OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 01, 2014, 04:25:43 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Moby has his own weblog  (Read 21863 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« on: June 03, 2005, 01:21:12 AM »

http://www.moby.com/journal

This is an entry that I found rather interesting:
"Religion and Homosexuality
Apr 14, 2005 - Washington DC

i've written about it before, but i really don't understand the antipathy that so many christians and so many religious leaders have towards homosexuality. a bunch of episcopalian ministers in connecticut(including one in my old home town of darien...)have broken with their bishop because they find his position on homosexuality to be too liberal.
once again i have to ask, why is the church so worked up about homosexuality?

i ask this because christ, at least in the new testament that i have, never mentioned homosexuality, so we thus don't know what christ might have thought about homosexuality.
why is the church so up in arms about an issue that christ never seemed to have mentioned?
and why does the church so routinely gloss over so many of the issues that christ actually DID talk about?
it just makes no sense to me. wouldn't it make more sense for the church to focus on the issues that christ actually talked about, and thus asked his followers to focus on?

i don't get it:
the church is distraught over homosexuality, which christ never mentioned.

many christians support war and the death penalty.

showing a naked body on television is considered 'immoral' by the church, but showing people being killed and tortured on television is deemed ethically ok by the religious right.

religious leaders who are supposedly protecting 'the sanctity of life' do nothing to keep guns and automatic weapons out of the hands of school-children.

and etc.

like i said, i just don't get it.
-moby"
http://www.moby.com/journal?from=30

Though I disagree with his position on homosexuality, I likewise find America's fascination with violence to be hypocritical.
Anyways, Moby is a cool techno artist and it is interesting to read his journal entries.

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2005, 03:14:55 PM by Matthew777 » Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Augustine
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 565

pray for me, please


WWW
« Reply #1 on: June 03, 2005, 08:22:11 AM »

Matthew,

Quote
i ask this because christ, at least in the new testament that i have, never mentioned homosexuality, so we thus don't know what christ might have thought about homosexuality.

This would be a hard argument to overcome if one were to remained shackeled within not only a Protestant "Bible Only" paradigm, but also a western "popular religion" mentality about just what sin is, and why it is is "sin."  Secular people (if they will indulge the word at all), would say to harm others is "sin" because it hurts them.  Many religious westerners have the idea that certain things are sins, because they hurt God's honour - and more specifically, His honour is so hurt because we didn't fall into line when He "said so."

Interestingly, neither of those ideas is totally without merit.  But accepted in isolation, in ignorance of other considerations, they do create a warped idea of just Who God is, and His relationship to mankind.

Quote
why is the church so up in arms about an issue that christ never seemed to have mentioned?

A) to be specific, Moby should be saying "mentioned in the Bible."  St.John says clearly that the Lord said and did many things not to be found in his Gospel, and I think we can assume the same of the others.  Indeed, common sense alone should tell us this.  Rather, what is in the Scriptures, is there for our edification and instruction, and so that we would believe.

B) Unless Christ is somebody other than God, the He has spoken about this subject in the Pentateuch.  And if the Apostles are his own, and not imposters teaching a foreign doctrine, then at least one of them (St.Paul) has made mention of this and spoken quite clearly that it is a sin.

Quote
and why does the church so routinely gloss over so many of the issues that christ actually DID talk about?
it just makes no sense to me. wouldn't it make more sense for the church to focus on the issues that christ actually talked about, and thus asked his followers to focus on?

This is a good question, though one more applicable to the Protestant world which obviously populates Moby's understanding of who "the Christians" are, and what "the churches" are.  This is not to say there are not plenty of good Protestants who do attend to the weighty things - or that all (or even most) Orthodox Christians are paragons of virtue and have all of their priorities in order - but the trends he's mentioning are characteristic of American Protestantism, and not Orthodox Christianity.

Quote
many christians support war and the death penalty.

Well, Christ didn't talk about the "death penalty" either, did He?

"Oh well no, but He taught about forgiveness and mercy, ergo..."

Ergo, you're infusing your ideas, based on your interpretation of things, into what the Scriptures actually say.  This is a double standard, whether he knows he's indulging it or not.

Btw. my view is that capital punishment is not ideal, but neither is the commission of wickedness which inspires civilizations to resort to it.  And, for what it's worth, the Scriptures do (in the Old Testament) provide a framework for it's implimentation, which says something about the idea that it's utterly and objectively "evil" for a civilization to execute heinous criminals.

I would also submit the same holds true for warfare.

Quote
showing a naked body on television is considered 'immoral' by the church, but showing people being killed and tortured on television is deemed ethically ok by the religious right.

I think if you put it that way, they wouldn't agree with this - I also happen to know that most "Bible believing", church going American types (of some flavour of Protestantism) are against gratuitous violence.  However, he is right that this doesn't seem to concern them as much as the "sex stuff."  Though to be fair to the Protestants, the sinful consequences of viewing impure things are more likely and immediate than exposure to violent imagery (which tends to take time to do it's damage.)

Quote
religious leaders who are supposedly protecting 'the sanctity of life' do nothing to keep guns and automatic weapons out of the hands of school-children.

Well, strictly speaking, hundreds of thousands of kids aren't blowing away each other each year; and when it does happen (relatively rarely), it's a media spectacle.  Hundreds of thousands of children are being murdered by their mothers and so called "doctors" every year and have been so for quite some time - and not only is it a crime which no one pays much attention to, it has plenty of well placed apologists who in fact seek to portray it as a morally neutral matter.  Given this, the one is obviously more of a priority than the other.

Logged
Doubting Thomas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 874

Anglican (but not Episcopagan)


« Reply #2 on: June 03, 2005, 09:35:08 AM »

RE: Homosexuality

Well, Jesus didn't specifically mention incest, necrophilia, or bestiality. Are we to assume those behaviors are okay too then?

(And I agree with Augustine regarding "sola Scriptura", the OT, and the Apostles.)


RE: Capital punishment

Christ did acknowledge that Pilate had the authority for administering capital punishment given to him by God. Paul mentioned in Romans that the government didn't administer the sword in vain. Not that I'm completely gung-ho pro-death penalty--I just wanted to point out that it's not entirely absent from New Testament Christianity.
Logged

"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33
cizinec
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 941


There ain't no way but the hard way.


« Reply #3 on: June 03, 2005, 11:30:12 AM »

Why should I give a crap what "Moby" thinks? Should we ask "Cher" or "Eminem" or the like?

If you're going to love composers and have a bit of hero worship, try Palestrina, Lassus, Byrd, Desprez or Bach. They may have been RC or Lutheran, but that's still more sound than "Moby."
« Last Edit: June 03, 2005, 11:34:47 AM by cizinec » Logged

"Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery."
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #4 on: June 03, 2005, 03:21:56 PM »

Why should I give a crap what "Moby" thinks? 

Moby is well-known for the essays which he composes for the booklets to his albums. They they are not especially original, it is still interesting that he thinks more than most other popular music stars.

Well, Christ didn't talk about the "death penalty" either, did He?

As I mentioned before, I do not agree with Moby's stance with homosexuality. However, I have to disagree with you on this:
Matthew 5
38
"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.'
39
But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on (your) right cheek, turn the other one to him as well.

He without sin among you, cast the first stone - John 8:7
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
choirfiend
ManIsChristian=iRnotgrEek.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 903

Rachael weeping for her children, for they are not


« Reply #5 on: June 03, 2005, 03:27:32 PM »



Moby is well-known for the essays which he composes for the booklets to his albums. They they are not especially original, it is still interesting that he thinks more than most other popular music stars.

Just because he writes things doesn't mean he thinks more than "most other popular music stars." Accepting anything the media gives you and using it to assume you know anything about the stars who are completely removed from your experience is madness.
Logged

Qui cantat, bis orat
cizinec
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 941


There ain't no way but the hard way.


« Reply #6 on: June 03, 2005, 03:49:13 PM »

Some of the world's most evil people had speech like honey.
Logged

"Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery."
Nacho
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: EasternOrthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,482

The face of Corporate America


« Reply #7 on: June 03, 2005, 04:38:30 PM »

I have a few Moby albums and have read his rants on the inside cover and have to wonder if he's either insane or doing it all for show. He always seems to exagerate just about every cause he writes about as if the end of the world is right around the corner. He's says he's a christian but I have to wonder sometimes with some of the positions he takes. 
Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #8 on: June 03, 2005, 06:17:37 PM »



Just because he writes things doesn't mean he thinks more than "most other popular music stars." Accepting anything the media gives you and using it to assume you know anything about the stars who are completely removed from your experience is madness.

Your negative twisting of anything I say has devolved into a self-parody. Just compare Moby with Eminem, Britney Spears or Fred Durst. 

He's says he's a christian but I have to wonder sometimes with some of the positions he takes.

"In my own strange way, I'm a Christian, in that I really love Christ, and I think that the wisdom of Christ is the highest, strongest wisdom I've ever encountered, and I think that his description of the human condition is about the best description or understanding of the human condition I've ever encountered. And although I try and live my life according to the teachings of Christ, a lot of times I fall short. I wouldn't necessarily consider myself a Christian in the conventional sense of the word, where I go to chuch or believe in cultural Christianity, but I really do love Christ and recognize him in whatever capacity as I can understand it as God. One of my problems with the church and conventional Christianity is it seems like their focus doesn't have much to do with the teachings of Christ, but rather with their own social agenda. So that's why I tend to be sort of outspoken about how much I dislike conventional cultural Christianity." -Moby, from the Animal Rights Interview CD
http://www.moby.org/info/faith.html


Some of the world's most evil people had speech like honey.

That is true but as I said before, his essays are not especially great. The good thing is that he does think more than the average pop star.
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Nacho
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: EasternOrthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,482

The face of Corporate America


« Reply #9 on: June 03, 2005, 06:42:04 PM »

Quote
"In my own strange way, I'm a Christian, in that I really love Christ, and I think that the wisdom of Christ is the highest, strongest wisdom I've ever encountered, and I think that his description of the human condition is about the best description or understanding of the human condition I've ever encountered. And although I try and live my life according to the teachings of Christ, a lot of times I fall short. I wouldn't necessarily consider myself a Christian in the conventional sense of the word, where I go to chuch or believe in cultural Christianity, but I really do love Christ and recognize him in whatever capacity as I can understand it as God. One of my problems with the church and conventional Christianity is it seems like their focus doesn't have much to do with the teachings of Christ, but rather with their own social agenda. So that's why I tend to be sort of outspoken about how much I dislike conventional cultural Christianity." -Moby, from the Animal Rights Interview CD
http://www.moby.org/info/faith.html

I would like to ask Moby why it's strange being a Christian? It sounds like he has some emotional type issues he needs to work through because he doesn't sound so sure of himself or where he stands. He's says in the qoute above that the problem he has with conventional Christianity is that they would rather promote a social agenda rather than the teachings of Christ, but isn't Moby doing the exact same thing he is accusing others with the pomotion of his social agenda? Afterall, it's just his opinion, so how does he know who's right? It's funny listening to these people that have problems with authority spew the same line over and over again that it's always organized religions fault, but of course they have all the answers.... Roll Eyes
Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,422


« Reply #10 on: June 03, 2005, 06:49:04 PM »


That is true but as I said before, his essays are not especially great. The good thing is that he expresses his views more than the average pop star.

Here, I fixed your quote for you.

That statement from the Animal Rights CD, while probably one of his best, is still rather lacking. Of course, he doesn't realize that the "social agenda" he refers to is necessary to prevent the FURTHER deterioration of morality in society. He doesn't realize that he himself is not condemned for "being gay" (I'm not 100% sure, but I think he is), but for overtly "actiing" out gayness (to repeat the old adage, "Hate the sin, not the sinner.")
Logged
choirfiend
ManIsChristian=iRnotgrEek.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 903

Rachael weeping for her children, for they are not


« Reply #11 on: June 03, 2005, 09:22:24 PM »



Your negative twisting of anything I say has devolved into a self-parody. Just compare Moby with Eminem, Britney Spears or Fred Durst.

I'm just speaking my mind. I think it's too easy to villify and pronounce judgment upon stars because we become involved in the most intimate details of their lives--as reported by media. And just because one puts essays in their cd liners doesn't mean others (even Britany Spears, Eminem, or Fred Durst) are not intelligent, or the REAL issue, aren't people in whom we are called to see the image of Christ. I'm about keeping it positive, or if it's negative, I try to keep my mind off it.
Logged

Qui cantat, bis orat
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #12 on: June 04, 2005, 02:07:44 AM »

I would like to ask Moby why it's strange being a Christian?

I believe what he means is that it is strange to label himself as a Christian given that he disagrees with many Christians on various issues. He is against fundamentalism of any kind and therefore, he wouldn't push his own opinions as an alternative to rigid social conservatism.

He doesn't realize that he himself is not condemned for "being gay" (I'm not 100% sure, but I think he is), but for overtly "actiing" out gayness (to repeat the old adage, "Hate the sin, not the sinner.")

Moby is not gay himself but he does tolerate gay people.
"MOBY claims the reason he was attacked in BOSTON was because the men thought he was gay.

The dance star was playing a show at the Boston Paradise Club in the US (December 11), as part of his ongoing tour in support of his new album '18'. On leaving the show he was attacked by three men, and beaten to the ground.

Now, the star has said he thinks his alleged assailants picked on him because they thought he was gay - even though he isn't.

"I'm kind of a simpleton, but could someone please explain homophobia to me?" he wrote on www.moby.com. "Apparently when I was attacked in Boston it was a 'gay bashing' (which is kind of ironic seeing as I'm straight). What in the world do people find so offensive about homosexuality? What about homosexuality is so upsetting to so many people? Prejudicial hate and violence are always despicable and offensive, it's as simple as that."
http://www.nme.com/news/103887.htm

...aren't people in whom we are called to see the image of Christ.

When discussing celebrities, we've got to be able to have a sense of humor. Granted, all human beings are made in the image of God. However, that doesn't mean that Fred Durst and Eminem do not deserve a little busting of the chops now and then.
Furthermore, it is not hard to figure out that Moby does think more than the average pop star. Does that make Britney Spears an inferior human being? No, not at all. Would I be able to have an intellectually stimulating conversation with her? I am not sure about that, but I am almost certain that I could have one with Moby.
And I am sorry if I have been too blunt but something's gotta give. I mean, if I said that Michael Savage is a right-wing extremist, I could imagine that you'd reply that he is a communist.

Anyways, everyone should hear this song...

http://www.lepota.co.yu/muzika/Moby%20-%20Natural%20Blues.mp3
Natural Blues
from the album Play

oh lordy, trouble so hard
oh lordy, trouble so hard,
don't nobody know my troubles but God
don't nobody know my troubles but God

went down the hill, the other day
my soul got happy and stayed all day

oh lordy...

went in the room, didn't stay long,
looked on the bed and brother was dead

oh lordy...

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.




Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
choirfiend
ManIsChristian=iRnotgrEek.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 903

Rachael weeping for her children, for they are not


« Reply #13 on: June 04, 2005, 02:31:23 AM »

Yeah, its a good song. One that he didnt write, or anything, but took a very old recording andn set a beat to it. One very good thing he's done is to make sure the FAMILY of the man who recorded that song got royalties, even though the record company had no reason to seek them out and no one would have known differently.
Logged

Qui cantat, bis orat
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #14 on: June 04, 2005, 02:34:06 AM »

One that he didnt write, or anything, but took a very old recording andn set a beat to it.

The sampling of classic material is a staple of electronic music. It is good that he paid royalties.
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
choirfiend
ManIsChristian=iRnotgrEek.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 903

Rachael weeping for her children, for they are not


« Reply #15 on: June 04, 2005, 02:54:45 AM »

Well aware of that, but thanks. But when you use the text in a thread discussing Moby's religion and morality and general worth as a person, you have to classify that he didnt write or perform the text.
Logged

Qui cantat, bis orat
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #16 on: June 04, 2005, 03:20:28 AM »

One of the primary reasons why I enjoy the song is because it is great for introspection.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2005, 03:21:37 AM by Matthew777 » Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Augustine
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 565

pray for me, please


WWW
« Reply #17 on: June 06, 2005, 12:25:47 PM »

Matthew,

Quote
As I mentioned before, I do not agree with Moby's stance with homosexuality. However, I have to disagree with you on this:
Matthew 5
38
"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.'
39
But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on (your) right cheek, turn the other one to him as well.

He without sin among you, cast the first stone - John 8:7

You're confusing the responsibilities of those who govern with our own personal struggle.  It's a common mistake, but a very dangerous one.  The life of St.Vladimir is very instructive in this regard.  When he first became a Christian, he felt a tension between being a sincere believer, and administering his duties as a ruler.  Thus, for a brief time, bandits started going out of control, because the Prince's softened heart was unable to deal with them decisively.  It was at this point, that the clergy came to him and admonished him of his duties in this regard (which are different from individuals), citing St.Paul's Epistle to the Romans...

1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
2 Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval,
4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer.
5 Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.
6 For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. (Romans 13:1-6)

Besides, if your (mis)application of Christian charity to government were to be done consistantly, the rulers would have no ability whatsoever to suppress and punish crime - since not only would executions be forbidden, but any form of punishment.

Logged
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #18 on: June 06, 2005, 02:37:21 PM »

I believe there is a difference between justice and vengence. Capital punishment should not be taken lightly and should only be administered to the worst of offenders in the most humane way possible.
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Lemko Rusyn
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Православно-католицька віра нашых вітців
Jurisdiction: Русиньска ґрекокатолицька церьков свого права
Posts: 118


Пресвятая Богородице Повчанская, спаси нас!


WWW
« Reply #19 on: June 06, 2005, 03:12:55 PM »

-Ñ-Ç-+-ü-é-+-ü -¦-+-ü-¦-Ç-¦-ü!

