Why the sympathy for the South?

Why the hostility towards the South? Why do you hate us?

The bible says it [slavery] is wrong

Please point out where.

It says not to enslave a brother Israelite

Where does it say that? I think you better do a little more research. There were rules for slaves who were "Israelites" spelled out quite explicitly. There were also rules for those who were slaves who were not Israelites. One can argue the unethical nature of slavery (that is that the current cultural and opinion does not accept it), but is very difficult to find it as immoral (that is that the Bible as an authoritative description of what is right and wrong, absent "culture"). In fact, the Newer Testament deals with the subject as well. Why, if as you maintain that slavery was biblically wrong, did Paul not admonish Philemon to set Onesimus free? Why did he send the escaped slave Onesimus BACK to his master Philemon? No, Paul tells Onesimus to go back and to treat his master as his master. He tells Philemon to love Onesimus and to treat him rightly. But nowhere does he jump to your conclusions.

Just as the American Civil War, we must not instinctively apply OUR cultural perspectives to interpret events and positions that do not share them.

no slaves anywhere in the US by 1865 -- even before the 13th amendment was ratified

Oh really? Are you saying that the 13th Amendment did not free any slaves then? How interesting. So it is like the so-called Emancipation Proclamation in that it freed no one anywhere? I love the statement from London after January 1863, "Why has Mr. Lincoln freed slaves where he had no juristiction, and kept them enslaved where he does?"

Please point out where.

Rom 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if [there be] any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

When you hold a slave you are stealing his life and his labor.

Where does it say that?

As of the crucifixion, whomsoever shall believe in Christ is a brother Israelite because they are the spiritual seed of Abraham. And Jesus defined a neighbour as one who would show Christian charity. Therefore to love your neighbor as yourself means that you must do unto them as you would have done to yourself. Therefore no slavery to a brother Israelite neighbour and since most American blacks believe in Christ, they are brother Israelites.

I think you better do a little more research.

I have. Apparently much more than you since I'm having to explain this to you. This is Christianity 101.

There were rules for slaves who were "Israelites" spelled out quite explicitly.

In the old covenant. The old covenant ordinances died on the cross.

There were also rules for those who were slaves who were not Israelites. One can argue the unethical nature of slavery (that is that the current cultural and opinion does not accept it), but is very difficult to find it as immoral (that is that the Bible as an authoritative description of what is right and wrong, absent "culture").

Love thy neigbour as thyself. That rules out slavery. American blacks are brother Israelites and our neighbours.

In fact, the Newer Testament deals with the subject as well. Why, if as you maintain that slavery was biblically wrong, did Paul not admonish Philemon to set Onesimus free?

He did!

Phm 1:17 If thou count me therefore a partner, receive him as myself.

Paul says to receive Onesimus as himself, that means not as a slave. Why?...Because of this:

Phm 1:16 Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh, and in the Lord?

Paul says Onesimus became a brother not only in the flesh but in the Lord. That means that he became a believer. Even so, Paul did not order Onesimus to be accepted as a free man because back then, a fellow Israelite became a slave due to misbahaviour. Onesimus had actually committed misdeeds to deserve his slavery. Paul asked for Onesimus' freedom due to the fact that Onesimus became a brother in the Lord. There's a big difference between enslaving a fellow Christian due to misdeeds and enslaving a fellow Christian due to heritage, as the Southerners wanted to do forever.

Why did he send the escaped slave Onesimus BACK to his master Philemon?

To be received as a free man.

No, Paul tells Onesimus to go back and to treat his master as his master.

Where? Paul asks Philemon to accept Onesimus as a free man due to his belief in Christ.

He tells Philemon to love Onesimus and to treat him rightly. But nowhere does he jump to your conclusions.

He says to treat Onesimus as he would treat Paul. You think Philemon would enslave Paul?

Just as the American Civil War, we must not instinctively apply OUR cultural perspectives to interpret events and positions that do not share them.

The bible is very clear. A fellow believer is a spiritual descendant of Abraham and therefore a brother and a neighbour and we are to treat them as we would treat ourselves. That means heritage-induced slavery is a no-no.

t5he civil war WAS NOT about slavery.... look at the unratified 13th amendment and its formulation. I have said all along if the Southern States would have known that it was not easy to get out of the union they never would have joined it in the first place.

t5he civil war WAS NOT about slavery....

