn't mean that I should condone or make excuses for what my southern ancestors did in regards to slavery.

Churches that have turned away from God and the Bible apoligize for a lot of things they shouldn't.

Quantrill

The churches that apologized for the slavery and racism of the Old South haven't turned away from God and the Bible.

 

[HammerStone]

If you hold that those in slavery should have remained in slavery then you abandon the position that the Founding Fathers held when they founded our country, for the colonies should have never left the mother country in that regard.

I'm concerned at this point, because honestly arguments like this are usually part of deeper thoughts and feelings on the subject. Are you saying that slavery as the CSA knew it was both biblical (whatever that means) and clearly sanctioned by the Bible in the exact form it was promised? R.L. Dabney made much more eloquent arguments than that and he was still wrong.

 

[Rach1370]

I agree with David. It is very, very clear that the slavery in the bible is worlds apart from the slavery that was seen in America ( and among other countries at that time). I have no problem that I am a slave to/for Christ...because I understand it in a biblical sense. But I feel that if we are sticking to a biblical understanding of slavery, together with what the bible teaches for all mankind, then the sort of slavery that was being practised in the Southern States was very un-Christian...in fact it denied everything that Christ stood for and came to give us.

 

[Quantrill]

Dodo-David

Slavery is slavery no matter how you want to make all slavery more acceptable than found in the United States. Oh, did I say United States. Yes I did. As the United States was involved in slavery. Its not peculiar to the South as all are made to believe.

Not only did Paul not rant against slavery, but Paul sent the slave back to his slave master. As it was the correct thing to do. According to you Paul must not have loved his neighbor.

And, I asked, if you were a slave of God? Are you bought and paid for by God, with the blood of Jesus Christ. Imagine that, God a slave owner and you and I a slave. Unless, your too good to be a slave of God.

Yes, yes you have said before your decendants from the South. That doesn't make what you say as true. It doesn't add to what you say either.

Churches that haven't apologized for slavery haven't turned from God or the Bible either. We own no apology.

Quantrill

If you hold that those in slavery should have remained in slavery then you abandon the position that the Founding Fathers held when they founded our country, for the colonies should have never left the mother country in that regard.

I'm concerned at this point, because honestly arguments like this are usually part of deeper thoughts and feelings on the subject. Are you saying that slavery as the CSA knew it was both biblical (whatever that means) and clearly sanctioned by the Bible in the exact form it was promised? R.L. Dabney made much more eloquent arguments than that and he was still wrong.

I exlained and showed that slavery was protected under the Constitution. Article 4, sec.2. You may not like it but those who put it there did.

I am saying what I am saying. Take one step at a time. For example, are you not a slave of God? Are you not purchased by Him for a price, that being the blood of Jesus Christ? No one seems to want to say they are. I guess all are better than that. Im not better than that. Im a slave of God. He is my Master.

You won't find any prohibition against slavery in the Bible. Instead you find it throughout, and find that you too are a slave.

So, what do we have here up to this point? Slavery was not a Southern institution. It was a United States institution. See again article 4, sec. 2, of the Constitution. And slavery is accepted and condoned in the Bible.

Which means, you can't judge the Southern peoples Christianity because they had slavery.

Quantrill

 

[lforrest]

Paul respected the law of the land, which included slavery. To take a slave from their master would make him a thief. This is why the abolitionists were known to buy slaves in order to free them, as my forefathers did this on at least one occasion. But just because something is the law of the land doesn't make it right, the north had the power to abolish slavery and by force it was changed.

Servants of God or the Devil will receive their due reward. The same can't be said of slaves owned by men, they work for nothing except to survive.

 

[Dodo_David]

I am not a slave of God. Instead, I am one of God's adopted earthly children.

1 John 3:1: "See what great love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are!"

The people who promoted slavery in North America did so in order to gain economic prosperity with minimum labor cost. It was all about pleasing the flesh.

