Secession should be considered and allowed

[tom55]

It's hard to say what would be different now, 156 years later. What it would have meant then is that the South would be it's own nation and have it's own interests decided without the constant interference and agitations of the Northern Federal Govt.

Why wouldn't I wish the South had won the war? They are my kinfolk.

Stranger

It sounds like you are of the opinion that if the south would have won they would have withdrawn their troops from the north and let the north be it's own nation?

If the south would have won the war they would have, more than likely, continued slavery.

What Federal Laws do you disagree with?

 

[Stranger]

It sounds like you are of the opinion that if the south would have won they would have withdrawn their troops from the north and let the north be it's own nation?

If the south would have won the war they would have, more than likely, continued slavery.

What Federal Laws do you disagree with?

Sounds like you don't know your history very well. The South was never able to have a total military victory over the north. At best we could make it so that the north tired of the war and let us secede. Which is all we wanted anyway. The South never intended to take over the north.

Slavery would have continued for a while. But it was on the way out. It would have been slowly replaced which was much better than the north's demand to free all the slaves at once.

Sorry, but what Federal laws did the north disagree with is the question. As I have said, the north was operating against the Constitution. Not the South.

Stranger

 

[epostle1]

Despite his reservations, Lincoln did move forward on emancipation. Evidence indicates that he was beginning to devise emancipation schemes as early as November 1861 — a mere eight months after his inauguration. On November 18 he informed George Bancroft, the historian, of his interest in emancipation — a problem to be handled with "all due caution, and with the best judgment I can bring it." Two weeks later in his annual message to Congress, the president requested a congressional law to bestow freedom on slaves who were fleeing to Union lines — a request Congress granted three months after. [10]

Lincoln's Constitutional Dilemma: Emancipation and Black Suffrage

Labor Slavery. About 78 percent toil in forced labor slavery in industries where manual labor is needed—such as farming, ranching, logging, mining, fishing, and brick making—and in service industries working as dish washers, janitors, gardeners, and maids.
Sex Slavery. About 22 percent are trapped in forced prostitution sex slavery.
Child Slavery. About 26 percent of today’s slaves are children.
SLAVERY TODAY

Since you think slavery is of God, my discussion with you on this topic is over.

 

[Stranger]

Despite his reservations, Lincoln did move forward on emancipation. Evidence indicates that he was beginning to devise emancipation schemes as early as November 1861 — a mere eight months after his inauguration. On November 18 he informed George Bancroft, the historian, of his interest in emancipation — a problem to be handled with "all due caution, and with the best judgment I can bring it." Two weeks later in his annual message to Congress, the president requested a congressional law to bestow freedom on slaves who were fleeing to Union lines — a request Congress granted three months after. [10]

Lincoln's Constitutional Dilemma: Emancipation and Black Suffrage

Labor Slavery. About 78 percent toil in forced labor slavery in industries where manual labor is needed—such as farming, ranching, logging, mining, fishing, and brick making—and in service industries working as dish washers, janitors, gardeners, and maids.
Sex Slavery. About 22 percent are trapped in forced prostitution sex slavery.
Child Slavery. About 26 percent of today’s slaves are children.
SLAVERY TODAY

Since you think slavery is of God, my discussion with you on this topic is over.

Too bad you are unwilling to take your place before God as a slave. Or you are unwilling to own it. The truth is if you haven't been bought and paid for by Him, then you don't belong to Him. This definitely always offends the 'righteous'. It never offends those who recognize the slavery they were in under their old slave master, and know now the slavery they are in under their New Slave Master.

1Cor.6:20 " For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's." Are you still offended?

Concerning Lincloln, what a myth has been developed of this man. He is nothing like our present day PC nation portrays him. He is a myth at this time. Go back and look into your history. Check out the 'Emancipation Proclamation'. What a piece of work that was. Lincoln didn't free one slave by it. He declared free slaves he couldn't free. He left slaves enslaved who he could have freed. Oh, but let the PC crowd bow to the great 'Emancipator'. The great black 'Moses'. Don't upset the myth. Cause if you do, there will be riots and burning down of your city.


Stranger

 

[tom55]

Sounds like you don't know your history very well. The South was never able to have a total military victory over the north. At best we could make it so that the north tired of the war and let us secede. Which is all we wanted anyway. The South never intended to take over the north.