All the Declarations of Secession state slavery as the reason for secession. Especially this line from Mississppi's:

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery..."

LOL

Please do not misunderstand, I am in no way saying that slavery is a valid ethical model. I am arguing against the statement that the Bible teaches this.

a fellow Israelite became a slave due to misbahaviour. Onesimus had actually committed misdeeds to deserve his slavery

That is conjecture on your part, but opens up a can of worms I am sure you do not want opened. You see, what we call "slavery" today and what we call "indentured servatude" today in retrospect are very close. Which is "deserved"? You make this so-called "slavery by heritage" out of whole cloth. Where is your biblical and historical reference to that? In fact, the only difference in Scripture on the issue of ethnicity and slavery is WHEN they should be freed (Israelite slaves freed on the year of Sh'mitah - the sabbatical) - it does not say, "no slavery" as you may want it to.

Slavery not only existed, but was a culturally accepted norm in the days of the Newer Testament as well. It is replete with reference to slave, free, etc. Something so clearly "immoral" in your mind should surely have been addressed in clear terms? Especially, since as you assert a "new" set of "laws" exist "after the cross". Your logic is appealing, but it is still applying today's ethical standards to a time that did not hold them. You have not addressed the numerous commands concerning slavery in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. Simply, stating "that died at the cross" is not quite enough. The fact that God not only permits, but issues commands governing slavery must be viewed in light of the immutability of God.

In the old covenant. The old covenant ordinances died on the cross

An interesting take. And yet, you quote Rom 13:9, which is a quote of Exodus 20 (as you say "the old covenant"). Jesus, in Matt 22:36-40 provided a summation of the "Law" (Should I assume you would use the word "old covenant" for that word?). In doing so, he was in no way negating the "Law" but rather summing it up. Many assume Jesus (and later Paul in Rom 13:9) are giving you some brand new "new covenant" command to REPLACE all those "old covenant" ordinances. That logic says that what God said "before" is BAD. How sad. Matt 22:39 and Rom 13:9 are using Lev 19:18 which is also a part of that "old covenant" as you put it. It says,

...but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord Lev 19:18b

So, Jesus words and Paul's words are ECHOING, not replacing words from the same "old covenant" as you put it.

Exactly which of the "old covenant" ordinances "died" at the cross - obviously, you think some "made it through"?

Let's consider Jesus' words in Matt 5:17-19:

Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Now, which "commandments" do you think Jesus was refering to? Only the ones that fit our current ethos? And do the references in the Book of Revelation to "the commandments of God" have no reference to those pages before Matthew 1:1? (Rev 14:12, Rev 22:14) What are the commandments of God - and can one derive them without the use of the "old covenant" as you call it?

You make a point of being children of Abraham through faith. I agree with you on this - however, did Abraham have "slaves" and which "covenant" was a member of? Clearly, a look at his servant in Gen 23:9-12 is a fellow God-fearer? Why did Abraham have for a slave, a fellow believer?

"I think you better do a little more research." I have. Apparently much more than you since I'm having to explain this to you. This is Christianity 101

I do apologize for being pejoritive in my statement. Since I do not know you, nor you me I would assume that neither of us know what depth we have researched this. Let's say that the "Christianity 101" that I adhere to does not have such preconditions. I believe the "gospel is summed upon this basis:

Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Messiah died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Kefa [Cephas], then by the twelve. After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time. 1 Co 15:1-8

Please do not misunderstand, I am in no way saying that slavery is a valid ethical model. I am arguing against the statement that the Bible teaches this.

Actually, by trying to say the bible isn't against slavery you are saying that slavery is ethical. You're wrong on both counts.

That is conjecture on your part, but opens up a can of worms I am sure you do not want opened.

Not at all. LOL

You see, what we call "slavery" today and what we call "indentured servatude" today in retrospect are very close. Which is "deserved"?

An Israelite that committed misdeeds could be enslaved. We still practice that today with prison labor. The difference is guilt and innocence!

You make this so-called "slavery by heritage" out of whole cloth. Where is your biblical and historical reference to that?

Onesimus was Philamon's brother. To say that he didn't commit a deed against his brother to induce this slavery is being intellectually dishonest.