I wonder if in Moby's world, "Take, eat, this is My Body..." is "cultural Christianity"...
Logged
idontlikenames
I'm gonna be the next Matthew777 (whatever that means)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 230

You forgot my briefcase


« Reply #20 on: June 08, 2005, 07:09:31 PM »

ummmmm....what is wrong with homosexuality?  try reading Romans and Corinthians, Moby, that's part of the Bible too, you know,....you know that one book that Christians espouse, which you claim to be a part of.  And how is keeping guns "out of the hands of children and adolescents" beneficial to society, when what you're really doing is keeping gun trade still open in the black market while denying it to people who can use them responsibley.....makes no sense.
Logged

laa ilaah illa al-Maal wa Rothschild howa nabeehi
Nacho
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: EasternOrthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,482

The face of Corporate America


« Reply #21 on: June 08, 2005, 07:27:03 PM »

Quote
ummmmm....what is wrong with homosexuality?  try reading Romans and Corinthians, Moby, that's part of the Bible too, you know,....you know that one book that Christians espouse, which you claim to be a part of.  And how is keeping guns "out of the hands of children and adolescents" beneficial to society, when what you're really doing is keeping gun trade still open in the black market while denying it to people who can use them responsibley.....makes no sense.

Hehe... Grin He would say something like many parts of the bible *aren't* really the real teachings of Christ because it were the monks in the early centuries who transcribed all the transcripts for the bible and that they added or changed things secretly to fit their ultra - conservative traditional beleifs... Roll Eyes He would then go on and spew some nonsense about these great scholars like those in the jesus seminar and other bastions of diversity who have really discovered the 'real' teachings of Jesus. The whole gun thing is above me also with the hysterics of these people. Children who are killed by child abuse from their parents make up like 1000%  more cases than those who happened to be killed by guns. The activist have too much time on their hands these days. Moby should just shut up and sing and leave the rest for the experts to figure out.... Grin   
Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity
Bono Vox
The Orthodox Bagpiper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,620



« Reply #22 on: June 10, 2005, 10:36:24 PM »

Nacho,

Cool confederate flag! Do you think Moby would like it?Huh??

Bagpiper
Logged

Troparion - Tone 1:
O Sebastian, spurning the assemblies of the wicked,You gathered the wise martyrs Who with you cast down the enemy; And standing worthily before the throne of God, You gladden those who cry to you:Glory to him who has strengthened you! Glory to him who has granted you a crown!
Bono Vox
The Orthodox Bagpiper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,620



« Reply #23 on: June 10, 2005, 10:37:34 PM »

PS-

Nacho, I'm amazed that you have 500 more posts than I do!

Bagpiper
Logged

Troparion - Tone 1:
O Sebastian, spurning the assemblies of the wicked,You gathered the wise martyrs Who with you cast down the enemy; And standing worthily before the throne of God, You gladden those who cry to you:Glory to him who has strengthened you! Glory to him who has granted you a crown!
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #24 on: June 11, 2005, 12:20:46 AM »

The Confederate flag just so happens to be my favorite symbol of ignorance, racism, and slavery.
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Bono Vox
The Orthodox Bagpiper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,620



« Reply #25 on: June 11, 2005, 01:16:37 AM »

Quote
The Confederate flag just so happens to be my favorite symbol of ignorance, racism, and slavery



"The Confederate Battle Flag—the "Southern Cross"
Sept. 1861-April 1865

The best-known of all Confederate flags—the battle flag—is often erroneously confused with the national flag of the Confederacy. The battle flag features the cross of St. Andrew (the apostle was martyred by being crucified on an X-shaped cross), and is commonly called the "Southern Cross." A large degree of the Southern population was of Scottish and Scotch-Irish ancestry, and thus familiar with St. Andrew, the patron saint of Scotland. The stars represented the eleven states actually in the Confederacy, plus Kentucky and Missouri. This flag is the flap popularly associated with Robert E. Lee, and is the flag under which he fought.
   

The Army of Northern Virginia was the first to design a flag with the cross of St. Andrew, and Gen. P. G. T. Beauregard proposed adopting a version of it as the standard battle flag of the Confederate army. The Harper's Weekly Image above shows Beauregard's Arkansas troops serving under the "Stars and Bars" flag in 1861.  The Army of Northern Virginia can be seen serving under the "Southern Cross" in 1862. One of its virtues was that, unlike the Stars and Bars, the Southern Cross was next to impossible to confuse with the Stars and Stripes in battle. The Confederate battle flag eventually developed wide acceptance 0throughout the Confederacy, but it was by no means the only battle flag.

   

It should also be pointed out that there was no uniform Southern Cross flag—throughout the South slightly different versions of the original design were used by different regiments. Even their shape varied: some were square, the traditional shape of battle flags; others were rectangular. Because the South did not have the industrial resources of the North, the creation of flags was handled by a variety of cottage industries throughout the Confederacy, which contributed to the variations."

Perhaps this will shed a little light on the Confederate flag.

It is unfortunate that some hate groups have tried to hijack the confederate flag for themselvs; these groups are a disgrace and don't represent our proud southern heritage.

The confederate flag is the cross of St. Andrew, like the Scottish flag. Most people don't know this because most people haven't truly studied the history of the civil war from an unbiased perspective (the winner is the one who wrights the history). Unfortunatley, most people have bought into the yankee myth of history; however, I think that the tide has been turning (especially with movies like "God's and Generals" which gives a fair portrayal of both sides.

Anyway, my point is that it's heritage, not hate.

Bagpiper


Logged

Troparion - Tone 1:
O Sebastian, spurning the assemblies of the wicked,You gathered the wise martyrs Who with you cast down the enemy; And standing worthily before the throne of God, You gladden those who cry to you:Glory to him who has strengthened you! Glory to him who has granted you a crown!
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #26 on: June 11, 2005, 09:16:55 PM »

Unfortunatley, most people have bought into the yankee myth of history

What yankee myth of history? Does this "myth" include the injustice of slavery and the defiance of the Confederacy?

I think that the tide has been turning (especially with movies like "God's and Generals" which gives a fair portrayal of both sides.

Doesn't that movie portray the Confederate army as equally honorable to the North?
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Bono Vox
The Orthodox Bagpiper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,620



« Reply #27 on: June 11, 2005, 10:05:05 PM »

Quote
What yankee myth of history? Does this "myth" include the injustice of slavery and the defiance of the Confederacy?


First of all, the civil war was not about slavery. If slavery was the primary issue of the civil war, then why is it that almost all of the soldiers, as well as most of the people in the south didn't own slaves?

The civil war was largely in part, amongst other things, the direction of government. The north believed in a centralized form of government and the south believed in a more confederate (decentralized) form of government. There was an inumeral amount of atrocities and injustices done to the south by the union forces before, during and after the war.

For instance, just take a look at the state of Missouri where I live. Have you ever studied the border wars that we had here between the union kansas jayhawker regimines and us? How the union jayhawkers came in and killed thousands of innocent people and burned down peoples properties and raped women relentlessly? Oh, but they were honorable because they didn't believe in slavery, I forgot.

Quote
Doesn't that movie portray the Confederate army as equally honorable to the North?

Yes, it portrays the reality of the situation. The confederate army, quite frankly, was more honorable than the northern agressors. If I was a POW in the war of northern agression, then I would pray to God that I be taken captive by the confederates rather than by the union. My chances of survival would be much higher.

The movie also accuratley portrays the fact that the north was predominantly secular humanists and the south was a much more religious people.

As far as slavery goes, most southerners believed in gradual emancipation. Most southerners didn't even own slaves. It was the war of northern aggression, and the reconstruction period that unfortunatly led to bad race relations.

God bless Dixieland!!

Bagpiper

« Last Edit: June 11, 2005, 10:06:07 PM by Orthodox Bagpiper » Logged

Troparion - Tone 1:
O Sebastian, spurning the assemblies of the wicked,You gathered the wise martyrs Who with you cast down the enemy; And standing worthily before the throne of God, You gladden those who cry to you:Glory to him who has strengthened you! Glory to him who has granted you a crown!
Thomas
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,796



« Reply #28 on: June 11, 2005, 10:51:12 PM »

Christ isÂÂ  Risen!

Matthew,ÂÂ  The Scottish Bagpiper is correct. The reason for the Civil War in the United States was about the direction the government was taking and the perception in the southern states that the more populous and industrial northern states were was trying to financially and politically subjugate the southern states. The point of slavery was an issueÂÂ  became an issue in about 1864 for those fighting for the union---prior to that time the focus was upon the preservation of the Union. It became a focus based upon the political ambitions of theÂÂ  "Radical Republicans" portion of Congress and an alliance the made with the Abolitionist wing of the party to gain control of theÂÂ  Congress to pursue their agenda.ÂÂ  President Lincoln was guided to believe thatÂÂ  the Freedom of the slaves in the states in rebellion would shorten the war [it should be noted that Lincoln did not free the slaves in the states that remained in the Union andÂÂ  actually spoke to the "free men of Color" about resettlingÂÂ  freed slaves outside of the United States in Africa (Liberia) or a colony in South America that was proposed---the "freemen of color" rejected this stating that they too were AmericansÂÂ  and had been here for Generations.] As the Scottish Bagpiper noted, most southern soldiers indeed 90% according to most studies, were non-slave holders (partially because the slaveholders were exempt from the military service draft, and as with the north, wealthy people paid people to serve for them if they were drafted, but had no slaves)

It is important that we view history not in the eyes of revisionist and modernists who seek to flavor history with their own agendas; It is important to read the actual journals of those who were living in the time period to understand the hows and whys of their actions. The journals of both the Northern and the Southern soldiersÂÂ  and the letters of correspondence from them to their families are quite eloquent and show why they believed they were fighting and why both were honorable men.ÂÂ  As one who has men on both sides of the war, the reading of their journals and letters has truly defined the reasons and sadness behind that war when brother truly fought brother over strongly held political beliefs and interpretations of the other 's actions.

Matthew, you may also wish to read some of the "Freedmens" journals and letters about how frustrated they were that the North did not allow them to fightÂÂ  anddenied them their rights and liberty.ÂÂ  They speak openly about the need to pressure northern leaders to make the focus of the war slavery which for them was the evil they wished destroyed.ÂÂ  You may find the three views quite different from each other and yet fascinating.ÂÂ  It will give you an entire different respect for them all.

Orthodox Christians should well be aware of the dangers of Revisionist history which has so been used so well by western society to denigrate andÂÂ  minimize the infuence of eastern Christianity upon the Church and the world. It is historians from this same mileau who seek to revise the story of the Civil War to meet today's political agendas, rather than present the three very differing views and reasons for the American Civil War to seek better understanding and rapproachment among their descendents.

In Christ,
Thomas
« Last Edit: June 11, 2005, 11:47:55 PM by Thomas » Logged

Your brother in Christ ,
Thomas
Augustine
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 565

pray for me, please


WWW
« Reply #29 on: June 11, 2005, 11:53:07 PM »

Thanks to the gentlemen who posted on the issue of the American South, and it's denegration in popular "histories."ÂÂ  The reality (as is almost always the case) is much more complicated than what the "winners" put in all of the school text books.

The whole period has of course been coloured not only by the ambitions of the winners, but also by their ideological descendents (and worse!) who see something in the "old south" which bothers them tremendously - namely, these folks tended to be more "conventionally" religious than their northern neighbours, and were intuitively opposed to the over-centralization of their government; in short, they espoused principles which to this day "yankees" have been demonizing or portraying as the lot of dangerous weirdos.

I find the topic very interesting, even though my only connection to the United States is that I'm married to an American (though still living in Canada.)

« Last Edit: June 11, 2005, 11:54:49 PM by Augustine » Logged
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #30 on: June 12, 2005, 01:42:47 AM »

First of all, the civil war was not about slavery.

I understand that there were several economic and political reasons for the war but ending slavery was one of the reasons also. What about Lincoln?

The confederate army, quite frankly, was more honorable than the northern agressors.

In my perspective, that is like saying that the Nazis were more honorable than the Allies. I know that may sound a little extreme but that is how I feel.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2005, 01:43:52 AM by Matthew777 » Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Bono Vox
The Orthodox Bagpiper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,620



« Reply #31 on: June 12, 2005, 12:46:40 PM »

Quote
I understand that there were several economic and political reasons for the war but ending slavery was one of the reasons also. What about Lincoln?

"Abraham  Lincoln
Emancipator  or  Racist ?
   
 
   