Slavery would have continued for a while. But it was on the way out. It would have been slowly replaced which was much better than the north's demand to free all the slaves at once.

Sorry, but what Federal laws did the north disagree with is the question. As I have said, the north was operating against the Constitution. Not the South.

Stranger

I never said that the south was able to have total military victory over the north. I clearly used the word "IF".

What evidence do you have that slavery would have only continued for awhile?

Are you upset that the north "was operating against the Constitution"? After all, they did it to end slavery! Isn't that a good thing?

MAYBE the north was "operating against the Constitution" but the south was supporting slavery. Which is the greater evil?

 

[Stranger]

I never said that the south was able to have total military victory over the north. I clearly used the word "IF".

What evidence do you have that slavery would have only continued for awhile?

Are you upset that the north "was operating against the Constitution"? After all, they did it to end slavery! Isn't that a good thing?

MAYBE the north was "operating against the Constitution" but the south was supporting slavery. Which is the greater evil?

You implied that a Southern victory meant that the South took over the north. So, yes you did insinuate total military victory by the South. Which was never the goal of the South. The South just wanted to be left alone. Secede peacefully. Instead the north made war against us, with the intention of taking us over, which they did.

The same reason that slavery slowly subsided from the north. Because overtime it would no longer be profitable or necessary.

Maybe? Why do you say "maybe the north was operating against the Constitution"? The north 'was' operating against the Constitution. And no, they didn't break the Constitution to end slavery for any humanitarian reason. They broke the Constitution to end slavery because it was the labor force that fueled the Southern economy which was doing much better than the industrialized north.

Which is the greater evil you ask? The one you have to lie about to maintain. The one you hate to admit so must cloak it in protective language. The one you must build a myth around. Take your pick.

Stranger

 

[tom55]

You implied that a Southern victory meant that the South took over the north. So, yes you did insinuate total military victory by the South. Which was never the goal of the South. The South just wanted to be left alone. Secede peacefully. Instead the north made war against us, with the intention of taking us over, which they did.

The same reason that slavery slowly subsided from the north. Because overtime it would no longer be profitable or necessary.

Maybe? Why do you say "maybe the north was operating against the Constitution"? The north 'was' operating against the Constitution. And no, they didn't break the Constitution to end slavery for any humanitarian reason. They broke the Constitution to end slavery because it was the labor force that fueled the Southern economy which was doing much better than the industrialized north.

Which is the greater evil you ask? The one you have to lie about to maintain. The one you hate to admit so must cloak it in protective language. The one you must build a myth around. Take your pick.

Stranger

Instead of saying that I implied something how about if you quote what I said and then make your case with facts instead of your opinion. I asked you a question that you never answered: It sounds like you are of the opinion that if the south would have won they would have withdrawn their troops from the north and let the north be it's own nation? Notice the word "if" and the question mark at the end? I am not implying anything. I am asking you a question that supposes an alternative outcome of the war.

I can respect that scenario and your answer is logical (overtime it would no longer be profitable or necessary).

I said MAYBE the North was operating against The Constitution because I was trying to be nice and I disagree with your opinion. The “constitutional” basis of secession has been “resolved by the Civil War,” and there is no right to secede. Did you recite the Pledge of Allegiance in school? Remember the “one nation, indivisible” part of that pledge? The Constitution was framed and ratified by the people at large (all States), not the people of an individual States. In other words the south agreed with the words in the Constitution and the Constitution has provisions in it to end slavery. The three-fifths clause was an anti-slavery provision to limit the political power of slavery’s proponents. The three-fifths of a vote provision applied only to slaves, not to free blacks in either the North or South. The south wanted to keep slavery and the north said you can't because we are ending slavery as per the Constitution (all men are created equal).

".....it was the labor force that fueled the Southern economy which was doing much better than the industrialized north." You can't be serious? The North had five times the number of factories and ten times the number of factory workers and 90% of the nation's skilled workers were in the North. The North had better infrastructure an extensive railroad system had been built because in the South, disputes between states prevented the construction of interstate railroad systems. The North had 20,000 miles of railroad compared to the South's 9,000 miles and the North had 96% of the United States' railroad equipment. The shipbuilding industry in New England ensured that the North would have a large merchant marine and there were few merchant ships or naval vessels in the South.