In his writing, the Apostle Paul makes it clear that he preferred that slaves gain their freedom.

As I said earlier, the slavery system of the Roman Empire was not based on God's instructions. Neither was the slavery system that used to be in the USA.

 

[Rach1370]

Comparing 'being a slave to Christ', and 'being a slave in America'.....I am a little boggled at the attempt to put them together....perhaps I am missing something, but from face value, it seems to me to be comparing light to darkenss. And the very fact that the comparing is being done shows a startling lack of understanding about both states....being under Christ and what it entailed to be a slave in America....light and dark.

 

[Dodo_David]

Comparing 'being a slave to Christ', and 'being a slave in America'.....I am a little boggled at the attempt to put them together....perhaps I am missing something, but from face value, it seems to me to be comparing light to darkenss. And the very fact that the comparing is being done shows a startling lack of understanding about both states....being under Christ and what it entailed to be a slave in America....light and dark.

As I have said on numerous occasions, sooner or later, we all make the mistake of trying to serve two masters, with God being one of the masters.

That other master can take many forms.

The other master can be the veneration of one's family, kinsmen, ancestors, race, ethnicity, culture or heritage. Serving the other master requires that one not acknowledge any wrongdoing by that master. Of course, we may not consciously serve this second master. We can subconsciously serve it.

 

[Quantrill]

Paul respected the law of the land, which included slavery. To take a slave from their master would make him a thief. This is why the abolitionists were known to buy slaves in order to free them, as my forefathers did this on at least one occasion. But just because something is the law of the land doesn't make it right, the north had the power to abolish slavery and by force it was changed.

Servants of God or the Devil will receive their due reward. The same can't be said of slaves owned by men, they work for nothing except to survive.

Paul also called himself a servant or slave of Christ. Paul also said you and I are bought with a price. And you are not your own. Didn't he? Are you a slave of God? Are you to good also to call him your Master?

The abolitionists were known to steal slaves. The abolitionsits were known to kill slave owners and their families. Abolitionists, as the Northern states were doing, were abandoning Bible belileving Christianity and turning to Trancendentalism. A goodness to man belief, a social gospel, that would deny the diety of Jesus Christ.

Yes, servants of God or the Devil will recieve thier reward. Are you a servanat of God, as you say? Are you a slave of God. Were you purchased by the blood of Christ?

Quantrill

I am not a slave of God. Instead, I am one of God's adopted earthly children.

1 John 3:1: "See what great love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are!"

The people who promoted slavery in North America did so in order to gain economic prosperity with minimum labor cost. It was all about pleasing the flesh.

In his writing, the Apostle Paul makes it clear that he preferred that slaves gain their freedom.

As I said earlier, the slavery system of the Roman Empire was not based on God's instructions. Neither was the slavery system that used to be in the USA.

So you were not purchased by the blood of Christ, and you are not your own? 1Cor.6: "For ye are bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's." No one said we are not children of God. But we are also slaves of God, purchased by Him at a high cost. Something you and others here don't want to admit.

My how the Christian loves to claim 'sonship' to God. But hates to be called a slave of God.

As I said earlier, slavery in America was a United States institution. Not just a Southern one. As I proved with the Constitution. Something no one here wants to admit either.

Slavery in Rome or Israel, or the US, or anywhere, is still slavery. And God made the provision for it and never condemened it. But of course Christians now days see things bettter than God did.

Thus my point is, you cannot claim the Southern people as non-Christian because we had slaves. The South was and is very Christian. The South holds to the Bible as the Word of God.

Quantrill

As I have said on numerous occasions, sooner or later, we all make the mistake of trying to serve two masters, with God being one of the masters.

That other master can take many forms.

The other master can be the veneration of one's family, kinsmen, ancestors, race, ethnicity, culture or heritage. Serving the other master requires that one not acknowledge any wrongdoing by that master. Of course, we may not consciously serve this second master. We can subconsciously serve it.