1996
This was written and published in a book I co-authored with my son entitled "Flag Tag Gate" which dealt with the State of Maryland's illegal revocation of the organizational logo license plates of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.
One of the greatest misconceptions we have discovered when hearing people talk about the "Civil War" is their statements about Mr. Lincoln. Most persons seem to believe that Lincoln was the pioneer of the "Civil Rights" and "Human Rights" movements of today. We, too, were taught that in school. It wasn't until we really began studying the War Between The States and reading detailed biographies that we discovered the true Mr. Lincoln. Please excuse us for not referring to him as President Lincoln. Our hearts were with the South; therefore, Jefferson Davis was our President. "Honest Abe" was just Mr. Lincoln.
It must be remembered that Lincoln sought to preserve the Union through unconstitutional measures. The blacks and liberals have placed Mr. Lincoln high on a pedestal, considering him to be one of "our" greatest Presidents and greatest Americans. He is also referred to as "The Great Emancipator." However, history, not fable, shows him to be far less. Lincoln was terribly ruthless in suppressing anti-war or Confederate sentiment in the North and in the border states. "Honest Abe" was anything but honest. Like our lawyer politician opponents of today he must have either skipped many law classes or have been asleep. For it was in our own state of Maryland that Lincoln considered arresting the entire membership of the legislature. He did order the arrest of many leading citizens of Maryland after suspending the writ of habeas corpus, a basic human right dating back to the Magna Carta.
Let's take a look at some of Mr. Lincoln's views and quotations: "I am not in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office." (September 15, 1858, - campaign speech) "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery." (March 4, 1861, - First Inaugural Address) "I am a little uneasy about the abolishment of slavery in this District of Columbia." ( March 24, 1862, - letter to Horace Greeley) "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it." (August 22, 1862, - letter to Horace Greeley, New York Tribune editor)
From the Lincoln Douglas Debates of 1858, "I will say, then, that I am not, nor have ever been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; that I am not nor ever been in favor of making voters of the free Negroes, or jurors, or qualifying them to hold office, or having them to marry with white people. I will say in addition, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which, I suppose, will forever forbid the two races living together upon terms of social and political equality, and inasmuch as they cannot so live, that while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior, that I as much as any other white man am in favor of the superior position being assigned to the white man."
As far as Lincoln's views of racial equality is must be remembered that in the famous debates with Stephen Douglas, Lincoln advocated deporting blacks to Africa. As for the great Northern supporters it must be remembered that many of the Northern states had laws that forbade the immigration of free blacks. In fact, it can be argued that many Northerners were not as much opposed to slavery, then to the actual slaves themselves. Several exclusion laws were passed in the North forbidding free blacks from coming into various states. New Jersey, Oregon, Massachusetts, Indiana, and Illinois (do you know where this is, Mr. Lincoln?) all passed various laws to this effect.
Alabama State Sen. Charles Davidson remarked in a speech of May 31, 1996, before the Alabama State Legislature: "Abraham Lincoln, himself, stated the opinion of the Northern people at a meeting with a group of black leaders during the war, when Lincoln said to them 'there is an unwillingness on the part of our people (Northern whites) to live with you free colored people. Whether this is right or wrong, I am not prepared to discuss, but a fact with which we must deal. Therefore, I think it best for us to separate'. Whereupon, Abraham Lincoln and the United States Congress purchased land, passed laws and started shipping free Northern blacks out of the United States down to poverty stricken Haiti. Lincoln put together several such schemes to remove free blacks from the United States, to send some back to Africa and some to Central and South America. At the end of the war, a few weeks before Lincoln was killed, Union Gen. Benjamin Butler asked Lincoln what was he going to do with all the recently freed Southern blacks? Lincoln replied, "I think we should deport them all." Meanwhile, down South, Confederate States President, Jefferson Davis and his wife Varina are adopting an eight year old, free black orphaned boy, named Jim Limber. Also, in St. Louis, when General John Fremont freed slaves of 'disloyal' Missouri Confederates, an angry Lincoln fired him.
Not wanting to be accused of taking some of Mr. Lincoln's quotes out of context we are enclosing his entire First and Second Inaugural Addresses and have done the same with his Emancipation Proclamation in the next section. We have highlighted some areas that deserve special attention.
Lincoln's First Inaugural Address
March 4, 1861
Fellow citizens of the United States: in compliance with a custom as old as the government itself, I appear before you to address you briefly and to take, in your presence, the oath prescribed by the Constitution of the United States, to be taken by the President "before he enters on the execution of his office."
I do not consider it necessary, at present, for me to discuss those matters of administration about which there is no special anxiety, or excitement.
Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you.
I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."
Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them. And, more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:
"Resolved: that the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend, and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes."
I now reiterate these sentiments; and, in doing so, I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible, that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming administration. I add, too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given, will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause--as cheerfully to one section as to another.
There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:
"No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution - to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause "shall be delivered up", their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not with nearly equal unanimity frame and pass a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath?
There is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be enforced by national or by State authority; but surely that difference is not a very material one. If the slave is to be surrendered, it can be of but little consequence to him or to others by which authority it is done. And should any one in any case be content that his oath shall go unkept on a merely unsubstantial controversy as to HOW it shall be kept?
Again, in any law upon this subject, ought not all the safeguards of liberty known in civilized and humane jurisprudence to be introduced, so that a free man be not, in any case, surrendered as a slave? And might it not be well at the same time to provide by law for the enforcement of that clause in the Constitution which guarantees that "the citizen of each State shall be entitled to all privileged and immunities of citizens in the several States?"
I take the official oath today with no mental reservations, and with no purpose to construe the Constitution or laws by any hypercritical rules. And while I do not choose now to specify particular acts of Congress as proper to be enforced, I do suggest that it will be much safer for all, both in official and private stations, to conform to and abide by all those acts which stand unrepealed, than to violate any of them, trusting to find impunity in having them held to be unConstitutional.
It is seventy-two years since the first inauguration of a President under our national Constitution. During that period fifteen different and greatly distinguished citizens have, in succession, administered the executive branch of the government. They have conducted it through many perils, and generally with great success. Yet, with all this scope of precedent, I now enter upon the same task for the brief Constitutional term of four years under great and peculiar difficulty. A disruption of the Federal Union, heretofore only menaced, is now formidably attempted.
I hold that, in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution, the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever--it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.
Again, if the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it--break it, so to speak; but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?
Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And, finally, in 1787 one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "TO FORM A MORE PERFECT UNION."
But if the destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity. It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that Resolves and Ordinances to that effect are legally void; and that acts of violence, within any State or States, against the authority of the United States, are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances. I therefore consider that, in view of the Constitution and the laws, the Union is unbroken; and to the extent of my ability I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States.
Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part; and I shall perform it so far as practicable, unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means, or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it WILL Constitutionally defend and maintain itself.
In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence; and there shall be none, unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States, in any interior locality, shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating, and so nearly impracticable withal, that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices.
The mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished in all parts of the Union. So far as possible, the people everywhere shall have that sense of perfect security which is most favorable to calm thought and reflection. The course here indicated will be followed unless current events and experience shall show a modification or change to be proper, and in every case and exigency my best discretion will be exercised according to circumstances actually existing, and with a view and a hope of a peaceful solution of the national troubles and the restoration of fraternal sympathies and affections.
That there are persons in one section or another who seek to destroy the Union at all events, and are glad of any pretext to do it, I will neither affirm nor deny; but if there be such, I need address no word to them. To those, however, who really love the Union may I not speak? Before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction of our national fabric, with all its benefits, its memories, and its hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain precisely why we do it? Will you hazard so desperate a step while there is any possibility that any portion of the ills you fly from have no real existence? Will you, while the certain ills you fly to are greater than all the real ones you fly from--will you risk the commission of so fearful a mistake?
All profess to be content in the Union if all Constitutional rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right, plainly written in the Constitution, has been denied? I think not. Happily the human mind is so constituted that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this. Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied. If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written Constitutional right, it might, in a moral point of view, justify revolution--certainly would if such a right were a vital one. But such is not our case. All the vital rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them by affirmations and negations, guaranties and prohibitions, in the Constitution, that controversies never arise concerning them. But no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration. No foresight can anticipate, nor any document of reasonable length contain, express provisions for all possible questions. Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or State authority? The Constitution does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say.
From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the government must cease. There is no other alternative; for continuing the government is acquiescence on one side or the other.
If a minority in such case will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which in turn will divide and ruin them; for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy a year or two hence arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it? All who cherish disunion sentiments are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this.
Is there such perfect identity of interests among the States to compose a new Union, as to produce harmony only, and prevent renewed secession?
Plainly, the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does, of necessity, fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible; the rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left.
I do not forget the position, assumed by some, that Constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court; nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding, in any case, upon the parties to a suit, as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government, upon vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.
One section of our country believes slavery is right, and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong, and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute. The fugitive-slave clause of the Constitution, and the law for the suppression of the foreign slave-trade, are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the people imperfectly supports the law itself. The great body of the people abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a few break over in each. This, I think, cannot be perfectly cured; and it would be worse in both cases AFTER the separation of the sections than before. The foreign slave-trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately revived, without restriction, in one section, while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be surrendered at all by the other.
Physically speaking, we cannot separate. We cannot remove our respective sections from each other, nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced, and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other; but the different parts of our country cannot do this. They cannot but remain face to face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you cannot fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides, an no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions as to terms of intercourse are again upon you.
This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their Constitutional right of amending it, or their Revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. I cannot be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the national Constitution amended. While I make no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject, to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should, under existing circumstances, favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it. I will venture to add that to me the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions originated by others not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or refuse. I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution - which amendment, however, I have not seen--has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied Constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.
The chief magistrate derives all his authority from the people, and they have conferred none upon him to fix terms for the separation of the states. The people themselves can do this also if they choose; but the executive, as such, has nothing to do with it. His duty is to administer the present government, as it came to his hands, and to transmit it, unimpaired by him, to his successor.
Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope in the world? In our present differences is either party without faith of being in the right? If the Almighty Ruler of Nations, with his eternal truth and justice, be on your side of the North, or on yours of the South, that truth and that justice will surely prevail, by the judgment of this great tribunal, the American people.
By the frame of the government under which we live, this same people have wisely given their public servants but little power for mischief; and have, with equal wisdom, provided for the return of that little to their own hands at very short intervals. While the people retain their virtue and vigilance, no administration, by any extreme of wickedness or folly, can very seriously injure the government in the short space of four years.
My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well upon this whole subject. Nothing valuable can be lost by taking time. If there be an object to hurry any of you in hot haste to a step which you would never take deliberately, that object will be frustrated by taking time; but no good object can be frustrated by it. Such of you as are now dissatisfied, still have the old Constitution unimpaired, and, on the sensitive point, the laws of your own framing under it; while the new administration will have no immediate power, if it would, to change either. If it were admitted that you who are dissatisfied hold the right side in the dispute, there still is no single good reason for precipitate action. Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on him who has never yet forsaken this favored land, are still competent to adjust in the best way all our present difficulty.
In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail you.
You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the government, while shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."
I am loathe to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.
Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address
March 4, 1865
Fellow countrymen: At this second appearing to take the oath of the presidential office, there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement, somewhat in detail, of a course to be pursued, seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself; and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.
On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago, all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it - all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war - seeking to dissolve the Union, and divide effects, by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came.
One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union, even by war; while the government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it.
Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with, or even before, the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes his aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered--that of neither has been answered fully.
The Almighty has his own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses! for it must needs be that offenses come; but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through his appointed time, he now wills to remove, and that he gives to both North and South this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to him? Fondly do we hope--fervently do we pray--that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn by the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said, "The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."
With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan--to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves, and with all nations.
Radio talk shows were constantly buzzing with comments about the Emancipation Proclamation. It is amazing how many persons had no idea that it was basically a worthless piece of paper with no binding authority. Callers, black and white, were not knowledgeable as to the underlying motives of the Proclamation. Rather than cite small parts of it for dissection, we have included it in its entirety, with our comments at the end.
The Emancipation Proclamation
By the President of the United States of America:
A PROCLAMATION
Whereas on the 22nd day of September, A.D. 1862, a proclamation was issued by the President of the United States, containing, among other things, the following, to wit:
"That on the 1st day of January, A.D. 1863, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States shall be then, thence forward, and forever free; and the executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.
"That the executive will on the 1st day of January aforesaid, by proclamation, designate the States and parts of States, if any, in which the people thereof, respectively, shall then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact that any State or the people thereof shall on that day be in good faith represented in the Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such States shall have participated shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State and the people thereof are not then in rebellion against the United States."
Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-In-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this 1st day of January, A.D. 1863, and in accordance with my purpose so to do, publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days from the first day above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof, respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States the following, to wit:
Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana (except the parishes of St. Bernard, Palquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James, Ascension, Assumption, Terrebone, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, (including the city of New Orleans), Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkeley, Accomac, Northhampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Anne, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth), and which excepted parts are for the present left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.
And by virtue of the power and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States and parts of States are, and henceforward shall be, free; and that the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.
And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence; and I recommend to them that, in all case when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages.
And I further declare and make known that such persons of suitable condition will be received into the armed service of the United States to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said service.
And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind and the gracious favor of Almighty God.
A review of the Emancipation Proclamation shows that U.S. President Abraham Lincoln freed all slaves residing in territory in rebellion against the federal government. This Emancipation Proclamation actually freed few people. It did not apply to slaves in border states fighting on the Union side. It did not affect slaves in southern areas already under Union control. It certainly did not free the slaves in the Confederate States of America because this was in a foreign nation that Lincoln had no authority over. As James Ronald Kennedy and Walter Donald Kennedy stated in their The South Was Right! , "A reading of the proclamation will demonstrate that Lincoln declared free those slaves he had no power to free, and he left in bondage those that he could have set free! (italics added) So much for the myth of Lincoln as the great emancipator." This would be like President Clinton giving a pardon to all persons jailed in Mexico.
The purpose of the Emancipation Proclamation was threefold. The first purpose was to try and stir a slave uprising in the Confederate States of America. The second purpose was to shift the cause of the War Between The States from a war about "States Rights" to a war about slavery in the eyes of Americans and the rest of the World. The third purpose was to keep other countries, namely Great Britain and France, from entering the war on the side of the Confederacy. Once the World had the opinion that the war was about slavery, no country would come to the aid of the Confederate States of America. Lincoln succeeded in this task.
It may be argued that Lincoln's viewed the war only in terms of preserving the Union. As his remarks have shown, he was basically a White Supremist who had no interest in equality of the races or of freeing the slaves. However as a movement for abolition mounted in Congress and the country, he became more sympathetic to the idea. The Emancipation Proclamation did not end slavery in the United States. It wasn't until December 18, 1865, with the passage of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, that slavery ended.
It could be argued that Sen. Larry Young of today, has taken a page out of Lincoln's book, in trying to switch the focus of the issues at hand. The legal situation with the organizational logo tags and the Sons of Confederate Veterans vs. The State of Maryland, was clearly a First Amendment issue. Slavery, and the Confederate Battle Flag had absolutely nothing to do with legal arguments in the case. However, if Sen. Larry Young could bring the slavery issue into the current day battle, he would be an instant winner. Unlike the 1860's, no one accepts the institution of slavery in the 1990's. Therefore, by making slavery an issue in the logo tags battle, and screaming righteous indignation, Sen. Larry Young is everybody's best buddy - because no one today believes in slavery! Well, it worked to a point. It got the minorities, hot heads, and liberals on his side and against the Sons of Confederate Veterans by turning the focus away from the real issue - just like Lincoln did in the 1860's. However, Judge Smalkin decided the case on the laws of the land, not emotions, and decided in favor of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. Nice try, Larry.
Obviously the War Between The States and Mr. Lincoln are closely tied with the slavery issue and the Emancipation Proclamation. Let's stop for a moment and consider the following: If the Union (Northerners) were so concerned about freeing the slaves in the South, how do you balance that theory against the fact that the Union was doing its best to completely destroy the entire American Indian race in the West. Their genocidal treatment of the Native Americans would have drawn a smile on Adolf Hitler's face. Doesn't seem like "equal rights" and "equality" were in their vocabulary? Or how about the fact that the U.S. Congress offered to pass a constitutional amendment for the South, guaranteeing permanent slavery forever in the slave States, if the Southern states that seceded would return to the Union? The South refused the offer.
If slavery was the primary reason for the war, as since promoted by the North, it is no question but that the South would have quickly returned. The fact that they refused the offer shows there was much more involved. How could the war be fought over slavery when both sides owned slaves? Even in his Inaugural Address of March 4, 1861, Lincoln said he had "no purpose, directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." He only made it an issue when the Confederacy started winning. Gen. U.S. Grant had a personal slave and Lincoln's wife's family owned many. Gen. Grant remarked that if he "thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission, and offer my sword to the other side."
R. Miles of Bel Air, Maryland, in an editorial stated, "Emancipation? President Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave. Issued at a time when the Confederacy seemed to be winning the war, Lincoln hoped to transform a disagreement over secession into a crusade against slavery, thus preventing Great Britain from intervening on the side of the South. The proclamation allowed slavery to continue in the North as well as in Tennessee and large parts of Louisiana and Virginia. It applied to Confederate held slaves, which Lincoln had no authority over, but not to slaves under Federal control."
As stated earlier, many persons feel the primary purpose of the Emancipation Proclamation was to try and start a slave uprising in the South, with the secondary motive of shifting the "reason" of the war from a States Rights issue to a "Slavery" issue, thereby keeping other countries (namely Great Britain and France) from coming to the aid of the Confederates. The Emancipation Proclamation revealed Lincoln's deceit for blacks as it freed those slaves held "within any State or designated part of a State the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States."
The bottom line, the absolute bottom line regarding the Emancipation Proclamation, was that Mr. Lincoln kept those slaves in bondage that he could have freed.
It should be remembered that slaves in Washington, D.C. were not freed until April 1862. Slavery continued throughout the entire war in five Union held states: Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri. While the Confederate Constitution did not outlaw slavery it had a provision which prohibited the African slave trade outright (unlike the U.S. Constitution). Also remember that when the first shots were fired at Fort Sumter, there were eight union slave states and only seven Confederate slave states.
Let's look a little more closely at the word "slave." Technically, the word "slave" is being inappropriately used, as pointed out by Alabama State Sen. Charles Davidson, who stated that "the word 'Slave' is Greek for the word 'Slav' and rightly applies only to white European slaves or slavs from the countries of Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Slavonia, Russia, Poland, Hungary and others. The Slavonic tribes are the root of all European white people. For a thousand years, so many millions of these white European Slavs were captured and sold as servants, that the word 'Slavs' or 'Slaves' became universally used for the word 'servant' and was only later applied to black servants. Every white person in American has ancestors who were slaves including the Scots, British, French, and Germans. It the early colonies of America whites were regularly sold as permanent slaves. If it were justifiable, whites would be much more justified in having 'a chip on their shoulder' or a 'pity party' because more of their white ancestors were slaves and for a longer period of time. Almost all blacks in the U.S. were under slavery for less than 100 years and only 5% of all black slaves shipped by black masters out of Africa ever came to the United States, because most black slaves were shipped to South America or the West Indies."
Chris Millrons, of Finksburg, Maryland, in an editorial in the Carroll County Times of January 19, 1997, states the "Majority of American slave traders were from the North. The first slave ship outfitter here was built in Salem, Massachusetts, in 1637. Massachusetts also legalized the enslavement and export for slave of American Indians. Virginia made this illegal. In 1778, Virginia, became the first state to prohibit the importation of slaves. Ninety four percent of all African slaves brought to the western hemisphere were sold to slave holders in the Caribbean and South America, mainly by Northern traders."
Here are a few other interesting facts regarding slavery and the War Between The States. General Robert E. Lee encouraged the Confederate States of America to free slaves and allow them to join the army. His suggestion came to fruition and the Confederate States of America did recruit and arm black regiments. General Robert E. Lee freed his family slaves before the war; however, in contrast, Union General U. S. Grant kept his wife's slaves well into the war. When questioned as to why he didn't free the slaves, Grant replied, "Good help is so hard to come by these days."
Many free blacks owned slaves themselves. In 1861 Charleston, for example, a free colored planter named William Ellison owned 70 slaves. Even in 1830 New York City, three decades before the war, eight black planters owned 17 slaves.
Alabama State Sen. Charles Davidson made some very interesting comments regarding slavery and the War Between The States in his speech before the Alabama State Senate, stating, "There were masters who violated the law and mistreated their servants, like Union General William T. Sherman, who owned a number of slaves before the war and who was constantly in court facing charges for abusing his slaves. The incidence of abuse, rape, broken homes and murder are 100 times greater today, in the housing projects than they ever were on the slave plantations in the old South."
"Even Blacks and Indians owned slaves in the old South, while 7% of Southern whites owned slaves, 2% of free blacks in the South owned slaves. In 1860, the U.S. Census reported that around 10,000 free blacks owned some 60,000 black slaves. It was a black slave master named Anthony Johnson, who sued and won his case in a Virginia Court in 1653 that changed temporary servitude to lifetime servitude."
Here is some interesting information regarding Maryland and slavery. Contrary to popular modern-day beliefs, not all blacks were slaves at the time of the War Between The States. In Maryland, roughly half of the black population, by 1860, were already free. As Jean H. Baker points out in The Politics of Continuity, Maryland Political Parties from 1858 to 1870, published by The Johns Hopkins University in 1973, was that by 1860, there were 171,131 blacks in Maryland, 87,189 were slaves and 83,942 were free. The majority of the free blacks lived in the central and western portions of the state. She also pointed out that a political problem centered around the increase of the "hated free Negro population." Jean Baker stated that the best known organization dealing with the problem of freed slaves was the Colonization Society of Maryland. This society was founded in 1831, for the express purpose of encouraging the return of free Negroes to Africa. The Maryland state government participated in the funding and promotion of the project. A colony known as the state of Maryland in the nation of Liberia in West Africa was established for this purpose.
 
Copyright ©   Reverdy  Lewin  Orrell,  III"


I hope this post will be somewhat helpful.

Quote
In my perspective, that is like saying that the Nazis were more honorable than the Allies. I know that may sound a little extreme but that is how I feel.


I would suggest that you take Thomas's advice and not believe the revisionist history. If you believe that the south can even remotley be compared to the nazis, then you have drunk the yankee cool-aid. Just have an open mind and do some research, it's not that hard.


God bless Dixieland!!!!!!!!

Bagpiper
Logged

Troparion - Tone 1:
O Sebastian, spurning the assemblies of the wicked,You gathered the wise martyrs Who with you cast down the enemy; And standing worthily before the throne of God, You gladden those who cry to you:Glory to him who has strengthened you! Glory to him who has granted you a crown!
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #32 on: June 13, 2005, 12:43:12 AM »

What is it about the cause of the Confederacy that would make them honorable? I honestly would like to learn.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2005, 12:48:59 AM by Matthew777 » Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Nacho
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: EasternOrthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,482

The face of Corporate America


« Reply #33 on: June 13, 2005, 02:28:06 AM »

Quote
What is it about the cause of the Confederacy that would make them honorable? I honestly would like to learn.