You didn't answer the question: Which is the greater evil????? The north violating The Constitution?? OR The South fighting to keep slavery?

 

[Stranger]

Instead of saying that I implied something how about if you quote what I said and then make your case with facts instead of your opinion. I asked you a question that you never answered: It sounds like you are of the opinion that if the south would have won they would have withdrawn their troops from the north and let the north be it's own nation? Notice the word "if" and the question mark at the end? I am not implying anything. I am asking you a question that supposes an alternative outcome of the war.

I can respect that scenario and your answer is logical (overtime it would no longer be profitable or necessary).

I said MAYBE the North was operating against The Constitution because I was trying to be nice and I disagree with your opinion. The “constitutional” basis of secession has been “resolved by the Civil War,” and there is no right to secede. Did you recite the Pledge of Allegiance in school? Remember the “one nation, indivisible” part of that pledge? The Constitution was framed and ratified by the people at large (all States), not the people of an individual States. In other words the south agreed with the words in the Constitution and the Constitution has provisions in it to end slavery. The three-fifths clause was an anti-slavery provision to limit the political power of slavery’s proponents. The three-fifths of a vote provision applied only to slaves, not to free blacks in either the North or South. The south wanted to keep slavery and the north said you can't because we are ending slavery as per the Constitution (all men are created equal).

".....it was the labor force that fueled the Southern economy which was doing much better than the industrialized north." You can't be serious? The North had five times the number of factories and ten times the number of factory workers and 90% of the nation's skilled workers were in the North. The North had better infrastructure an extensive railroad system had been built because in the South, disputes between states prevented the construction of interstate railroad systems. The North had 20,000 miles of railroad compared to the South's 9,000 miles and the North had 96% of the United States' railroad equipment. The shipbuilding industry in New England ensured that the North would have a large merchant marine and there were few merchant ships or naval vessels in the South.

You didn't answer the question: Which is the greater evil????? The north violating The Constitution?? OR The South fighting to keep slavery?

I did make my case with facts. See your post #61. And, again, I did answer your question. Your question is not legitimate because the South could never defeat the north with a total military victory. And they didn't want to. I don't want to build on your 'myth'. So, if you want to make a question of how, if the South was able to force the north to let us secede, etc. etc. That would be a legitimate question. If you just want to build your myth, do it somewhere else.

There is no 'maybe' about it. The north was against the Constitution because it was against the fugitive slave law, and against the Southern States being treated equally in the Union. And concerning secession, yes, it was settled by the bayonet. Not before. The Constitution has words 'now' that ended slavery. Again, after the bayonet. As I said at the beginning, we are united only by the bayonet. Not by the Constitution anymore.

You don't know your history. It was never a question of, can the South have slaves? It was a question of the 'expansion' of slavery. The right of the Southern slave holder to take his slaves into new territories opened up in the west. The importation of slaves was already illegal. Had been since 1808, I believe. This was what the 'Compromises' were all about.

When they wrote the Constitution they didn't look at the slaves as equal. And, the Constitution is not the Bible. And God never said He created all men equal. He also initiated slavery, as we have already seen. All men before God are equal, in that they are but men and He is God. Did God create the blind man, or the deaf man, or the man that isn't blind or deaf? How is that equal?

Look at the Panic of 1857 and you will see how well the north's economy worked. That depression was brought on by the north. And the north's industries, with its free labor force immediately let go all its labor to starve on the streets. What do they care? They can hire the ones back later that lived through it. The South was affected but not as bad because of its agricultural economy and slave labor force. And because the slaves were money wise important to the South, they did not throw them out but instead took care of them all the way.

I answered your question. I gave you three you can pick from, or you can use all of them.

Stranger

 

[tom55]

I did make my case with facts. See your post #61. And, again, I did answer your question. Your question is not legitimate because the South could never defeat the north with a total military victory. And they didn't want to. I don't want to build on your 'myth'. So, if you want to make a question of how, if the South was able to force the north to let us secede, etc. etc. That would be a legitimate question. If you just want to build your myth, do it somewhere else.

There is no 'maybe' about it. The north was against the Constitution because it was against the fugitive slave law, and against the Southern States being treated equally in the Union. And concerning secession, yes, it was settled by the bayonet. Not before. The Constitution has words 'now' that ended slavery. Again, after the bayonet. As I said at the beginning, we are united only by the bayonet. Not by the Constitution anymore.