Serving what? Two masters? Does that mean you are a slave to your Master? Yes it does.

Your making concluding statements and we have just started. Perhaps it will be you and others who should acknowledge wrongdoing. Or, should God apologize to you for buying you as a slave?

Should He?

Quantrill

 

[Dodo_David]

I find it amazing that anyone would try to throw out a red herring by claiming that abolitionists and the northern states were abandoning Bible-believing Christianity.

No, the white Protestants in the Old South were not spiritually superior to the Christians in the northern states.

To the Christians in the north, Bible-believing Christianity called for the end to slavery.

Regarding the existence of slavery in the original 13 states, that slavery was eliminated in the northern states due (at least in part) to northern Christians seeing slavery as being contrary to the commandment to love your neighbor as yourself.

When the U.S. Declaration of Independence was first drafted, it contained a complaint about the existence of slavery in the English colonies.
Here is what the rough draft says:

... he [the King of England] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemispere, or to incure miserable death in their transportation hither. this piratical warfare, the opprobium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian king of Great Britain. [determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold,] he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce [determining to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold]: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he had deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.

Indeed, in its final form, the most famous sentence in the U.S. Declaration of Independence is this:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Slavery, in the eyes of the northern Christians, conflicted with the rights that God had given to every person.

Unfortunately, in 1776, the pursuit of independence from England and, in 1787, the need to ratify the U.S. Constitution required cooperation from the southern states. In order to get that cooperation, the northern Christians had to tolerate the existence of slavery until there came a better time to challenge the existence of slavery anywhere in the USA.

To their advantage, the northern states were able to eliminate slavery on a state-by-state basis during the antebellum period.

***

Now, regarding what God did for me . . .

He purchased my redemption so that I could be His earthly adopted child, not His earthly slave.

***

Also, servants are not identical to slaves.

The label "Master" does not always refer to a slave owner. Sometimes the label refers to one who is an employer, a teacher or a superior.

For example, in the Batman movies, Alfred the butler calls his employer "Master Bruce". Alfred is Bruce Wayne's employee, not his slave.

Likewise, in the Star Wars movies, "Master" is a rank among the Jedi, as well as what a Jedi apprentice calls his/her Jedi teacher.

So, whenever the word Master is used in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the word isn't necessarily referring to someone who owns slaves. Instead, the word refers to a landowner who employs people to be his servants.

 

[Rocky Wiley]

I would think, growing up in the south, that there were many good Christians in the south. The same things that plague today's Christians plagued those. Bible teachers changed the meaning of words and passed them off as truth. Such as,
Do not be unequally yoked, to them meant don't marry outside of your race. They also used the excuse that slavery was apart of the old testament.

The good Christians were fooled by wolves in sheep clothing. We still have them today.

 

[Quantrill]

I find it amazing that anyone would try to throw out a red herring by claiming that abolitionists and the northern states were abandoning Bible-believing Christianity.

No, the white Protestants in the Old South were not spiritually superior to the Christians in the northern states.

To the Christians in the north, Bible-believing Christianity called for the end to slavery.

Regarding the existence of slavery in the original 13 states, that slavery was eliminated in the northern states due (at least in part) to northern Christians seeing slavery as being contrary to the commandment to love your neighbor as yourself.

When the U.S. Declaration of Independence was first drafted, it contained a complaint about the existence of slavery in the English colonies.
Here is what the rough draft says:


Indeed, in its final form, the most famous sentence in the U.S. Declaration of Independence is this:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Slavery, in the eyes of the northern Christians, conflicted with the rights that God had given to every person.

Unfortunately, in 1776, the pursuit of independence from England and, in 1787, the need to ratify the U.S. Constitution required cooperation from the southern states. In order to get that cooperation, the northern Christians had to tolerate the existence of slavery until there came a better time to challenge the existence of slavery anywhere in the USA.

To their advantage, the northern states were able to eliminate slavery on a state-by-state basis during the antebellum period.