Just looked at all the juicy post on this thread about the war of northern aggression. I would add the South was simply following the Constitution when it came to their right to secede. I think the root of the problem came directly from the constitutional convention where there was left so many unanswered questions about the role of the *loosely* connected states which formed a mild federalism at that time. The majority consensus at the time were that the state's powers trumped that of the federal, but as time progressed there was a widening gap between the south and north on the role of the federal government. All the cheerleaders for the north who have really sugar coated history books today with mis-information would have you believe that there was no argument ever when it came to the role of the federal government until around the time of the civil war but nothing could be further from the truth. Rights that were reserved to the states and rights that belonged to the federal government is a debate that is as old as this nation. The very first DAY it was conceived there was discussion of "how much power do the states get and how much does the central government get." The idea that it never came up as a debate until slavery is laughable. People didn't look at the US in the same way then, people were much MORE likely to view themselves as a Pennsylvanian or an Alabamian than as an "American." That's changed now, probably it's just as well. But you can't judge the actions of 150 years ago without understanding something that is hard to understand in today's political correctness climate that says, " South BAD, they're for slaves, North Good, they wanted to free the slaves!" Nothing could be further from the truth seeing that slavery never came up as in issue until towards the end of the war. If you also think that's what caused the Union to invade the south, please read the statements of Grant or Lincoln who were extremely racist people. Grant even said that if he was told that this war was also to help free the slaves that he would have turned around and ordered all his troops to march back north. Hmmm, that's some humanitarian if I've ever seen one... Roll Eyes. Another lovely plan that Lincoln had was to ship all the free slaves back to Africa or put them all in Florida. If he would have not been assinated he probably would have gone through with his plans also and this is a man put up on some pedestal as some kind of hero.

Another counterpoint is the fact that something like 90% of the men fighting for the south did not own slaves and had nothing to do with slavery. It was the more elite wealthy people who owned the slaves. I have to laugh when people repeat the BIG LIE over and over that it was all about the issue of slavery. You mean to tell me that all these average southern men risked their lives and left their families to go fight for the right of the richest person in town to keep their slaves? That would be like me leaving my job and family to go fight on behalf of Bill Gates or some other rich person in some other state for some cause that had nothing to do with me. I don't think I would risk death for some millionare that has nothing to do with me. Sounds pretty absurd to me, but the left will continue to tell these lies to gullible sheeple. It's a shame so many don't know the truth about the civil war. The villians in this conflict in my opinion definitely was the north.
Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity
Nacho
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: EasternOrthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,482

The face of Corporate America


« Reply #34 on: June 13, 2005, 02:58:01 AM »

Here's the Missouri Confederate battleflag under which some of my ancestors fought under in Missouri who had some of the most effective brigades in the whole war. Here's a qoute from Historian Phillip Tucker who states, "...the Missouri Brigade established a combat record more distinguished than that of the most legendary fighting brigades on either side during the Civil War, including the Union's Iron and Irish brigades and the Confederacy's Stonewall, Orphan, and Texas Brigades.

« Last Edit: June 13, 2005, 03:01:20 AM by Nacho » Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity
Nacho
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: EasternOrthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,482

The face of Corporate America


« Reply #35 on: June 13, 2005, 03:04:38 AM »

Now put that in your pipe and smoke it!   Grin
Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #36 on: June 13, 2005, 05:30:07 AM »

Could it be that those who did not have slaves but fought the Union anyway did so out of sheer defiance?
Furthermore, should the issue of slavery have been left as a matter of states' rights?
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
cizinec
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 941


There ain't no way but the hard way.


« Reply #37 on: June 14, 2005, 08:55:36 AM »

Matthew,

They fought the U.S. because of their loyalty to their states and because they were afraid of or were idealogically opposed to a strong central government. 

There was also a sense that people from the North were trying to tell them how the culture of the South *ought* to be.  The Southerners did have a great deal to complain about the North, including treatment of immigrant labor that was no better than the worst treatment of the slaves.  The difference is, of course, that the immigrants had a CHANCE to become something more than they were while the slaves, no matter how well treated by their masters, had very few opportunities and were even at risk if freed by their master.

To an extent, it's the way many of us feel about Northeastern and Western liberal states.  Say I'm a working guy in Oregon going out to work in the forest where I barely eek out a living.  The next thing I know there are a bunch of mercedes with California plates keeping me from going to work because they don't like me cutting down trees.  Then I hear that a guy from my church or someone I grew up with was injured and can't work anymore because someone put metal spikes in trees for no other reason than to terrorize us. 

That's not fiction.  It happened to my grandfather and cousins in Oregon.  I think the youngest logger in my family is now in his 40s, thank God, but he still has a right to work a legal job.  I think this was the same sentiment held by those in the South.  They had a right to make their own decisions without a bunch of do-gooder Yankees who think they know what's best for everybody forcing themselves into issues they don't understand.

Personally, I think the South was full of crap.  Their refusal to address the evils of slavery eventually cost them the moral high ground and, in my opinion, the war.  I have a 2great grandfather who was in Andersonville, and I'm not sure where the morality was going in that place.  While I may be sympathetic to many of the issues the South claims to have been fighting for, they certainly weren't delivering on the promise.  They met their well-earned place as HISTORY.
Logged

"Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery."
Bono Vox
The Orthodox Bagpiper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,620



« Reply #38 on: June 14, 2005, 08:56:31 PM »

Quote
Personally, I think the South was full of crap.  Their refusal to address the evils of slavery eventually cost them the moral high ground and, in my opinion, the war.

I would have to respectfully disagree with you. Most southerners, including Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee believed in gradual emancipation, and that it was inevitable. As I stated earlier, I believe that racisim (KKK, Lynchings and so forth) were the result of the north winning the war and the misery they put the south through during the "reconstruction" period.

The atrosities of the northern aggressors (ie..raping innocent women, killing innocent people, including kids, destroying innocent peoples homes and property ect....) voided the yankees of any moral highground what so ever.

Quote
Could it be that those who did not have slaves but fought the Union anyway did so out of sheer defiance?


If the union forces, such as the kansas jayhawkers, came in and burned down your home, raped your sister, killed your mother and father, destroyed your crops and looted all of your livestock and possessions, wouldn't you be a little defiant???

Quote
Here's the Missouri Confederate battleflag under which some of my ancestors fought under in Missouri who had some of the most effective brigades in the whole wa

I love that flag. I take a particular interest in it because Missouri is my home state and my anscestors fought here. I would suggest everyone here study the conflict missouri had with kansas during the civil war, it's very interesting.

In fact, William clark Quantrill and Frank James fought in the battle of Wilsons Creek here in Springfield where I live.

Quote
What is it about the cause of the Confederacy that would make them honorable? I honestly would like to learn.

If you honestly would like to learn, then I would like to suggest that you read some books from a southern perspective. "The south was right" by James Ronald Kennedy,Walter Donald Kennedy.
This is a good primer. The letters and journal of Robert E. Lee are also good for beginners.

God bless Dixieland!!!!!!!

Bagpiper
Logged

Troparion - Tone 1:
O Sebastian, spurning the assemblies of the wicked,You gathered the wise martyrs Who with you cast down the enemy; And standing worthily before the throne of God, You gladden those who cry to you:Glory to him who has strengthened you! Glory to him who has granted you a crown!
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #39 on: June 14, 2005, 09:07:27 PM »

"The south was right"

How could that even be possible? I could be mistaken but in my mind, that is still like saying that Hitler was right.
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Nigula Qian Zishi
Administrator Emeritus, Retired Deacon, Inactive Poster, Active Orthodox Christian, Father, and Husband
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 1,836


我美丽的妻子和我。

nstanosheck
WWW
« Reply #40 on: June 14, 2005, 09:19:43 PM »

You are mistaken. The South was right. The war was not over slavery, but over Constitutional state's rights.

Someone call Joe Zollars! :-D
« Last Edit: June 14, 2005, 09:31:32 PM by ΝικολάÎÆ» Logged

在基督         My Original Blog
尼古拉         My Facebook Profile
前执事         My Twitter Page
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #41 on: June 14, 2005, 09:20:29 PM »

[quote author=Νικολάος Διάκονος link=topic=6322.msg83120#msg83120 date=1118798383]
Someone call Joe Zollars! :-D
[/quote]

Yeeeeeeeeeeeee Haaaaawwwwww!!!
Logged
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #42 on: June 14, 2005, 09:30:00 PM »

Is slavery a states' right? 

 "The name Civil War is misleading because the war was not a class struggle, but a sectional combat having its roots in political, economic, social, and psychological elements so complex that historians still do not agree on its basic causes. It has been characterized, in the words of William H. Seward, as the “irrepressible conflict.” In another judgment the Civil War was viewed as criminally stupid, an unnecessary bloodletting brought on by arrogant extremists and blundering politicians. Both views accept the fact that in 1861 there existed a situation that, rightly or wrongly, had come to be regarded as insoluble by peaceful means.

    In the days of the American Revolution and of the adoption of the Constitution, differences between North and South were dwarfed by their common interest in establishing a new nation. But sectionalism steadily grew stronger. During the 19th cent. the South remained almost completely agricultural, with an economy and a social order largely founded on slavery and the plantation system. These mutually dependent institutions produced the staples, especially cotton, from which the South derived its wealth. The North had its own great agricultural resources, was always more advanced commercially, and was also expanding industrially.

    Hostility between the two sections grew perceptibly after 1820, the year of the Missouri Compromise , which was intended as a permanent solution to the issue in which that hostility was most clearly expressed—the question of the extension or prohibition of slavery in the federal territories of the West. Difficulties over the tariff (which led John C. Calhoun and South Carolina to nullification and to an extreme states' rights stand) and troubles over internal improvements were also involved, but the territorial issue nearly always loomed largest. In the North moral indignation increased with the rise of the abolitionists in the 1830s. Since slavery was unadaptable to much of the territorial lands, which eventually would be admitted as free states, the South became more anxious about maintaining its position as an equal in the Union. Southerners thus strongly supported the annexation of Texas (certain to be a slave state) and the Mexican War and even agitated for the annexation of Cuba.

    The Compromise of 1850 marked the end of the period that might be called the era of compromise. The deaths in 1852 of Henry Clay and Daniel Webster left no leader of national stature, but only sectional spokesmen, such as W. H. Seward , Charles Sumner , and Salmon P. Chase in the North and Jefferson Davis and Robert Toombs in the South. With the Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854) and the consequent struggle over “bleeding” Kansas the factions first resorted to shooting. The South was ever alert to protect its “peculiar institution,” even though many Southerners recognized slavery as an anachronism in a supposedly enlightened age. Passions aroused by arguments over the fugitive slave laws (which culminated in the Dred Scott Case ) and over slavery in general were further excited by the activities of the Northern abolitionist John Brown and by the vigorous proslavery utterances of William L. Yancey , one of the leading Southern fire-eaters."
http://encyclopedia.com/html/section/CivilWarUS_Causes.asp
 
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Fr. David
The Poster Formerly Known as "Pedro"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA, Diocese of the South
Posts: 2,828



WWW
« Reply #43 on: June 14, 2005, 11:11:30 PM »

Is slavery a states' right? 

Hate to say it, but yeah.  Yeah it was.  The way the country was set up, each state could decide for themselves whether or not to hold slaves, as well as (and this was the more pressing issue) whether or not to even stay in the union or "go it alone" as their own entity (or, in the South's case, form a new union that favored states' rights over federal decree).

I understand that this is an emotional issue for lots of people.  Consequently, the South gets painted as being obsessed with slavery, the war gets painted as only being about slavery, and any means necessary become justified in order to get rid of slavery...even trashing the consitutional right of states to leave the union and do what they have sovreignly elected to do.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2005, 11:12:19 PM by Pedro » Logged

Priest in the Orthodox Church in America - ordained on March 18, 2012

Oh Taste and See (my defunct blog)

From Protestant to Orthodox (my conversion story)
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #44 on: June 14, 2005, 11:15:10 PM »

A state does not have the Constitutional right to break from the Union in order to enslave human beings and sell them as product. This is why the South lost but militarily and morally.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2005, 11:16:00 PM by Matthew777 » Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Nacho
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: EasternOrthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,482

The face of Corporate America


« Reply #45 on: June 15, 2005, 12:55:42 AM »

Quote
A state does not have the Constitutional right to break from the Union in order to enslave human beings and sell them as product. This is why the South lost but militarily and morally

Geeez Mathew, how long has it been since you have taken a history class... Roll Eyes I hate to burst your bubble but it was the north who was doing all the trafficking in the slave trade. Also, slavery took place both north and south, even during the civil war the north had slavery going on in many of it's territories such as Maryland and Washington DC. If you are so offended by the Confederate flag, maybe you should be more offended by the American flag since slavery occurred mostly under it's banner.

I'm also proud of my ancestors who fought for the Missouri Confederate brigade and (gasp!) they even didn't own any slaves! Southerners did the right thing in protecting their homeland from the drunk immoral Yankees who came down and trashed the place for no reason. There is today still a huge divide between north and south. Just take a look at the morals and beliefs between these two regions and maybe most of your questions will be answered. I know when I get back to Missouri real soon it will feel good to fly the flag of which my brave ancestors fought under. 

Quote
You are mistaken. The South was right. The war was not over slavery, but over Constitutional state's rights. Someone call Joe Zollars!

Dam right it was!  By the way, what ever happened to Joe Zollars?

Quote
I would have to respectfully disagree with you. Most southerners, including Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee believed in gradual emancipation, and that it was inevitable. As I stated earlier, I believe that racisim (KKK, Lynchings and so forth) were the result of the north winning the war and the misery they put the south through during the "reconstruction" period.

The atrocities of the northern aggressors (ie..raping innocent women, killing innocent people, including kids, destroying innocent peoples homes and property ect....) voided the Yankees of any moral highground what so ever.

Yep, the whole tragedy of the war was the fact that slavery was winding down fast and would have ended in the 1880's naturally. When I read the history and accounts of what happened I am shocked by the brutality of the whole war. Something almost seems demonic about people killing each over just for the fact the north was powerhungry and that degenerate Abe Lincoln should have gone down in the history books as one of the biggest villians of our time. By the way, if he wasn't assassinated, he would have gone through with his plan to ship all the free slaves back to Africa or put them all in Florida......that's some humanitarian if I've ever seen one... Roll Eyes


Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity
Jennifer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,154


« Reply #46 on: June 15, 2005, 01:27:04 AM »

even during the civil war the north had slavery going on in many of it's territories such as Maryland and Washington DC. If you are so offended by the Confederate flag, maybe you should be more offended by the American flag since slavery occurred mostly under it's banner.

Ummm, Nacho, Maryland and D.C. were never part of the North.  The US, yes but never 'northern.'

Quote
I'm also proud of my ancestors who fought for the Missouri Confederate brigade and (gasp!) they even didn't own any slaves! Southerners did the right thing in protecting their homeland from the drunk immoral Yankees who came down and trashed the place for no reason. There is today still a huge divide between north and south. Just take a look at the morals and beliefs between these two regions and maybe most of your questions will be answered. I know when I get back to Missouri real soon it will feel good to fly the flag of which my brave ancestors fought under. 

My ancestors fought for the south.  My parents grew up in the south during segregation.  Talk about morals and values to the black people who had to go to different schools and sit at the back of the bus.  The town my grandmother grew up in didn't allow any black people to spend the night.  Blacks couldn't stop and use the restroom while traveling across country.  According to my parents there was an underlying violence in the south of the 1940's and 1950's.  Black people knew that if they stepped out of line, they would be beaten and the police would do nothing.  My parents describe growing up in a culture that had a very ugly racism.  My mom's uncles would beat up black men because they could.  My grandmothers hired black women to do their laundry for next to nothing.  Every white people in the south knew that they had power over black people.  They would civil to the woman who came in the back door to do the laundry or the man who cut the grass but everyone knew the power structure. 

Things weren't much better in the north but it's a lie to suggest that they were better in the south.  The north had de facto segregation but the great migration proves that black people themselves much preferred the north, even with its de facto segregation. 

Logged
Nacho
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: EasternOrthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,482

The face of Corporate America


« Reply #47 on: June 15, 2005, 01:50:34 AM »

Quote
Ummm, Nacho, Maryland and D.C. were never part of the North.  The US, yes but never 'northern.'

We'll have to disagree on this point. Every history book I have read has Maryland (well, most of the state) and DC on the side of the north. If you read the Emancipation Proclamation, it was only targeted at freeing slaves in northern territories during the war. Lincoln didn't do this because he loved black people, but instead to garner support among northerners against the south.

Quote
My ancestors fought for the south.  My parents grew up in the south during segregation.  Talk about morals and values to the black people who had to go to different schools and sit at the back of the bus.  The town my grandmother grew up in didn't allow any black people to spend the night.  Blacks couldn't stop and use the restroom while traveling across country.  According to my parents there was an underlying violence in the south of the 1940's and 1950's.  Black people knew that if they stepped out of line, they would be beaten and the police would do nothing.  My parents describe growing up in a culture that had a very ugly racism.  My mom's uncles would beat up black men because they could.  My grandmothers hired black women to do their laundry for next to nothing.  Every white people in the south knew that they had power over black people.  They would civil to the woman who came in the back door to do the laundry or the man who cut the grass but everyone knew the power structure.

Hmmm, I had no idea we were talking about the conditions in the south in the 1940's & 50's. I could have sworn we were discussing the merits of the war of northern aggression, but if you feel the need to by all means do so. I won't justify the way blacks were treated at all during that time. That was a horrible time in our history and I've wondered why blacks were treated so bad. The only thing that I can think of was that there was a huge over-reaction from the time of reconstruction where the south and it's people were treated in a very horrific manner. People to this day are still very bitter and the south in many ways has not recovered from the war.

Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity
Nacho
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: EasternOrthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,482

The face of Corporate America


« Reply #48 on: June 15, 2005, 02:00:58 AM »

Here's a nice website that shows the contribution of all the black confederates who fought for the south. There's also a big memorial at Arlington Cemetery dedicated to all the black confederates.  They have some pictures on the website of the memorial also. Believe it or not, many blacks have remained loyal to the confederacy also. A few years ago when Mississippi voted on wether they should keep the confederate flag on their state flag, 35% of the blacks voted to keep it. There are also many black members in confederate organizations such as the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

http://www.rebelgray.com/blacksincombat.htm
Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity
Nacho
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: EasternOrthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,482

The face of Corporate America


« Reply #49 on: June 15, 2005, 02:02:37 AM »

Bump!!!  Grin Yikes, post # 666!  Cheesy
Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #50 on: June 15, 2005, 02:35:38 AM »

You know what... I bet that Moby would oppose both the Confederate flag and slavery. Smiley
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
cizinec
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 941


There ain't no way but the hard way.


« Reply #51 on: June 15, 2005, 10:37:22 AM »

I think it's a misnomer to call it the "War of Northern Aggression" since the South started the conflict.ÂÂ  Regardless of who is right or wrong, it's like saying the U.S. started the war with Japan.

Jennifer,

Concerning current race relations, I have to go to where my parents grew up and where my wife's family lives, on the West and East coasts rrespectively to find widespread racist tendencies.ÂÂ  My cousins are Native Americans, my best friends in school were black, hispanic, native and white.ÂÂ  Especially between the black and white communities, there has always been a close relationship, whether there was discrimination or not.ÂÂ  

I'm reminded of a piece off NPR where a liberal African-American activist went to the South with her aging mother so her mom could see her home town again.ÂÂ  She didn't want to go to mix with the white racists.  When they first got to the town they went into a store where there was a white lady who recognized her mom.ÂÂ  It turns out that their families had been connected since time immemorial and that this white lady not only knew all of the activists aunts and uncles, but knew of her.ÂÂ  Her mom was very happy to see this lady.ÂÂ  Well, the activist just couldn't understand how her mother could be so happy to see her "oppressor."ÂÂ  As it turned out, she discovered that, while there was a lot of bigotry in the past, there was a lot of underground care and love in the South that has since been allowed to blossom.

When a black family moved into my aunt's neighborhood in Oregon I got to hear about how the neighborhood was going down.ÂÂ  Then I got a lecture on how we in the south mistreat blacks.ÂÂ  My folks live in a great neighborhood.ÂÂ  One of their closest friends is a Mexican lady.ÂÂ  Her husband is black.ÂÂ  There are no cross burnings.ÂÂ  They aren't excluded from anything.ÂÂ  Their son plays with my son.ÂÂ  

In PA and NJ I get to hear my in-laws talk one minute about civil rights and the next about how they don't want puerto ricans in the neighborhood.ÂÂ  My sister-in-law is puerto rican. 

After what happened in the 60s most people here are very conscious of these tendencies and have fought to acknowledge and overcome them.ÂÂ  Up North I find everyone has the attitude of, "that's down South, we don't have that problem here" all the while blacks in Boston can't go into certain neighborhoods to *look* for houses for sale.

We recognize the evils in our past and address them.ÂÂ  Yankees don't.ÂÂ  Yankees are destined to repeat their mistakes while we are correcting ours.ÂÂ

So see, the South is better.  ÃƒÆ’‚ Grin


As a PS, I just visited a Civil War battlefield in Oklahoma.ÂÂ  It was where Native Americans had fought in a bloody battle.ÂÂ  They were fighting for the South because the American army had practiced genocide for so many decades that they thought anything would be better than Washington.

I still think the South was wrong.  ÃƒÆ’‚ Grin
« Last Edit: June 15, 2005, 10:41:49 AM by cizinec » Logged

"Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery."
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #52 on: June 15, 2005, 10:51:10 AM »

Ummm, Nacho, Maryland and D.C. were never part of the North.ÂÂ  The US, yes but never 'northern.'

That despot's heal was upon my shore!

Some history --

In order to prevent Maryland from voting to secede from the Union -- which they had every right to do, in particular because Maryland was one of the voluntary parties to the very compact that created their servant, the federal government, in the first place -- "Honest" Abe Lincoln ordered Union soldiers to arrest several members of the Maryland state legislature and have them transported to Albany, New York where they were held for several years, incommunicado, without bail, in windowless cells, were refused all legal representation, had their right of habeus corpus suspended, and were denied all contact with their families who had no idea whether they were dead or alive. Lincoln went so far as to arrest many northern newspaper editors who were critical of his policies. He even attempted to arrest Roger Taney, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of whose decisions he disapproved. To this day, the Maryland state song includes the stanza, "The despot's heel is upon thy shore, Maryland, Oh my Maryland," the despot being Abraham Lincoln.

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:8vzTgT4mjNkJ:www.instituteofhigherearning.com/thepip.html+despot%27s+heal&hl=en
« Last Edit: June 15, 2005, 10:58:24 AM by TomS » Logged
Strelets
Стрелец
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 444


« Reply #53 on: June 15, 2005, 11:51:29 AM »

Hate to say it, but yeah.  Yeah it was.  The way the country was set up, each state could decide for themselves whether or not to hold slaves, as well as (and this was the more pressing issue) whether or not to even stay in the union or "go it alone" as their own entity (or, in the South's case, form a new union that favored states' rights over federal decree).

I understand that this is an emotional issue for lots of people.  Consequently, the South gets painted as being obsessed with slavery, the war gets painted as only being about slavery, and any means necessary become justified in order to get rid of slavery...even trashing the consitutional right of states to leave the union and do what they have sovreignly elected to do.

I agree.  The friction between both sides was there from the very beginning, and what brought things to a head in the mid-1800's was the expansion of US territory into the west.  New territories were being brought into the union and upsetting the existing balance of power, so to speak, and it was then possible for one side to impose its social worldview onto the other through the federal structures.  The Mexican-American War was essentially provoked by southerners for this very reason -- to gain more "southern" territory to counteract gains by the north.  Then there were the fugitive slave laws that forced northern police to round up runaway slaves for return to their Mas'ers.

There was plenty of meddling in each other's affairs by both sides, and neither could claim a clean conscience.  And I say that as an unadulterated proponent of states' rights and strict constitutional constructionism.  Lincoln should have allowed the split to occur.  In all the pro-Union polemics I've encountered, I've not read any argument offered as to why two separate countries would have been a bad thing.  We've seen peaceful splits in European and Soviet states over the last fifteen years (often at our behest!); we ought to walk the walk as well as we preach it to others.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2005, 11:59:24 AM by Strelets » Logged

"The creed is very simple, and here is what it is: to believe that there is nothing more beautiful, more courageous, and more perfect than Christ; and there not only isn't, but I tell myself with a jealous love, there cannot be." ~ Fyodor Dostoevsky
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,418



« Reply #54 on: June 15, 2005, 01:16:11 PM »

It seems to be an inevitable fate on on-line conservative fora to host a lot of posturing about how the South was in the right about the Civil War. Morally, you guys who say this don't have a leg to stand on. Slavery, both in theory and in practice, is so obviously unChristian that I refuse to even discuss it.

As for Maryland: as a native I'll presume to speak to the complication that was the attitude in this state. Some years ago I took a family friend from California out to Antiedam. As with Gettysburg, the area is sprinkled with markers, but most especially with memorials, and most of them commorate the units of particular states. We never did find the California memorial (it's tiny), but the Maryland memorial is only a hundred feet or so from the visitor's center. Well. When you go to the visitor's center, they ask you what state your from, and then they direct you to the memorial for your state's units. So when I tell the man at the desk that I'm from Maryland, he points out the memorial on the map (a big domed thing) and tells me that it commemorates eight units. And then, when I ask him how many on each side, he says, without batting an eye, "five union and three confederate".

Maryland was deeply conflicted. Central/western Maryland was typically pro-union; southeast and eastern shore (both heavy tobacco areas) were generally pro-slavery. Baltimore ran both ways. John Garratt, the president of the B&O Railroad at the time, was pro-union because (obviously) it would be better for the railroad. On the other hand, the "patriotic gore/that flecked the streets of Baltimore" occurred in the course of various riots which were put down forcibly in typical 19th century fashion.

As far as Lincoln's dealings with the state legislature: he had no real choice other than abandoning Washington DC entirely.

I really have to wonder at the romantic attachment to the failed Southern cause. It's over; the right side won; live with it.
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,460


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #55 on: June 15, 2005, 03:04:11 PM »

Quote
Slavery, both in theory and in practice, is so obviously unChristian that I refuse to even discuss it.

As if anyone was justifying slavery. LOL. So go ahead, don't discuss it all you want, because you actually wouldn't have had anyone to discuss it with in the first place.
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,418



« Reply #56 on: June 15, 2005, 04:56:59 PM »

Justify southern secession, and you consent to slavery. Secession was the response to a national government in which it had become apparent that the opponents to slavery were well on their way to outlawing it.

I do not believe the claim that slavery would have died out naturally in the 1880s. People who are supposed to believe in the pervasiveness of sin ought not to believe in such a theory. Slavery was more than just a matter of economics; it was a matter of regional identity.If the war were an act of immoral aggression (and I'll be frank: I don't think it was), then why should I believe that all those slave-holding southerners were acting out of cool, well-reasoned moral and economic consideration? It's preposterous!

And as far as "northern aggression" is concerned: the firing on Sumter was a consent to war.
Logged
Strelets
Стрелец
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 444


« Reply #57 on: June 15, 2005, 05:39:37 PM »

Quote
Justify southern secession, and you consent to slavery.

Package deal fallacy.

Quote
I do not believe the claim that slavery would have died out naturally in the 1880s.

Why not?  It naturally died out everywhere else in the world.  Do you know of another civil war that ended slavery?  Most of the world had already abandoned the practice.  It was only a matter of time until the industrial revolution caught up with the South.
Logged

"The creed is very simple, and here is what it is: to believe that there is nothing more beautiful, more courageous, and more perfect than Christ; and there not only isn't, but I tell myself with a jealous love, there cannot be." ~ Fyodor Dostoevsky
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,418



« Reply #58 on: June 15, 2005, 08:52:33 PM »

Package deal fallacy.

Incorrect. Since the purpose of secession was defense of slavery, arguing for the former's legitimacy in this instance implies consent to the intended consequence. It's much the same as knowingly selling a gun to someone with the foreknowledge that they intend to use it in the commision of crimes.

Quote
Why not?  It naturally died out everywhere else in the world.

I do not think that that is true. From what I can see, it was largely put down through the efforts of the British Empire, and persisted (and still persists) in areas where British disapproval could not be adequately applied.

Quote
Do you know of another civil war that ended slavery?

The problem with the question is that the confederation that the South claimed the USA to be was not replicated elsewhere.

Quote
Most of the world had already abandoned the practice.  It was only a matter of time until the industrial revolution caught up with the South.

That is disputable. It is just as possible that the South would have become so wedded to cotton that it could have become an agricultural backwater.

I suppose this is the time to point out that, in the vent of successful scession, there would have almost certainly been war, eventually, over the wetern territories.
Logged
OrthodoxRobert
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 56



« Reply #59 on: June 15, 2005, 09:12:16 PM »

I used to buy in to the civil war propaganda until I realized that if the North was fighting to free the slaves because all men were equal, then why did Negroes have to ride in the back of the bus, could not drink from white water fountains, could not even sit on a white toilet if they were in fact equal?

 While they may have been freed by the North (Hogwash) they were not equal citizens in the eyes of the federal govt until a little over 40 years ago.

Robert
ICXC~NIKA
Logged
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #60 on: June 15, 2005, 09:45:26 PM »

It is hard to believe that anyone in their right mind would find the Confederacy to be more honorable than the Union and its succession to be justified. This insistence that the South won the war, in terms of being on the moral side, is one of the reasons why southerners are stereotyped as ignorant racists; whether or not this stereotype is justified.ÂÂ  
« Last Edit: June 15, 2005, 09:46:21 PM by Matthew777 » Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Jennifer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,154


« Reply #61 on: June 15, 2005, 10:21:44 PM »


That was a horrible time in our history and I've wondered why blacks were treated so bad. The only thing that I can think of was that there was a huge over-reaction from the time of reconstruction where the south and it's people were treated in a very horrific manner. People to this day are still very bitter and the south in many ways has not recovered from the war.


The idea that southern racism is a byproduct of the Reconstruction is a huge myth.  Have you ever read the slave codes?  Each southern state had a set of laws proscribing conduct for black (free or slave) people in the southern states.  Some states forbid free blacks to live there at all.  Every state forbid intermixing of the races. 

BTW, don't tell someone from Maryland that they're northerners. 

Logged
Strelets
Стрелец
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 444


« Reply #62 on: June 15, 2005, 10:32:08 PM »

Incorrect. Since the purpose of secession was defense of slavery, arguing for the former's legitimacy in this instance implies consent to the intended consequence.

Says you.ÂÂ  Learned scholars on the matter disagree.ÂÂ  Your premise fails because it doesn't take into account other motives.ÂÂ  That's why your package deal fallacy is a fallacy.ÂÂ  Supporting one does not include the other, necessarily.ÂÂ  It could be that one believes in the state's right of succession (or more likely is against having his town and house torched by Yanks) and is against slavery, but is forced to make hard choices.

It's much the same as knowingly selling a gun to someone with the foreknowledge that they intend to use it in the commision of crimes.

Not quite.ÂÂ  The proper analogy would be: defending someone else's right to vote knowing full well they might vote for a Nazi or Ralph Nader.

I do not think that that is true. From what I can see, it was largely put down through the efforts of the British Empire, and persisted (and still persists) in areas where British disapproval could not be adequately applied.

British (or any) disapproval doesn't equate to war.ÂÂ  You've implicitly agreed that slavery can naturally die out without war.

The problem with the question is that the confederation that the South claimed the USA to be was not replicated elsewhere.

You didn't answer my question: Do you know of another civil war that ended slavery?

That is disputable. It is just as possible that the South would have become so wedded to cotton that it could have become an agricultural backwater.

Cotton isn't the problem, but the manner in which it's collected.ÂÂ  The use of human hands is an inefficient, labor-intensive means of collection.ÂÂ  Once the machinery of the industrial revolution took over the South, slavery would have lost its utility, as it did in the industrialized North and in Britain.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2005, 10:33:41 PM by Strelets » Logged

"The creed is very simple, and here is what it is: to believe that there is nothing more beautiful, more courageous, and more perfect than Christ; and there not only isn't, but I tell myself with a jealous love, there cannot be." ~ Fyodor Dostoevsky
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,460


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #63 on: June 16, 2005, 02:03:25 AM »

It is hard to believe that anyone in their right mind would find the Confederacy to be more honorable than the Union and its succession to be justified. This insistence that the South won the war, in terms of being on the moral side, is one of the reasons why southerners are stereotyped as ignorant racists; whether or not this stereotype is justified.ÂÂ  

You should just be glad Joe Zollars doesn't post here anymore LOL.
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Nacho
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: EasternOrthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,482

The face of Corporate America


« Reply #64 on: June 16, 2005, 02:52:28 AM »

Quote
Keble said: And as far as "northern aggression" is concerned: the firing on Sumter was a consent to war.

Wrong, wrong & wrong! It began before “Fort Sumter” was fired upon. Union soldiers fired upon the Virginian Capital in Richmond quite a while before that little incident. The Virginia Militia returned the volley by firing upon the President's Home (it was not named anything else at the time) in Washington. After several of these exchanges the President's home was black from all the gun powder so it was painted white to cover it up and from that point forward became known as the "White House". The war of northern aggression is called that for a reason. You just like to pull “Fort Sumter” out of the hat because you think it makes your case about who started what but some of us are a little bit more schooled in the “War Between the States”. First of all there was not a damn thing civil about it and second of all we had no desire to overthrow the union we just wanted to leave the marriage. While the south lost in the end it took almost 4 years and countless general commands for the Yankees to do what should have only taken 3 weeks. The south was footing the bill of the Federal Government and getting little in return from it. Kind of like paying for a hooker and not getting laid.  The Confederate flag has nothing to do with keeping anyone in there place and everything to do with the backbone of the spirit America has always had…Stop trying to play the card you are playing because it is one argument you will not win….

Quote
Keble said: Incorrect. Since the purpose of secession was defense of slavery, arguing for the former's legitimacy in this instance implies consent to the intended consequence. It's much the same as knowingly selling a gun to someone with the foreknowledge that they intend to use it in the commision of cricommissionte

Really? How do you know that slavery was the purpose of succession? Were you aware there was slavery in northern territories at the time of the war? Please explain to me why the union didn't free these slaves until the emancipation proclamation well into the war if their intentions from the start was to "just free the slaves." Were you aware that many politicans and military personal on the side of the north were slave owners themselves? The north was just as racist, if not more racist than the south at the time. The north didn't even allow blacks to live in many areas because of thier racism and the fact they thought blacks would take their jobs by providing much cheaper labor. Your average northerner would have laughed in your face if you told them they were going down there to free the slaves. You would also shudder at many of the comments Grant & Lincoln made about blacks. Again, you can't win the arguement by just making blanket statements that the sole purpose of succession was to defend slavery. That may have been AN issue, but by far it was not the MAIN issue. Less that 5% of the confederate soldiers were slave owners themselves. 