You don't know your history. It was never a question of, can the South have slaves? It was a question of the 'expansion' of slavery. The right of the Southern slave holder to take his slaves into new territories opened up in the west. The importation of slaves was already illegal. Had been since 1808, I believe. This was what the 'Compromises' were all about.

When they wrote the Constitution they didn't look at the slaves as equal. And, the Constitution is not the Bible. And God never said He created all men equal. He also initiated slavery, as we have already seen. All men before God are equal, in that they are but men and He is God. Did God create the blind man, or the deaf man, or the man that isn't blind or deaf? How is that equal?

Look at the Panic of 1857 and you will see how well the north's economy worked. That depression was brought on by the north. And the north's industries, with its free labor force immediately let go all its labor to starve on the streets. What do they care? They can hire the ones back later that lived through it. The South was affected but not as bad because of its agricultural economy and slave labor force. And because the slaves were money wise important to the South, they did not throw them out but instead took care of them all the way.

I answered your question. I gave you three you can pick from, or you can use all of them.

Stranger

Your post is very confusing and not factual therefor this will be my final post since I don't know how to answer you and your answer to my question about the greater evil concerns me.

I apologize to you. In the last line you stated , "I answered your question". You are right. You did answer my question by saying this: "The one you have to lie about to maintain. The one you hate to admit so must cloak it in protective language. The one you must build a myth around. Take your pick."

Your answer, it seems to me, is that the North committed the greater evil by violating The Constitution. The South, by fighting to keep people as slaves, is a lesser evil.

Maybe you and I have a different definition of evil.

 

[Stranger]

Your post is very confusing and not factual therefor this will be my final post since I don't know how to answer you and your answer to my question about the greater evil concerns me.

I apologize to you. In the last line you stated , "I answered your question". You are right. You did answer my question by saying this: "The one you have to lie about to maintain. The one you hate to admit so must cloak it in protective language. The one you must build a myth around. Take your pick."

Your answer, it seems to me, is that the North committed the greater evil by violating The Constitution. The South, by fighting to keep people as slaves, is a lesser evil.

Maybe you and I have a different definition of evil.

I don't know what you think is not 'factual', or confusing.

It was your question...that concerning the 'greater evil'. Not mine. I never indicated that slavery was evil. In other words, you continue to want to build on the myth.

I think what really concerns you is that you see that what you have been told and have accepted as true, is not. Much easier to accept the PC myth.

I doubt we have a different definition of 'evil'. We differ on what is 'evil'.

Stranger

 

[shnarkle]

Read the Scriptures I gave. Paul was returning a runaway slave to his master. Read (Lev. 25:35-46), It is clear. God instituted slavery. Are you a slave of God? Or are you to proud for that?

Saint Bathilde, Anskar, William the Conqueror, Aquinas, the Pope, etc. etc., are not God. Follow whoever you like.

Is God a slave owner?

Stranger

Pointing out how to deal with slaves is not equivalent to instituting slavery, anymore than pointing out how to deal with those who have had abortions and how to go about reconciling them to God is instituting abortion.

Paul says that it is better to remain celibate than to marry, he is hardly instituting celibacy either. He is simply making an observation.

God points out how to deal with slaves. How to treat a slave, how to behave as a slave, etc.

A perfect modern day example would be the vast migration of people who have been displaced by the wars going on in the middle east and Africa. These people are destitute and need the basics of life. They are unemployed and probably unemployable. They need training, and the only option that no one is allowing is slavery. People who can afford to take on apprentices should be allowed to do so, and I doubt there would be a shortage of those who would be interested in engaging in this voluntary agreement given their disturbing and subhuman conditions.

 

[Stranger]

Pointing out how to deal with slaves is not equivalent to instituting slavery, anymore than pointing out how to deal with those who have had abortions and how to go about reconciling them to God is instituting abortion.

Paul says that it is better to remain celibate than to marry, he is hardly instituting celibacy either. He is simply making an observation.

God points out how to deal with slaves. How to treat a slave, how to behave as a slave, etc.