In fact, the only difference in Scripture on the issue of ethnicity and slavery is WHEN they should be freed (Israelite slaves freed on the year of Sh'mitah - the sabbatical) - it does not say, "no slavery" as you may want it to.

It says to love our neighbors as ourselves. American blacks are our neighbors because most are Christians.

Slavery not only existed, but was a culturally accepted norm in the days of the Newer Testament as well. It is replete with reference to slave, free, etc. Something so clearly "immoral" in your mind should surely have been addressed in clear terms?

Paul asked for Onesimus' freedom when Onesimus became a spiritual brother. It doesn't get any clearer than that.

Especially, since as you assert a "new" set of "laws" exist "after the cross".

I didn't say there was a new set of laws, I said the old ordinances died on the cross. Don't misquote me! The old covenant died on the cross. That is a fact!

Your logic is appealing, but it is still applying today's ethical standards to a time that did not hold them. You have not addressed the numerous commands concerning slavery in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy.

Old Covenant.

Simply, stating "that died at the cross" is not quite enough. The fact that God not only permits, but issues commands governing slavery must be viewed in light of the immutability of God.

Do you actually think we're still under the old covenant? Do you perform blood sacrifices? LOL

An interesting take. And yet, you quote Rom 13:9, which is a quote of Exodus 20 (as you say "the old covenant").

I'm quoting a commandment. A commandment is not an ordinance, it is a law and Jesus said he wasn't here to change the law, not one iota.

Jesus, in Matt 22:36-40 provided a summation of the "Law" (Should I assume you would use the word "old covenant" for that word?). In doing so, he was in no way negating the "Law" but rather summing it up.

Do you know the difference between ordinances and laws?

Many assume Jesus (and later Paul in Rom 13:9) are giving you some brand new "new covenant" command to REPLACE all those "old covenant" ordinances. That logic says that what God said "before" is BAD.

No, not bad. God has a plan. It was for the people before Jesus to follow the old covenant. Since Jesus came and became the ultimate sacrifice, a new covenant was necessary. No need for those old covenant ordinaces.

How sad. Matt 22:39 and Rom 13:9 are using Lev 19:18 which is also a part of that "old covenant" as you put it. It says, ...but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord Lev 19:18b

Another commandment which is law and the law didn't change. The commandments are law. There is a difference between laws and ordinances.

So, Jesus words and Paul's words are ECHOING, not replacing words from the same "old covenant" as you put it.

It's repeating the laws that didn't change. The ordinances did change though.

Exactly which of the "old covenant" ordinances "died" at the cross - obviously, you think some "made it through"?

Blood sacrifice, anything not covered by Paul. A lot of the ordinances existed for our health and safety. I'd say it's a good idea to continue to follow those. Otherwise follow the commandments and the rest of the ordinances will be decided by the powers that be if they be ordained of God as Romans says. Any ordinance that doesn't violate a commandment can be followed.

Let's consider Jesus' words in Matt 5:17-19: Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Do you know the difference between a commandment which is law, and an ordinance? Do you still perform blood sacrifice?

Now, which "commandments" do you think Jesus was refering to? Only the ones that fit our current ethos? And do the references in the Book of Revelation to "the commandments of God" have no reference to those pages before Matthew 1:1? (Rev 14:12, Rev 22:14) What are the commandments of God - and can one derive them without the use of the "old covenant" as you call it?

Paul and Jesus made clear that that the law would not be changed and the law didn't change. The ordinances did though.

You make a point of being children of Abraham through faith. I agree with you on this - however, did Abraham have "slaves" and which "covenant" was a member of?

I don't know, did he? Abraham lived long before the old covenant died on the cross and before Jesus defined who a neighbor was so what does it matter?

Clearly, a look at his servant in Gen 23:9-12 is a fellow God-fearer? Why did Abraham have for a slave, a fellow believer?

Abraham lived before the crucifixion so what does it matter?

I do apologize for being pejoritive in my statement. Since I do not know you, nor you me I would assume that neither of us know what depth we have researched this. Let's say that the "Christianity 101" that I adhere to does not have such preconditions. I believe the "gospel is summed upon this basis: Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Messiah died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Kefa [Cephas], then by the twelve. After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time. 1 Co 15:1-8

I don't believe the gospel is meant to be summed up into one paragraph. God went through the trouble of writing 60-some books, I think we're meant to study and understand all we can.