Robert E. Lee, who owned no slaves, and did not agree with the idea of slavery, spent many long days deciding whether or not to command the Union forces, as he was a West Pt graduate and a career Union officer, or to join his native state of Virginia in sucession. As a secessiond, Lee's father was Harry "Light Horse" Lee, a hero of the Revolutionary War, and one of the original signers of the Declaration of Independence. Lee was married to one of George Washington's adopted grand daughters. Lee knew more about the true nature of and meaning of what the original Founding Fathers intended than anyone today does, he was that close to the beginning, and he decided that what the South was doing was morally and legally justified. That fact alone carries significant weight with me. Lincoln was a tool of Northern Industrialists who wanted to preserve their industry and profits by benefiting from the captive market of the South (prohibitive tarriffs on the South for importing foreign goods), and also was interested in maintaining the Union because the majority of tax revenues at the time came from said tarriffs on goods. The founding principle behind the War was, and will ever remain, greed on the part of the Union.


Quote
Mathew said: It is hard to believe that anyone in their right mind would find the Confederacy to be more honorable than the Union and its succession to be justified. This insistence that the South won the war, in terms of being on the moral side, is one of the reasons why southerners are stereotyped as ignorant racists; whether or not this stereotype is justified.

Me thinks you need to do a little more research. You speak of ignorance on the south's part as if you are some kind of authority on THIS issue, but your lack of knowledge is really showing though here. If you every go the south, you would be surprised to see many blacks wearing confederate flag shirts like many of their white counterparts and other paraphnelia. Hmm, maybe they are also proud of their rich confederate history? 1/3 of the blacks in Misissippi voted to keep the confederate flag on their state flag and you will find many blacks participate in confederate organizations like the Sons of Confederate Veterans. Go tell those people they are ignorant and the South was wrong. Below I have a picture of H.K. Edgerton, former president of the Asheville NAACP of North Caorlina & ardant supporter of the Confederate flag/Southern Heritage.

Quote
Jennifer said:BTW, don't tell someone from Maryland that they're northerners.

Yea, I have heard some people from Maryland express much more southern views. It was very split at the time.

Quote
You should just be glad Joe Zollars doesn't post here anymore LOL.

Hehe, what happened Mr. Zollars? Did he go off the deep end? He used to post here so much.. Smiley.

« Last Edit: June 16, 2005, 03:07:13 AM by Nacho » Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #65 on: June 16, 2005, 05:57:55 AM »

I really have to wonder at the romantic attachment to the failed Southern cause. It's over; the right side won; live with it.

The Confederacy was the fulfillment of the American Experiment, the putting into practice for the first time since the founding of the republic the principle of Government by Consent of the Governed, and the right of the people to abolish a government that they do not believe to be acting in their best interest.

'That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.'
--Declaration of Independence

Though as a Monarchist I have little sympathy for the American Ideal, what must be said of the Confederates is that they were consistant in their political beliefs. The union cause was inherently hypocritical, trying to deny the Confederacy that for which all the colonies had fought together 'four score and seven years' previous; their victory destroyed the theory of Government by consent of the Governed, and reasserted the far more ancient principle of Government by force of arms.

For these reasons the War between the States is not something that should be simply ignored, but should be heald up as an example, as obvious as the atrocities of the French Revolution and rize of the Nazis Germany, of the failure of Democratic and Republican systems and the theory of self governnment by the masses and evidence of the superiority of Monarchy as a means of securing both Security and Liberty over said Governments, for 'The Tyranny of a Majority is a Tyranny Multiplied.'

For those who honestly and without hypocracy support the theory of self-government, the Confederacy is the high water-mark of their Cause. For those of us who reject such theories of Government, the Confederacy is simply the natural and expected result of the 1776 rebellion against the Crown; and often, there is disgust at the hypocracy that the Union demonstrated in opposing, by force of arms, the secession of the southern states, while themselves openly flouting the Authority of the Crown.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2005, 05:59:21 AM by greekischristian » Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,418



« Reply #66 on: June 16, 2005, 07:37:22 AM »

Says you.  Learned scholars on the matter disagree.  Your premise fails because it doesn't take into account other motives.  That's why your package deal fallacy is a fallacy.  Supporting one does not include the other, necessarily.  It could be that one believes in the state's right of succession (or more likely is against having his town and house torched by Yanks) and is against slavery, but is forced to make hard choices.

Weenie words. The "hard choice" in this case is precisely the consent to use state's rights to continue slavery.

Quote
Not quite.  The proper analogy would be: defending someone else's right to vote knowing full well they might vote for a Nazi or Ralph Nader.

Your use of the word "might" invalidates this analogy. The reference to states' rights was entirely to justify the continuation of slavery. Also, to be more precise your analogy would have to be to a state sending senators to vote against bills to outlaw slavery. And conversely, the the personal example would be that someone would be able to declare his property free of any government and thus hold slaves in definace of the law.

Quote
British (or any) disapproval doesn't equate to war.  You've implicitly agreed that slavery can naturally die out without war.

"Die out" and "suppress" are not synonyms. It can be inferred that I do not have an example of another case where slavery was suppressed as a result of a civil war, but it's abundantly clear that in almost all cases it was suppressed by force of law and not abandoned simply because it was uneconomic. As far as "war" is conerned, one of the factors of in the suppression of the slave trade in S. America was the British use of military force to suppress it.

As for the claim that industrialization would have brought it to an end simply on economic grounds: I don't think so. Particularly in the 19th century, industrialization was supported by a lot of hard manual unskilled labor. Raw materials still must be mined or farmed or cut down.

But in any case, the claim that industrialization would have made slavery redundant is historically unproven. One might just as well argue from history that the legal suppression of the slave economy provided areas with the incentive to industrialize.

Slave labor was never important to the local economies of the North and of England, even before industrialization. The economic penalty to banning it locally was low. But it was, after all, the cotton gin that enabled the cotton economy. You are making very sweeping, vague assertions, but the detail of actual history suggests that slavery would have held on to its economic advantage even into the present. In fact, there are continuing allegations of slave labor in Chinese factories.
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,418



« Reply #67 on: June 16, 2005, 08:05:35 AM »

It began before “Fort Sumter” was fired upon. Union soldiers fired upon the Virginian Capital in Richmond quite a while before that little incident. The Virginia Militia returned the volley by firing upon the President's Home (it was not named anything else at the time) in Washington. After several of these exchanges the President's home was black from all the gun powder so it was painted white to cover it up and from that point forward became known as the "White House".

This is at least partly nonsense. It was being called the white house at least as far back as 1811; British orders concerning it in the war of 1812 refer to it by that name. (The orders were disobeyed and it was burned anyway.)

I can find no reference to any such pair of skirmishes, but given that your statement about the White House is totally off-base, I'm disinclined to accept your claim that it even happened without evidence of the highest possible standard. I fell no need to step up to the issue as to whether anyone considered such actions as causi belli.

No time for the rest right now-- I have to get to work.
Logged
SonofAslan
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


« Reply #68 on: June 16, 2005, 08:45:01 AM »

Quote
their victory destroyed the theory of Government by consent of the Governed, and reasserted the far more ancient principle of Government by force of arms.

Now I'd be surprised if you had a problem with that, Connie.  Grin
« Last Edit: June 16, 2005, 09:14:17 AM by SonofAslan » Logged
SonofAslan
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


« Reply #69 on: June 16, 2005, 09:19:17 AM »

Quote
but it's abundantly clear that in almost all cases it was suppressed by force of law and not abandoned simply because it was uneconomic.

Then look at how it was abolished after the Civil War in states like Maryland and Delawre. They WON the war, it wasn't suppressed by force of arms, and it wasn't til well after the war that states began to abolish slavery. Through no force of arms.

Quote
Weenie words. The "hard choice" in this case is precisely the consent to use state's rights to continue slavery.

This is silliness. The North was never, not at any moment, fighting to free slaves, so just how is it you think the South was fighting to “continue slavery”? And if this is the case, please tell me why a white southerner who didn’t own any slaves and never would was fighting? He had no vested interest in perpetuating slavery, so what was his interest? Pretty much the same as the Colonies during the Revolution. He just didn’t want some “foreigner” telling him what to do. And THAT’S what the war was about.

Southern slaves were never threatened. Lincoln had said repeatedly that it was not his purpose to free slaves, although he did want to keep slavery from spreading. When he finally issued the Emancipation Proclamation, it caused riots in New York because they didn’t want to fight to free black people. They were and are every bit as racist as any southerner. The only reason the North didn’t have Jim Crow laws is because they didn’t need them. When your black population is that low, you don’t need laws to “protect” whites. In the south blacks were a majority of the population and whites were denied the right to vote during Reconstruction.
Logged
SonofAslan
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


« Reply #70 on: June 16, 2005, 09:20:53 AM »

Quote
Slavery, both in theory and in practice, is so obviously unChristian that I refuse to even discuss it.

Just wanted to make it obvious so some people, if they choose to respond  Grin, will see it.
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,418



« Reply #71 on: June 16, 2005, 09:28:12 AM »

The war of northern aggression is called that for a reason.

Yeah-- southernist propaganda.

Quote
You just like to pull “Fort Sumter” out of the hat because you think it makes your case about who started what but some of us are a little bit more schooled in the “War Between the States”.

You are raving. I don't believe your "fired on the President's House" story, which is really the only material comment you have to offer here. The rest, except for the divorce part, is a farrago of irrelevant posturing.

And as far as the divorce thing is concerned, it's about time you loudmouths took "until death do us part" more seriously.

Quote
Really? How do you know that slavery was the purpose of succession? Were you aware there was slavery in northern territories at the time of the war?

How do I know it? Because every single legitimate (and I emphasize "legitimate" in the vain hope of forestalling the next out burst of amateur southernist claptrap) historian I've ever read points to that as the starting point. Pointing to the exceptional northern slaves is not going to change the general tenor of the conflict.

As for Lincoln's tactics, I feel no compulsion to justify them. War, as you have already been instructed, is hell. It's hard enough to get through this without having to hack my way through the casuistry of wartime ethics.

Also, racial opinions are irrelevant and even anachronistic. The war was not about civil rights by race; it was about slavery.

I can respect Lee's sense of moral conflict. I think he made the wrong choice, but his decision was honorably made. Nonetheless, it does not legitimize the Southern cause.

Quote
The founding principle behind the War was, and will ever remain, greed on the part of the Union.

I see assertions to the effect that one of the issues in the territories was the fear by white settlers of competition from slave labor. I can believe this. Bt when push comes to shove, the looms of Massachusetts needed the cotton of Texas, for cotton does not grow in New England. If greed were that important a factor, the war would have been to conducted to seize the plantations of the south and operate them as before. You speak as if Uncle Tom's Cabin had never been published.

As far as personal authority is concerned: I have done basic internet research behind almost every point I've made here. I'm not posting links simply because I don't have the time to do that much more typing. You are as secondary a source as I am, and after the White House twaddle, I'm going to expect a solid source for your revisionist statements.

Quote
If you every go the south, you would be surprised to see many blacks wearing confederate flag shirts like many of their white counterparts and other paraphnelia.

Nacho, I went to Charlotte NC every single summer for some fifteen years up until the year you were born. You simply have no experience of how much the South has changed since I was a little child. The last time I was that far south was about fourteen years ago, and the contrast between my grandmother and younger people in the area was jarring. (I note particularly a dinner at her retirement palace featuring a very thrown off young black man who had to suffer through waiting upon us. It was so surreal that I cannot remember exactly what was said and done.) It's mostly safe for blacks in some areas to cling to a confederate heritage. Was it safe when I was a child? I don't believe so.
Logged
Augustine
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 565

pray for me, please


WWW
« Reply #72 on: June 16, 2005, 10:06:52 AM »

GreekisChristian,

Quote
For those who honestly and without hypocracy support the theory of self-government, the Confederacy is the high water-mark of their Cause. For those of us who reject such theories of Government, the Confederacy is simply the natural and expected result of the 1776 rebellion against the Crown; and often, there is disgust at the hypocracy that the Union demonstrated in opposing, by force of arms, the secession of the southern states, while themselves openly flouting the Authority of the Crown.

All this subject of the Crown has to say is...  Grin

Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,418



« Reply #73 on: June 16, 2005, 10:33:31 AM »

Then look at how it was abolished after the Civil War in states like Maryland and Delaware. They WON the war, it wasn't suppressed by force of arms, and it wasn't til well after the war that states began to abolish slavery. Through no force of arms.

I would count enforcement of the law as force of arms.

Quote
This is silliness. The North was never, not at any moment, fighting to free slaves, so just how is it you think the South was fighting to “continue slavery”?

I've explained it once, and I'm not going to repeat it after this. The issues of federalism and slavery cannot be separated; the issue was not some abstract political principle, but the very real fear that the federal government would move to outlaw slavery entirely.

Quote
And if this is the case, please tell me why a white southerner who didn’t own any slaves and never would was fighting?

Because human beings are not simply creatures of some sort of economic Darwinism; they do things for lots of other reasons. Honestly, I would think that Christians, of all people, realize that people simply do not work this way. They are full of sinful desires and contradictory impulses. Cupidity isn't the only sinful desire out there.

And your statement that Lee (to whom I believe you refer)"[...] just didn’t want some “foreigner” telling him what to do" is just not accurate. Lee specifically decided based on his sense of duty to his home state. This is endlessly documented.

Jim Crow laws date from the 1890s. After 25 years, fears of a black postwar revolt were certainly unjustified.
Logged
SonofAslan
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


« Reply #74 on: June 16, 2005, 11:51:54 AM »

Quote
I would count enforcement of the law as force of arms.

There was no law to be enforced by supposed force of arms until they passed a constitutional amendment to abolish slavery. It wasn't simply a law but an amendment to Maryland's state Constitution, and that's also how it happened with the other states as well. Unless you want to say the constitutional amendment was passed through force of arms, which I think is a bit extreme.

Quote
Because human beings are not simply creatures of some sort of economic Darwinism; they do things for lots of other reasons.

And yet you want to claim THE causes the South was fighting for was to continue slavery?

Quote
Jim Crow laws date from the 1890s. After 25 years, fears of a black postwar revolt were certainly unjustified.

Jim Crow laws weren't passed for fear of blacks revolting. They were passed to protect the rights of white folk. The fear wasn't rebellion. It was that too many black people would gain political office and white folk would be left out in the cold or worse, be treated the same way they had treated black folk.

why in the world did you think I was referring to Lee? "He" referred to white southerners in general, who were the people making up the state legislatures which voted to secede because, again, they didn't want some "foreigner" telling them what to do.

If you are so convinced that federalism and slavery can't be separated and that this is the the South went to war, i.e. to "protect their slaves", then why were 5 out of 20 Union States including Washington DC slave states? If the North was so eager to go free slaves in the South, why didn't they do it in their own states? And if they weren't eager to free slaves in the South, then your argument that the South was fighting to protect their slaves is false, because their slaves weren't threatened. Unless you just think that all the Southern States were stupid and just thought the North was going to take away their slaves. I think you need to go read the documents written by those who argued for secession, I doubt you will ever once find a "they're going to take away our slaves" position.

Now I'm not one who claims that the North was the great evil invader. I think there are issues to be considered on both sides. But your statements about the reasons the war was fought are simply wrong. The North wanted to preserve the Union and the South wanted the right to self-determination, and the North was never EVER going to take away the South's slaves. That is a ridiculous assertion. I would have taken at least 100 years before that would have ever been considered given the mindset of the country and whites in general.

What I do think is that it was hypocritical of the North to fight to preserve the Union when what the South was after was exactly the same thing the colonies were after when they revolted against Britain. But it is also hypocritical of the South to fight for self-determination when that is exactly what they were denying black people. So,....

But your historical understanding of the war is simply wrong.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2005, 12:02:56 PM by SonofAslan » Logged
Strelets
Стрелец
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 444


« Reply #75 on: June 16, 2005, 11:52:53 AM »

This is silliness.

Yep.  The comment about the British suppressing slavery in South America said it all.  I'm through with this one.
Logged

"The creed is very simple, and here is what it is: to believe that there is nothing more beautiful, more courageous, and more perfect than Christ; and there not only isn't, but I tell myself with a jealous love, there cannot be." ~ Fyodor Dostoevsky
SonofAslan
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


« Reply #76 on: June 16, 2005, 11:57:41 AM »

Quote
If you every go the south, you would be surprised to see many blacks wearing confederate flag shirts like many of their white counterparts and other paraphnelia.

Well, I live in the South and have all my life, and I've never seen that. That would simply be ignorance on the part of those black kids. For blacks, the confederacy is slavery. My argument with others is that wasn't the case for whites. They were fighting the war for other reasons. And the North was no more interested in black civil rights than the South was.
Logged
cizinec
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 941


There ain't no way but the hard way.


« Reply #77 on: June 16, 2005, 12:44:01 PM »

I've seen it, although more in the past than now, since it's been so politicized.
Logged

"Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery."
ExOrienteLux
Waning: Spoilers
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 183



« Reply #78 on: June 16, 2005, 12:49:52 PM »

The Confederacy was the fulfillment of the American Experiment, the putting into practice for the first time since the founding of the republic the principle of Government by Consent of the Governed, and the right of the people to abolish a government that they do not believe to be acting in their best interest.

[snip]

Though as a Monarchist I have little sympathy for the American Ideal, what must be said of the Confederates is that they were consistant in their political beliefs. The union cause was inherently hypocritical, trying to deny the Confederacy that for which all the colonies had fought together 'four score and seven years' previous; their victory destroyed the theory of Government by consent of the Governed, and reasserted the far more ancient principle of Government by force of arms.

For these reasons the War between the States is not something that should be simply ignored, but should be heald up as an example, as obvious as the atrocities of the French Revolution and rize of the Nazis Germany, of the failure of Democratic and Republican systems and the theory of self governnment by the masses and evidence of the superiority of Monarchy as a means of securing both Security and Liberty over said Governments, for 'The Tyranny of a Majority is a Tyranny Multiplied.'