A perfect modern day example would be the vast migration of people who have been displaced by the wars going on in the middle east and Africa. These people are destitute and need the basics of life. They are unemployed and probably unemployable. They need training, and the only option that no one is allowing is slavery. People who can afford to take on apprentices should be allowed to do so, and I doubt there would be a shortage of those who would be interested in engaging in this voluntary agreement given their disturbing and subhuman conditions.

(Lev. 25:44-46) " Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour."

That is God instituting slavery. "they shall be your possession" "they shall be your bondmen for ever" "an inheritance for your children" (property)

I didn't say Paul instituted slavery. Paul recognized it was from God and therefore returned the runaway slave.

Stranger

 

[shnarkle]

(Lev. 25:44-46) " Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour."

That is God instituting slavery.

Hardly. Slavery predated the law by a good long time. Just FYI, all of Israel was enslaved themselves long before they were given the law at Sinai. All God is doing here is pointing out what He considers the proper way to own slaves, who can be owned, and who can't be owned etc.

I didn't say Paul instituted slavery. Paul recognized it was from God and therefore returned the runaway slave.

Stranger

Paul recognized that we're supposed to go along with the laws of the land. God didn't institute slavery. We instituted slavery. We made ourselves slaves through our own disobedience.

 

[Stranger]

It doesn't matter that slavery already existed. When God formed a people of His own, He instituted it. Again, "Lev. 25:44-46) "of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids"

Slavery is the condition of man. If you're a Christian, you're a slave of God and Christ. You have been bought and paid for.

You don't mind being bought and paid for, do you?

Stranger

 

[waterlilyoflife]

​​What is wrong with the Fundamentalist Churches today? They have become so mean, hateful, rude and aggressive. They do not know God's word, and come up with so many crazy fad ideas, like the 'WWJD' bracelets, the prayer of Jabez, and I think Jabez was kind of a bad guy in the Bible, mega churches, hateful extremist politics, etc.

​Have you heard of free will? God does not force us to worship him. We must make a choice. Slavery has no place in the modern world. Slavery is evil.

​How could anyone claiming to be a Christian vote for trump? Trump is a foul, nasty, lying, conniving, greedy hateful selfish evil man. He lies with every breath. It is obvious how bad he behaves, yet foolish republican Baptists and other 'fundamentalist Christians' act like he's the greatest thing since sliced bread. He acts like a person controlled by Satan. He is obviously not a Christian. He claims he has never done anything wrong in his life, so he has no need to confess, no need to say the sinner's prayer of salvation, because he is perfect and doesn't need Jesus!

 

[Stranger]

​​What is wrong with the Fundamentalist Churches today? They have become so mean, hateful, rude and aggressive. They do not know God's word, and come up with so many crazy fad ideas, like the 'WWJD' bracelets, the prayer of Jabez, and I think Jabez was kind of a bad guy in the Bible, mega churches, hateful extremist politics, etc.

​Have you heard of free will? God does not force us to worship him. We must make a choice. Slavery has no place in the modern world. Slavery is evil.

​How could anyone claiming to be a Christian vote for trump? Trump is a foul, nasty, lying, conniving, greedy hateful selfish evil man. He lies with every breath. It is obvious how bad he behaves, yet foolish republican Baptists and other 'fundamentalist Christians' act like he's the greatest thing since sliced bread. He acts like a person controlled by Satan. He is obviously not a Christian. He claims he has never done anything wrong in his life, so he has no need to confess, no need to say the sinner's prayer of salvation, because he is perfect and doesn't need Jesus!

Are you a Christian?

Were you bought and paid for by God, the price being the life of Jesus Christ, His blood?

Yet you say slavery is wrong? It is not that slavery is wrong, but who is your master.

You have bought into the 'social gospel'. The 'goodness of mankind'.

I notice you give no Scripture.....because you don't need it.

Stranger

 

[waterlilyoflife]

I was seduced, kidnapped and enslaved by Satan to a dark, serious and shameful form of bondage that gave me nightmares and oppressed my soul and made me cry several tears, put a war within my soul and heart, and made me question the Bible and God's will, wondering who God was. Was God a harsh tyrant forcing people to follow a long list of petty detailed specific rules that are not important in modern day life, bringing death on slackers and the disobeident, those who follow their hearts? No, that is not who God is! God is love, kindness, mercy...He set me free.

The Lord from the bible set me free with the blood of Jesus Christ who died on the cross. I have been to many churches, most demands that people worship God their way. I worship the Lord the way He inspires me to worship Him.

