There are no passages in the Bible that says you can't own slaves. There are
plenty of passages that say you can.

georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
You haven't understood what you've read and quoted. There is no reference to
permitting slaves or the approval of owning slaves, but references to the
treatment of slaves.
Again, you're making a case you haven't sufficient evidence to make.

There is no reference to permitting slaves? Really...?
"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who
live among you."
...really?
Ed

"georgann" <chenault@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:BCC2399A.3538A1CE%chenault@mindspring.com...

"Editor of EvilBible.com" wrote:

There are no passages in the Bible that says you can't own slaves.

There

are plenty of passages that say you can.

georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:

You haven't understood what you've read and quoted. There is no

to permitting slaves or the approval of owning slaves, but references to

the

treatment of slaves.

Again, you're making a case you haven't sufficient evidence to make.

why do they call them 'southern baptists'?

"Editor of EvilBible.com" wrote:

There are no passages in the Bible that says you can't own slaves. There are
plenty of passages that say you can.

georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
You haven't understood what you've read and quoted. There is no reference to
permitting slaves or the approval of owning slaves, but references to the
treatment of slaves.
Again, you're making a case you haven't sufficient evidence to make.

why do they call them 'southern baptists'?

georgann wrote:

You haven't understood what you've read and quoted. There is no reference to
permitting slaves or the approval of owning slaves, but references to the
treatment of slaves

Which is an approval of slavery.

"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote in message

"David" <davecheryll@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3b0a6dae.0405071658.3cf096e4@posting.google.com...

dgillesp <dgillesp@pemtel.net> wrote in message

news:<409BD1A6.65CCCD9A@pemtel.net>...

Unfortunately your claims that Christianity is responsible for the

of slavery is mostly wishful thinking.

Unfortunately for you I can back my claims and dispel your mistaken
premises and assumptions.

Perhaps you should back up your claim that their are New Testament

that express disapproval of slavery by posting some of them. There

any.

Again with the word "disapproval". My post didn't say disapproval.
You are correct, the Bible does not express disapproval of slavery,
which is why I didn't say that.

But in passages like 1 Corinthians 12:13, Galatians 3:28, and
Colossians 3:11, the awareness that slave owner and slave share the
same Chirst, the same body, gradually began to wear on the conscience
of the slave owners and their supporters over the centuries. And in
time, slavery was eradicated.

Check out these explicit approvals of slavery from various popes

I suppose we can change the subject from Bible to Popes, but I am not
sure why you want to do so. In any case, as you will see below, the
English language uses the words "allow" and "approve" in different
ways, and you have managed to confuse the two. What Popes allowed in
regards to slavery is not what they approved(or taught for that
matter).

Gregory I, Exposito in Librum B. Job, c 600: "All men are equal by

but.a hidden dispensation of providence has arranged a hierarchy of

and rulership, in that the differences between classes of men have

a result of sin and are ordained by divine justice."

Gregory approves of slavery because it is the result of sin? Next you
are going to tell me the Pope approves of sin itself. What you are
reading is a Pope acknowledging that slavery is the result of sin, and
God's punishment of sin. This is perfectly consistent with how
slavery is protrayed in the Bible.

The Pope is no more approving of slavery here than an abolitionist.

Nicholas V, Dum Diversas, 1452/54: "We grant you [Kings of Spain and
Portugal] by these present documents, with our Apostolic authority, full

free permission to invade, search out, capture, and subjugate the

and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they

be, as well as their kingdoms, duchies, counties, principalities, and

property.and to reduce their persons into perpetual slavery."

Yes, this was a shameful moment in Christianity. It was granted to
the King of Portugal only, although the King of Spain also sought
permission. But a Pope allowing it is not the same as a Pope
approving it. It is a subtle distinction, but one that is capable of
being understood. This is back when Kings still had not freed
themselves from the Pope's claim of authority.

Paul III, Motu Proprio, 1548: "Each and every person of either sex,

Roman or non-Roman, whether secular or clerical.may freely and lawfully

and sell publicly any slaves whatsoever of either sex.and publicly hold

as slaves and make use of their work, and compel them to do the work
assigned to them.Slaves who flee to the Capitol and appeal for their

shall in no wise be freed from the bondage of their servitude, but.shall

returned in slavery to their owners and if it seems proper.punished as
runaways."

Ah, the truth, the partial truth, and only the convenient partial
truth. I noticed you forgot to include his condemnation of
indiscrimanate enslavement of the native peoples of South America.
That is ok, I have now corrected your oversight.

And of course, allowing something in law doesn't mean approval. Just
because Nevada allows prostitution to be legal doesn't mean the
lawmakers approve of it.

St Augustine argued that prostitution had to
be tolerated even if it was immoral, because society could be
destroyed if it was not.

. Popes Urban VIII (1629), Innocent X (1645) and Alexander VII (1661)

personally involved in purchasing Muslim galley slaves.

That's nothing. We had Popes plot to murder enemies, and engage in
incest. Are you going to tell me the Church taught murder and incest
is ok?

Holy Office, 1866: "Slavery itself.is not at all contrary to the natural

divine law.For the sort of ownership which a slave owner has over a

understood as nothing other than the perpetual right of disposing of the
work of a slave for one's own benefit - services which it is the right

one human being to provide for another.The purchaser should carefully
examine whether the slave has been justly or unjustly deprived of his
liberty and that the vendor should do nothing which might endanger the

virtue, or Catholic faith of the slave."

The key words here are "which a slave owner has over a slave is
understood as nothing other than the perpetual right of disposing of
the work of a slave for one's own benefit"

Are you saying that no one has the perpetual right of disposing of the
work of a slave for one's own benefit?