For those who honestly and without hypocracy support the theory of self-government, the Confederacy is the high water-mark of their Cause. For those of us who reject such theories of Government, the Confederacy is simply the natural and expected result of the 1776 rebellion against the Crown; and often, there is disgust at the hypocracy that the Union demonstrated in opposing, by force of arms, the secession of the southern states, while themselves openly flouting the Authority of the Crown.

I have to agree with Augustine on this one.   Grin

Who's for establishing an American Monarchy?

-Philip.
Logged

Arise, O God! Judge the earth, for to Thee belong all the nations!
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,418



« Reply #79 on: June 16, 2005, 12:51:15 PM »

Then look at how it was abolished after the Civil War in states like Maryland and Delaware.

Delaware, it is true, was one of the the last states to have emancipation. By that point there were only a couple of hudred slaves left in the state.

Maryland was emancipated in November 1864, over a year before federal emancipation took effect. The only state in which sizable numbers of slaves were emancipated by the 13th amendment was Kentucky, because it was the only other holdout, with Delaware.
Logged
cizinec
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 941


There ain't no way but the hard way.


« Reply #80 on: June 16, 2005, 12:56:12 PM »

Philip,

I'm all for it.ÂÂ  I've been looking for something more difficult to shoot at.   Grin

I'm all for constitutional monarch, as I've explained before on other threads.

You get a monarchy here in the U.S. and I'd expect my Serbian church to be burned down in about three weeks.

No thanks. 
Logged

"Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery."
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,418



« Reply #81 on: June 16, 2005, 12:57:01 PM »

Yep.ÂÂ  The comment about the British suppressing slavery in South America said it all.ÂÂ  I'm through with this one.

All I can tell you is that is what the sources I've found say.
Logged
SonofAslan
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


« Reply #82 on: June 16, 2005, 01:04:02 PM »

All I can tell you is that is what the sources I've found say.


You can't take sources uncritically, though.
Logged
cizinec
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 941


There ain't no way but the hard way.


« Reply #83 on: June 16, 2005, 01:13:59 PM »

Concerning all this slavery nonsense,

Yeah, sure, it was a factor - for the North.  My YankeeMichigan family was abolitionist.  They joined the war specifically to end slavery.  My white Southern family joined up to fight against Lincoln's interference in their business.  My native Southern family joined because they wanted to fight the federal government.

Was slavery THE issue?  Sure, for my Yankee family.  It wasn't for my Southern family. ÂÂ

I'm not quoting here, but anyone who says that all credible Civil War historians say the issue was just slavery is full of crap.  I haven't heard the BS for ten years.  It was *a* factor, not *the* factor.  It was *the* excuse for the North.  That doesn't make it *the* factor.

What's really dang funny in my book is that my wife's family got here way after the Civil War was over, were put in a "company" house, had to buy everything from the company store, worked underground in a coal mine for hours and got paid diddly squat.  The rich Yankees built luxury lakes and let the dam burst open to kill the slug workers in the town. ÂÂ

I get so sick of hearing pontificating Yankees make themselves feel good about keeping blacks from living in their neighborhoods because they are yankees and the Yankees "freed" the slaves.  What help did the North give to the blacks who were then "share croppers?"  NONE.  Dude, they were STILL slaves.  Some of them were effectively slaves up until the 1960s, and the Yankees weren't addressing their OWN inequities in their OWN towns. ÂÂ

I'm sorry, ladies, but the racial problems in housing in Chicago, Boston, Long Island, etc. are well documented and continue today.ÂÂ  If that happened here in Houston there would be an army of New Yorkers on their bull horns screaming about inequities.ÂÂ  We have our pockets of stupidity and we know it.ÂÂ  Far Southeastern Texas is one of the worst places I've ever seen for this kind of crap, but man they prosecute.ÂÂ  A couple of teenagers burned a cross as a joke in our neighborhood about four years ago.ÂÂ  They finished high school in the prison in Huntsville.ÂÂ  Y'all talk about slavery like it was all racial while you perfect Yankees were preaching the love of Jesus.ÂÂ  Bull. ÂÂ You were killing your immigrant workers in SLAVE labor in dress factories and mines and letting them BURN to death after slavery was gone from the South.ÂÂ  Take the beam out.ÂÂ  When y'all achieve sainthood, come on down and tell us how to live.ÂÂ  In the mean time . . . . fill in the blank.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2005, 01:17:26 PM by cizinec » Logged

"Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery."
cizinec
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 941


There ain't no way but the hard way.


« Reply #84 on: June 16, 2005, 01:19:44 PM »

Dangit, maybe I'm more sympathetic to you dang Southern revisionist apologists after all.   Shocked Grin
Logged

"Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery."
ExOrienteLux
Waning: Spoilers
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 183



« Reply #85 on: June 16, 2005, 01:25:06 PM »

Philip,

I'm all for it.  I've been looking for something more difficult to shoot at.  ÃƒÆ’‚ Grin

I'm all for constitutional monarch, as I've explained before on other threads.

You get a monarchy here in the U.S. and I'd expect my Serbian church to be burned down in about three weeks.

No thanks.ÂÂ  

Yeah, I should have clarified.  "Constitutional Monarchy" is general better, so long as the Monarch actually has some power, ie. head of state and head of government.

I think that one's religious views seriously colour one's political views.  I mean, look at the Founders.  Most were Deist, but those who were Christian were mainly Presbyterian, with only a few Anglicans and some Anabaptists thrown in, IIRC.  And look at the kind of government they devised...

Of course, I could always be totally off my rocker...  In fact, I probably am.

-Philip.
Logged

Arise, O God! Judge the earth, for to Thee belong all the nations!
cizinec
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 941


There ain't no way but the hard way.


« Reply #86 on: June 16, 2005, 01:33:41 PM »

one more . . .

Quote
But in any case, the claim that industrialization would have made slavery redundant is historically unproven.

That's a load of crap (I mean that in the nicest possible way).  Blacks and minorities were still picking cotton for years after the Civil War.  My grandmother picked cotton and I got to hear about how it was the hardest, worst job on the planet.  Of course that was before the computer was invented. ÂÂ

So you're right that it wouldn't have replaced it . . . right away.  Do they still pick cotton by hand now?  Heck no, and they haven't for years.  Of course that's partly because it is less expensive than paying for labor. ÂÂ

I have to add that I don't think any of this would have happened if 1) the South HAD given up slavery long before on moral grounds that they were ignoring and had the power to change, 2) the North would have been as critical of its own humanitarian abuses and addressed them as aggresively as they pointed fingers at the South and 3) . . . you have to have three points for some reason and I'm puting this here so I have three.  If not for those three factors I think we could have had a stronger, more helpful role in the development of Mexican democracy and we wouldn't have so many illegal immigrants here because they'd have a stable and prosperous economy.

It caused terrorism too.
Logged

"Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery."
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #87 on: June 16, 2005, 02:26:03 PM »

To clarify some of these arguments with REAL (yes, imagine that) Historical Facts:

First, the opening shots of the war were fired on 9 January 1861, when the 'Star of the West' invaded the Waters of the by then Independent State of South Carolina in an attempt to resupply Ft. Sumpter, A 24-pounder battery manned by Cadets of the Citadel. The first shot was fired over her bow, when she refused to heed the warning, the ship itself was fired upon and a few additional batteries from around the harbour joined in. After sustaining minor damage, the offending vessel ceased her intrusion into South Carolinian waters and withdrew back out to sea. The liberation of the Fort that occured on 12 April 1861 was on account of the Union attempting to send a new garrison and supplies to the fort, and at the time of the assult Union Ships were stationed within the Waters of the Independent State of South Carolina in violation of her Sovereignty; the War was brought on by Naval invasions on the part of the United States, with the State of South Carolina (before the Confederacy was Formed) responding to them with appropriate force.


Second, the war was not over slavery, which can be proven by one simple historical fact. On 2 March 1861 the 36th Congress under the Control of Lincoln (which Excluded the Seven Original Confederate States by this time) passed the proposed 13th Amdnement to the Constitution of the United States by a 2/3rds majority in both Houses, an amendment that was intended to entice the Confederate States back into the Union and avoid war. The text of this Amendment?

'No Amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any state, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.'

Not only does this amendment protect the Right of the States to Maintain Slave Labour, but undermines any attempt to pass any law, even a constitutional amdendment, that would violate this Right of the States. So why didn't the Confederacy take this protection of the particular institution? Had this amendment been made law, Slavery would be regarded as a States Rights issue even to this very day, and as long as the Republic endured. But the real issue was tariffs, the North wanted High tariffs to protect their fledgling industry, and the south wanted free trade to help their Agricultural Economy, which was one of the Most powerful export econonmies in the World at the Time; but the Majority of Northern States in Congress woudl still be able to pass heavy tariffs, even with slavery protected. Slavery was a secondary issue at best, the primary issue being tariffs (which was, incidentally, also at the centre of the nullification controversy of 1832 between South Carolina and the Federal Governemnt, and the biggest political issue of 19th Century America).


Finally, as I was challenged on this issue, if someone wishes to argue the Issue, I will defend the Particular Institution. Involuntary Servitude, while an unfortunate situation and less than ideal social institution, is not at all inherently immoral or unchristian. Nearly every Christian State from the time of the Empire, as well as Ancient Israel, maintained this instutution. It is an institution that neither Christ nor the Apostles Condemned, though it was all about them, and this lack of condemnation was not from lack of attention to the institution, for the relationship between masters and slaves was regulated by St. Paul. In this post-modern era of political correctness, it is easy for us to sit on our high moral horse and condemn those of past generations, even Saints of the Church via blanket statements, while ignoring the econmic and social necessities of the unfortunate but morally neutral institutions of Slavery; which our Emperor St. Justinian, beloved of God, defended in his Institutes as a merciful institution, allowing the State to spare the sword from Criminals and Enemies of the Empire who justly diserve death.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #88 on: June 16, 2005, 02:30:34 PM »

Hey, kids! Today, we are going to Bizarro World where the South won the war and slavery is a bag full of social justice and fun!
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
SiviSokol
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: SOC
Posts: 135


Tamburica u mom srcu


« Reply #89 on: June 16, 2005, 03:51:14 PM »

In this post-modern era of political correctness, it is easy for us to sit on our high moral horse and condemn those of past generations, even Saints of the Church via blanket statements, while ignoring the econmic and social necessities of the unfortunate but morally neutral institutions of Slavery; which our Emperor St. Justinian, beloved of God, defended in his Institutes as a merciful institution, allowing the State to spare the sword from Criminals and Enemies of the Empire who justly diserve death.

I think that you will find your description of slavery as "morally neutral" a tough sell.ÂÂ  While I can differentiate between slavery as practice in the Roman and Byzantine periods from that in the ante-bellum South, they were both repugnant- even if they differed in their practical application.ÂÂ  

Also, are you referring to Emperor Justinian I?ÂÂ  If so, he is certainly not a credible moral authority. He may have built one of the most magnificent churches ever, but he was also a coward who had his generals slaughter thousands of his own people during the Nike riots.ÂÂ  
« Last Edit: June 16, 2005, 03:51:45 PM by SiviSokol » Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,418



« Reply #90 on: June 16, 2005, 04:07:06 PM »

Finally, as I was challenged on this issue, if someone wishes to argue the Issue, I will defend the Particular Institution. Involuntary Servitude, while an unfortunate situation and less than ideal social institution, is not at all inherently immoral or unchristian. Nearly every Christian State from the time of the Empire, as well as Ancient Israel, maintained this instutution.

Which only goes to show that the behavior of supposedly Christian institutions is all too often a poor guide. This isn't an argument for morality; it's an argument for continuing to sin, because our ancestors did.

And while I'm at it, the harping about how bad the north was is morally bankrupt too. I expect that all the sins of the north were committed in the south too, along with chattel slavery. People here go on and on about abstract sinning, but when it comes to a particular, huge sin, I hear excuses that I see through when my kids use them. I only hope that formal Orthodox moral theology isn't this poorly executed.
Logged
cizinec
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 941


There ain't no way but the hard way.


« Reply #91 on: June 16, 2005, 04:25:45 PM »

Quote
the harping about how bad the north was is morally bankrupt too.  I expect that all the sins of the north were committed in the south too, along with chattel slavery.

so your argument now is "You are worse than we are. You are worse than we are.  Nanny nanny boo boo.  You are worse than we are."

So you just keep those folks outa your neighborhoods, at least you aren't a sinner like the pharisee . .. errrr ... I mean Southerners.
Logged

"Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery."
SonofAslan
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


« Reply #92 on: June 16, 2005, 05:02:13 PM »

Quote
I think that you will find your description of slavery as "morally neutral" a tough sell.  While I can differentiate between slavery as practice in the Roman and Byzantine periods from that in the ante-bellum South, they were both repugnant- even if they differed in their practical application. 



Based on what are they repugnant? Certainly nothing scriptural and nothing found in either Church teaching or Tradition or the Fathers. You can talk about love, but that would simply dictate how you should treat a slave, not whether slavery itself, either in the ante-bellum South or in Roman/Byzantine times.

Quote
And while I'm at it, the harping about how bad the north was is morally bankrupt too. I expect that all the sins of the north were committed in the south too, along with chattel slavery. People here go on and on about abstract sinning, but when it comes to a particular, huge sin, I hear excuses that I see through when my kids use them. I only hope that formal Orthodox moral theology isn't this poorly executed.


So are you arguing that the North was morally superior to the South? You have been given many instances of Northern moral reprehensibility and they have been just as particular as your blanket “slavery” criticism of the South. I think it is disingenuous at best and hypocritical at worst to claim either side was morally superior to the other. People are all morally reprehensible.
Logged
SonofAslan
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


« Reply #93 on: June 16, 2005, 05:07:56 PM »

As  a PS:

I'm not justifying southern slavery, but I think it is only your modern presuppositions that declare slavery to be this great huge sin. If it were in fact such a great sin, why didn't Jesus or the apostles or any of the Fathers command that slave owners free all their slaves?
Logged
SiviSokol
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: SOC
Posts: 135


Tamburica u mom srcu


« Reply #94 on: June 16, 2005, 05:14:18 PM »



Based on what are they repugnant? Certainly nothing scriptural and nothing found in either Church teaching or Tradition or the Fathers. You can talk about love, but that would simply dictate how you should treat a slave, not whether slavery itself, either in the ante-bellum South or in Roman/Byzantine times.

You're kidding, right?  It's not blazingly obvious that slavery is repugnant?  Perhaps you'd like to be owned?  Have any of your ancestors been owned? ÂÂ

I understand where you and GreekisChristian will go with the biblical and patristic arguments.  These are, however, tenable only on a theoretical level.  You give any human that much physical power over another, and corruption and abuse will arise- on a widespread level.  This has been proven time and again in every situation and age where slavery existed.  While (and this is on a purely theoretical level) I admit this type of relational dynamic -master to slave- provides a situation where one could truly show Christian virtues, it is far better for societies to outlaw and disdain this institution.  It should be eradicated from the earth.
Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,421



« Reply #95 on: June 16, 2005, 05:29:40 PM »

Union soldiers fired upon the Virginian Capital in Richmond quite a while before that little incident.

I asked my father, a born Virginian from Spotsylvania County and a Civil War scholar, self taught.  He has *never* seen or heard anything of such an incident.  He told me then about the "Star of the West" being fired on as the first incident.  What is your documentation for Union Troops firing on Richmond prior to Ft. Sumter?

http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/major-anderson-ft-sumter_Dir/first-shot-civil-war.htm
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/major-anderson-ft-sumter_Dir/star-of-the-west.htm

As to the blackening of the White House that is from 1814 when the British burned it.  However the name "White House" is earlier then that

http://www.snopes.com/language/colors/whithous.htm
http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/presidents/site13.htm


Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,421



« Reply #96 on: June 16, 2005, 05:40:02 PM »

Perhaps the wrongness of enslaving another Human Being can be coveredÂÂ  by Jesus saying

"And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." Luke 6:31 KJV

The Golden Rule.

Would any of us reading this here willingly be a slave?ÂÂ  or see our children or other family members owned  by others and dealt with as the owners saw fit?ÂÂ  Taken from us and sold to others and never seen again?ÂÂ  Used or abused because they were "property"?ÂÂ  

Ebor



« Last Edit: June 16, 2005, 05:42:09 PM by Ebor » Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #97 on: June 16, 2005, 06:59:22 PM »

You're kidding, right?  It's not blazingly obvious that slavery is repugnant?  Perhaps you'd like to be owned?  Have any of your ancestors been owned? ÂÂ

No, I do not want to be a slave, but neither do I wish to be poor; however, the fact that poverty is undesirable does not mean that it's existance is a Great Sin; poverty, like slavery, is an unfortunate but morally neutral element of society.

Perhaps the wrongness of enslaving another Human Being can be covered  by Jesus saying

"And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." Luke 6:31 KJV

The Golden Rule.

The Golden Rule is not unique to the New Testament but is first found in the Pentateuch, yet these very same books that first lay out the importance of Loving our Neighbours as ourselves also clearly regulate and condone the institution of Slavery. Furthermore, in the light of the Teachings of Christ the Apostles do nothing to overturn this supposed great Social evil of Servitude, rather they merely regulate it, and apply the 'Golden Rule' to this Institution by telling Masters to be kind and loving to their Slaves and to treat them fairly, and telling slaves to 'count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.' (I Tim. vi. 1). Finally, there is the time in the Gospels (Matthew viii. 5-13, Luke vii. 2-10) where Christ comes upon the situation of a Master, the Centurion of Capernaum, asking him to heal his slave. Christ makes no insistance that the slave be freed, but rather heals them, returning him to full and useful service of his master. Upon healing the slave, what was Christ's response to the Centurion. Did he admonish him for holding slaves? Did he even say, I have given back your beloved's servant's health, now give unto him what you can, his freedom? Nay, rather it is recorded that 'when Jesus heard these things, he marvelled at him, and turned him about, and said unto the people that followed him, I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.' So what did Christ do? He praised him and upheld him as a virtuous pillar of Society.