***

Now, regarding what God did for me . . .

He purchased my redemption so that I could be His earthly adopted child, not His earthly slave.

***

Also, servants are not identical to slaves.

The label "Master" does not always refer to a slave owner. Sometimes the label refers to one who is an employer, a teacher or a superior.

For example, in the Batman movies, Alfred the butler calls his employer "Master Bruce". Alfred is Bruce Wayne's employee, not his slave.

Likewise, in the Star Wars movies, "Master" is a rank among the Jedi, as well as what a Jedi apprentice calls his/her Jedi teacher.

So, whenever the word Master is used in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the word isn't necessarily referring to someone who owns slaves. Instead, the word refers to a landowner who employs people to be his servants.

It is no red herring.

The North was turning to Unitarianism and Trancendentalism. Both were a social gospel not treating the Bible as the Word of God or Jesus Christ as Diety. Many abolishonists were trancendentalists. This is not Christian.

Quotes from 'John Brown Abolitionist', David S.Reynolds

"No one shaped the John Brown image more strongly than did the Trancendentalists, the nations leading intellectuals." p.214

"The trancendentalists admiration of Brown led to the later deifilcation of him in the North." p.214

"Frank Sanborn ensured John Browns fame by bringing him into the trancendentalist circle, that immediately welcomed hi and eventually magnified him to Christ-like proportions." p.215

No red herring.


Again, slavery is protected in the original part of the Constitution, Article 4, sec.2. Not the 10 ammendments. The 10 ammendments were added as a need to have the Constitution ratified.

At this time the men of the North had slaves just like those of the South. Slavery was a U.S. institution. Not a Southern institution. And, slavery became unpopular in the North, not because the North hated slavery, but because it no longer became profitable. Yes, they were the ship builders building the slave ships and made much money on the slave industry. When Europe and America passed laws that no more slaves could be introduced in the land, then the ship building went dry. Then the Norths interest in slavery went dry. And the slaves that were in the North, do you think they set them free? Sure. No, they sold them to their neighbors down South. To make a profit. Because the Souths climate and agricultural economy favored slaves. Then later, the North gets on its moral high horse and cries foul. Cries for the freedom of the slave. At the Souths cost. Not theirs.

I didn't say you as a Christian were not a son. I said you are also a slave of God. Purchased by God by the blood of Christ. A position you abhor. God bought you, making Him a slave owner. A statement you abhor. Yet Paul recognized that he was a slave first, then an apostle.

Titus 1:1 "Paul, a servant (slave) of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ"

Acts 27:23 "For the stood by me this night the angel of God, whose I am, and whom I serve"

A slave first, service next. Paul acknowledged his slaveship to God. And that first in the order. And that is the true order.

Servants are identical to slaves. They are purchased. It depends on what type of servant is being spoke of. The type Paul is using is 'slave'.

Quantrill

I would think, growing up in the south, that there were many good Christians in the south. The same things that plague today's Christians plagued those. Bible teachers changed the meaning of words and passed them off as truth. Such as,
Do not be unequally yoked, to them meant don't marry outside of your race. They also used the excuse that slavery was apart of the old testament.

The good Christians were fooled by wolves in sheep clothing. We still have them today.

Slavery was accepted by God. And just like I have been saying, you as a Christian are a slave of God. Bought and paid for by the blood of Christ. Unless your saying you were not.

The point being you do not brand the Southern people non-Christian due to the U.S. involvement of slavery.

Quantrill

 

[Rocky Wiley]

Slavery was accepted by God. And just like I have been saying, you as a Christian are a slave of God. Bought and paid for by the blood of Christ. Unless your saying you were not.

The point being you do not brand the Southern people non-Christian due to the U.S. involvement of slavery.

Quantrill

There were two types of biblical slavery. Indentured servant and servanthood. In the first, one would work for the person he owed money, until the debt was paid. The second was one of desire. Neither one was the type of slavery in America.