Satan imprisons, Satan enslaves, God sets free, God liberates, God heals our brokeness.

I'm not sure what the 'social gospel' you talk about is. I know people are born sinful. God wants us to be good. he wants us to show his love to our neighbors, to a lost world.


Do you think Trump is a Christian?

 

[Stranger]

I was seduced, kidnapped and enslaved by Satan to a dark, serious and shameful form of bondage that gave me nightmares and oppressed my soul and made me cry several tears, put a war within my soul and heart, and made me question the Bible and God's will, wondering who God was. Was God a harsh tyrant forcing people to follow a long list of petty detailed specific rules that are not important in modern day life, bringing death on slackers and the disobeident, those who follow their hearts? No, that is not who God is! God is love, kindness, mercy...He set me free.

The Lord from the bible set me free with the blood of Jesus Christ who died on the cross. I have been to many churches, most demands that people worship God their way. I worship the Lord the way He inspires me to worship Him.

Satan imprisons, Satan enslaves, God sets free, God liberates, God heals our brokeness.

I'm not sure what the 'social gospel' you talk about is. I know people are born sinful. God wants us to be good. he wants us to show his love to our neighbors, to a lost world.


Do you think Trump is a Christian?

Yes, God set you free. But, He did so by buying you. At a very high price, His Sons blood. Just because God purchased you at a high price, doesn't make Him evil as a slave owner.

(1Cor. 6:19-20) "What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's."

Just because you're purchased by God doesn't make you free to exist away from God. You are now answerable to God. Myself, I don't want it any other way.

The 'social gospel' is that false gospel that teaches the goodness of man. It teaches in the churches that christians just need to be good to their fellow man. I reject that. God wants you to give the truth of the Gospel. That Jesus Christ died for you. That the new birth is necessary for salvation. Treat your fellow man as good as you can, but don't hedge on the Truth. And the Truth is, you are bought and paid for and God is your Master. He is your Saviour, He is your Lord, but He is also your Master. If not, what do you do with (1Cor.6:19-20)?

No, I don't believe Trump is a Christian from what I know thus far. But, he is a friend to Christians. He has his own Bible that he swore on at the swearing of the president. Understand, the leader of a country is placed there by God. He doesn't have to be a believer. When Jacob took his whole family into Egypt, Joseph was 2nd in command, but Pharoah was still the leader. Was he a follower of God? No. Was Nebuchadnezzar a follower of God when he destroyed Jerusalem? No. But God is the One Who sets him in power. (Dan. 2:38) And God taught Nebuchadnezzar that God is the One that controls the powers of government. (Dan. 4:32) " ...til thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will."

Stranger

 

[waterlilyoflife]

There is a difference between servants and slaves. Servants choose to work for their employer. I see the Lord God as my employer, my boss. I choose to work for him. God is also a heavenly father. Bosses tend to hire famly members and friends of the family. When we repent of our sins and say the sinner's prayer of salvation and are born again, we are adopted into God's family. Jesus Christ is the Son of God equal to God, in a way he IS God. SO we work for Jesus Christ. Slaves are forced to work. I think in Biblical slavery the slaves were to be treated well, with kindness and love. Slaves were like members of the family.

God disciplines both slaves and servants. I guess servants earn a wage, and servants can be fired. Slaves can't be fired, and they can be punished severely. God's slaves would be not at all like American southern slavery based on racism and greed, but more like Biblical slavery. Joseph became the chief slave in charge of Potiphar's household, and Paul wrote a letter to the slave Onesimon's owner to urge him to accept him back as a brother and not punish him terribly, the Romans brutally tortured runaway slaves.

I am confused, I am afraid to completely surrender to God, I have too much fear in me. I hate politics because it is so mean and ugly.

 

[Stranger]

waterlilyoflife

(1 Cor.6:19-20) is clear that the Christian is bought and paid for. Forget your use of terms of 'servant' or 'slave'. The Christian is bought and paid for.

If that displeases you, then by all means go back to your former slave master. Don't waste the LORD's time.

But don't try and live in this 'imaginary' world of 'freedom'. Where you imagine yourself as 'independent' and 'free to choose'. There is no such thing. You are either a slave of Satan or a slave of God. Which do you prefer?

Stranger