I think that you will find your description of slavery as "morally neutral" a tough sell.  While I can differentiate between slavery as practice in the Roman and Byzantine periods from that in the ante-bellum South, they were both repugnant- even if they differed in their practical application. 

They have differences, but far more similarities than differences, the starkest differences are from the time before the Code of Theodosius and either the Byzantine Period or the Ante-Bellum South, in which Masters had Absolute control over their slaves and their lives. In refering to which St. Justinian says that is how Slavery naturally should be, but for the common Good the state has found herself both able and needing to grant various protections to the lives of slaves.

Also, are you referring to Emperor Justinian I?  If so, he is certainly not a credible moral authority. He may have built one of the most magnificent churches ever, but he was also a coward who had his generals slaughter thousands of his own people during the Nike riots. 

That is Emperor Saint Justinian the First; the Greatest lawgiver in the History of the World, with his Codification of Roman Law surpassing in significance the Magna Carta or US Constitution. Though he was not as bold as his wife, Our Lady Empress St. Theodora most August (who Ruled with him as a co-Emperor, and not as a figurehead), in matters of war, I would not call him a Coward; he attempted to surpress the Insurrection once and Failed, only then did he consider fleeing the Imperial City and leaving it to the Pretender to the Imperial Throne. Fortunately, St. Theodora convinced him otherwise with her famous speech that has come down through the ages:

'Every man must sooner or later die; and how could and Emperor ever allow himself to be a fugitive? when you reach safety, will you not regret that you did not choose death in preference? I stand by the saying: the purple is the noblest winding-sheet.'

Here it should be noted that such a Magnificant Church was built by St. Justinian because the insurrectionists had destroyed by this time the Cathedral built by St. Constantine the Great, Equal-to-the-Apostles. And note, I do call them insurrectionists, they were not merely rioters, but with the support of a few senators had proclaimed Hypatius to be a new Emperor, they were a rebel army and were addressed with force appropriate to the Threat. The Rebel army was defeated by Generals Loyal to our Imperial Lord and Lady, and the fighting was exceptionally bloody, but Order and Peace was restored and the Lawful Emperors Maintained.

Though St. Theodora May have been the bolder and more daring of the Two St. Justinian was far from a coward, as both Sts. Theodora and Justinian were under the impression that they would die trying to defend their Thrones. Furthermore, he was unsurpassed as a Strategist, Lawgiver, Builder, and Administrator, which is why their Reign is often considered to have heralded in a Golden Era of the Empire.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
SonofAslan
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


« Reply #98 on: June 16, 2005, 07:43:21 PM »

Quote
give any human that much physical power over another, and corruption and abuse will arise- on a widespread level. 

That makes all police forces in the world inherently a great evil.


Quote
I understand where you and GreekisChristian will go with the biblical and patristic arguments.  These are, however, tenable only on a theoretical level.

So the Bible and fathers are only theoretically valid? Paul, a Father, says in Scripture itself, that all Scripture is useful for education and instruction. In what, if not how to live?

Quote
it is far better for societies to outlaw and disdain this institution

That isn’t in dispute, but that doesn’t make it a great evil or sin.


Quote
Would any of us reading this here willingly be a slave?  or see our children or other family members owned  by others and dealt with as the owners saw fit?  Taken from us and sold to others and never seen again?  Used or abused because they were "property"? 

Many people in the past have chosen to voluntarily become slaves, and have voluntarily sold their children into slavery. But GiC dealt with the “Do unto others” rather well, I think.
Logged
cizinec
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 941


There ain't no way but the hard way.


« Reply #99 on: June 16, 2005, 08:05:48 PM »

Well, how about this then.

Slavery is stupid because it is economic suicide.  The Keynsian school knows it, the Austrian school knows it, heck, even the commies know it. 

Morality aside, slavery is bad economic and political policy.

And spare me the quotes from ancient Greek philosophers and theologians.  They weren't economists.
Logged

"Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery."
SonofAslan
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


« Reply #100 on: June 16, 2005, 08:15:19 PM »

Can't argue with that because I'm not an economist or a politician.  Cheesy
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #101 on: June 16, 2005, 10:59:15 PM »

Well, how about this then.

Slavery is stupid because it is economic suicide.ÂÂ  The Keynsian school knows it, the Austrian school knows it, heck, even the commies know it.ÂÂ  

Morality aside, slavery is bad economic and political policy.

And spare me the quotes from ancient Greek philosophers and theologians.ÂÂ  They weren't economists.

I'll wont argue with you on that one, at least in the Context of an Industrial/Post-Industrial Economy. It allowed for the Creation of an Upper Class in an Agricultural Economy, and an Upper Class allowed for the Development of Culture, Philosophy, Technology, et cetera, but with the Coming of the Industrial Revolution it had outlived its usefulness.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #102 on: June 16, 2005, 11:02:06 PM »

What the heck? Are the southerners trying to defend the morality of slavery now? Please forgive me if I am mistaken.
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,418



« Reply #103 on: June 17, 2005, 06:42:52 AM »

No, I do not want to be a slave, but neither do I wish to be poor; however, the fact that poverty is undesirable does not mean that it's existence is a Great Sin; poverty, like slavery, is an unfortunate but morally neutral element of society.

I said I wouldn't discuss the morality of slavery, but this particular bit of misdirection needs to be addressed.

Slavery is something that people do. The moral question is not whether it is moral for you to be a slave, but whether it is moral for you to have slaves-- or for that matter, whether it is moral for you to enslave others.
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,418



« Reply #104 on: June 17, 2005, 06:47:24 AM »

Well, how about this then.

Slavery is stupid because it is economic suicide.  The Keynsian school knows it, the Austrian school knows it, heck, even the commies know it. 

Morality aside, slavery is bad economic and political policy.

Economics is heavily powered by stupidity. And anyway, slavery continues. Again, I'm wondering why Christians are having so much trouble accepting the idea that people act against their own interests.
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,418



« Reply #105 on: June 17, 2005, 07:11:00 AM »

So you just keep those folks outa your neighborhoods, at least you aren't a sinner like the pharisee . .. errrr ... I mean Southerners.

I don't have anything to do with keeping people out of my (rather small) neighborhood. Maybe that explains the Cameroonian family at one end of the street, or the muslims further around the corner, or the American black family on yet another street.
Logged
SiviSokol
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: SOC
Posts: 135


Tamburica u mom srcu


« Reply #106 on: June 17, 2005, 01:16:39 PM »

No, I do not want to be a slave, but neither do I wish to be poor; however, the fact that poverty is undesirable does not mean that it's existance is a Great Sin; poverty, like slavery, is an unfortunate but morally neutral element of society.

I don’t think that the two form a good parallel.   At the dawn of the 21st century, I believe the burden of proof falls upon you to make such an argument.  I find it amazing that you do not see that the institution of Slavery is not some neutral social-relational vessel that can then be filled with either good or bad behavior.  It is an untrue, coercive, social relationship that leads to sin.  What holds it together in practical application are generally sets of philosophical suppositions that are also suspect.  Does the accident of my birth make me inherently inferior to my neighbor?  Perhaps my culture and/or skin tone?  Perhaps the decision of the civil powers of my country leads to war and defeat.  Shall I now be chattel to the winner?  Is this good?  One doesn’t get to approve of some theoretical institution of ‘slavery’ and then get to pick or choose what they get to be.  One great dilemma, and the place where much sin occurs, is in the particulars of who gets enslaved, and for how long. 

One should not divorce the theoretical institution from its particular application- unless you have a lot of time to kill in coffee shops.  Right now, I’m typing on company time.

To illustrate my point, I'll throw this out for consideration.  Think about the issue of inferiority, and the criteria for slave selection for a second.   Who, and by what criteria, do we get to decide?  If it is according to the temporal power you have (which God would have to have permitted), us adherents of the Orthodox faith were historically-and continue at present- to be at a disadvantage.  My ancestors lived for 500 years under the Ottomans.  Freedom under liberal democracy has treated my kith and kin much better than monarchy, theocracy (remember, not all theocracies are Christian!) or Communism.   Should culture be considered?  What then constitutes the criteria for an ‘inferior’ and therefore enslavable culture?

The Golden Rule is not unique to the New Testament but is first found in the Pentateuch, yet these very same books that first lay out the importance of Loving our Neighbours as ourselves also clearly regulate and condone the institution of Slavery. Furthermore, in the light of the Teachings of Christ the Apostles do nothing to overturn this supposed great Social evil of Servitude, rather they merely regulate it, and apply the 'Golden Rule' to this Institution by telling Masters to be kind and loving to their Slaves and to treat them fairly, and telling slaves to 'count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.' (I Tim. vi. 1). Finally, there is the time in the Gospels (Matthew viii. 5-13, Luke vii. 2-10) where Christ comes upon the situation of a Master, the Centurion of Capernaum, asking him to heal his slave. Christ makes no insistance that the slave be freed, but rather heals them, returning him to full and useful service of his master. Upon healing the slave, what was Christ's response to the Centurion. Did he admonish him for holding slaves? Did he even say, I have given back your beloved's servant's health, now give unto him what you can, his freedom? Nay, rather it is recorded that 'when Jesus heard these things, he marvelled at him, and turned him about, and said unto the people that followed him, I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.' So what did Christ do? He praised him and upheld him as a virtuous pillar of Society.


Your argument here does not stand.  Christ’s response was to the Centurion’s expression of faith.  We know now, also, that the Golden Rule as applied rarely in such situations.  Our two millennia of intervening history tell us so. 

Again, Christ didn’t come to save the carnal man.  He didn’t come as a social revolutionary.  However, it seems that wherever civil (and Christian) society has spread, slavery has eventually been suppressed.  It is the practical outcome of the application of the Golden Rule that allows us such questioning and revision of our societal norms and social relationships.   

They have differences, but far more similarities than differences, the starkest differences are from the time before the Code of Theodosius and either the Byzantine Period or the Ante-Bellum South, in which Masters had Absolute control over their slaves and their lives. In refering to which St. Justinian says that is how Slavery naturally should be, but for the common Good the state has found herself both able and needing to grant various protections to the lives of slaves.

The institution as practiced in the Ante-Bellum south was upheld by a vile and sinful racial worldview.  This puts it into stark contrast to slavery in either the time of the High Empire or of the Late Antique.  As always, the Devil is in the details.

That is Emperor Saint Justinian the First; the Greatest lawgiver in the History of the World, with his Codification of Roman Law surpassing in significance the Magna Carta or US Constitution. Though he was not as bold as his wife, Our Lady Empress St. Theodora most August (who Ruled with him as a co-Emperor, and not as a figurehead), in matters of war, I would not call him a Coward; he attempted to surpress the Insurrection once and Failed, only then did he consider fleeing the Imperial City and leaving it to the Pretender to the Imperial Throne. …etc.

LOL, you should enter a contest for composing panegyrics!  You could give most Byzantine court flunkies a run for their money. Like all Panegyrics, you only succeed in expressing hyperbole.  Justinian stood on the shoulders of giants.  His codification was a monumental work, but was simply an organization and streamlining of the extant corpus of Roman law. (Now, an original, elegant and most superior law document is our Constitution!  Wink)  He wasn’t that original, nor did he compile it himself.  That would be like saying that Justinian built (in its literal sense) Hagia Sophia, when we know that its architects were Isidore of Miletus and Anthemios of Tralles.

I think, ultimately, that if you look at the balance of the historical record you will see that, while Justinian was a remarkable figure, he was no saint.  You also don’t directly address his actions in the Hippodrome that ended the Nike riots.  He ended that mess with a bloodbath. Thirty thousand killed? Many would also say Theodora was a conniving and manipulative tramp.  Have you read Procopius?  The balance of modern historians on Justinian and Theodora generally don’t extol their moral fibre.  He funded great buildings and churches, had a really good general, but he also bled and weakened the empire through his actions.


« Last Edit: June 17, 2005, 01:21:31 PM by SiviSokol » Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #107 on: June 17, 2005, 01:24:35 PM »

I said I wouldn't discuss the morality of slavery, but this particular bit of misdirection needs to be addressed.

Slavery is something that people do. The moral question is not whether it is moral for you to be a slave, but whether it is moral for you to have slaves-- or for that matter, whether it is moral for you to enslave others.

And though I have just Scratched the Surface of arguments against the immorality of slavery, I believe that I have already demonstrated that the act of holding slaves is not inherently immoral. Thus the conclusion is that it is a social institution that is comprable to the existance of a Lower Class.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
SiviSokol
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: SOC
Posts: 135


Tamburica u mom srcu


« Reply #108 on: June 17, 2005, 01:31:50 PM »

And though I have just Scratched the Surface of arguments against the immorality of slavery, I believe that I have already demonstrated that the act of holding slaves is not inherently immoral. Thus the conclusion is that it is a social institution that is comprable to the existance of a Lower Class.

Bloviation! Popycock!  Horsehockey!
Logged
cizinec
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 941


There ain't no way but the hard way.


« Reply #109 on: June 17, 2005, 01:44:29 PM »

Quote
Economics is heavily powered by stupidity.

Oh great Keble, purveyor of all that is known about economics, bestow upon us, your unworthy servants, the great wisdom you have that shows von Mises to have been a fool.

Please grant us access to your wisdom by explaining to us the only true relationship between interest rates and production, for I would like to invest in ways unnaturally successful.

Quote
I believe that I have already demonstrated that the act of holding slaves is not inherently immoral.

Oh.  Sorry.  I must have missed that post. 

No agrarian society became upper class because of slavery.  They achieved wealth through trade.  Slavery typically cost economies more than they are worth.  Slave revolts and shoddy workmanship tend to make slave labor very expensive.  That's one of the prime reasons they eventually die out.

On a theological level, slavery denies an individual one thing that we hold to be true of all men:  free will.  I don't mean that in an "everything goes" sense, but in a "nothing goes" sense.  It's a sociological way of upholding Calvinism.  Yeah.  Yeah!  That's it!  You Protestant, you.
Logged

"Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery."
SiviSokol
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: SOC
Posts: 135


Tamburica u mom srcu


« Reply #110 on: June 17, 2005, 01:50:13 PM »

On a theological level, slavery denies an individual one thing that we hold to be true of all men: free will. I don't mean that in an "everything goes" sense, but in a "nothing goes" sense. It's a sociological way of upholding Calvinism. Yeah. Yeah! That's it! You Protestant, you.

That's awesome!  Cheesy
Logged
cizinec
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 941


There ain't no way but the hard way.


« Reply #111 on: June 17, 2005, 01:59:03 PM »

For those of you with a strong stomach, check this out.  http://www.mises.org/journals/lar/pdfs/3_2/3_2_1.pdf

Okay, it's not the attractively presented article, but it makes the point.
Logged

"Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery."
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #112 on: June 17, 2005, 06:27:09 PM »

I don’t think that the two form a good parallel.  ÃƒÆ’‚ At the dawn of the 21st century, I believe the burden of proof falls upon you to make such an argument.  I find it amazing that you do not see that the institution of Slavery is not some neutral social-relational vessel that can then be filled with either good or bad behavior.

Considering Millenia of History are on my Side, and in support of your Ideals you can present little more than Enlightenment Philosophy, I would disagree and place the burden of proof on you who Challenge Nearly Every Society, Civilization, and Culture in the History of the World.

Quote
It is an untrue, coercive, social relationship that leads to sin.ÂÂ  What holds it together in practical application are generally sets of philosophical suppositions that are also suspect.ÂÂ  Does the accident of my birth make me inherently inferior to my neighbor?ÂÂ  Perhaps my culture and/or skin tone?ÂÂ  Perhaps the decision of the civil powers of my country leads to war and defeat.ÂÂ  Shall I now be chattel to the winner?ÂÂ  Is this good?ÂÂ  One doesn’t get to approve of some theoretical institution of ‘slavery’ and then get to pick or choose what they get to be.ÂÂ  One great dilemma, and the place where much sin occurs, is in the particulars of who gets enslaved, and for how long.

These elements of inequality are apparent in every society, even our own, though we are all equal in the eyes of God, we are not equal in the Eyes of Men, we never will be. Some will be born with the capacity of being Nobel Prize winning Physicists, others will never have the mental capacity to go beyond Secondary School, and few will not even have the mental capacity to read or write...are we to say that they are equal in our Society? Before God, yes, before the Law, yes, but their opportunities are far from equal. Let us now consider culture, Does one born in the Belgan Congo or Amazon Rainforests have the Same opportunity as one Born in the United States or Western Europe? No, they are naturally disadvantaged because of the culture and country they are born into, the person may be an absolute genius, but never have the opportunity to exploit it. As far as war, Europe fortunately developed a civlized approach to War, resulting in the Geneva Convention, but this is by no means Universal. War is ultimately forcing your will on another by force of arms, the goal of war is to become the master and make the other your slave, to bend them to your will, the enslavement of a vanquished foe is simply an extension of this natural reality.

Quote
One should not divorce the theoretical institution from its particular application- unless you have a lot of time to kill in coffee shops.ÂÂ  Right now, I’m typing on company time.

And the Institution must be separated from its abuses. Eating is not sinful, but an abuse of it, gluttony, is. Wealth is not sinful, but an abuse of it is, for Scripture says that the Love of Money is the Root of All evil. Which brings us to Love, which is a Divine Characteristic, but even this can be abused and turned to Sin such as love of Money. St. Paul certainly envisioned the Institution separated form it's abuses in Ephesians vi 5-9 where he said,

Quote
Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.'

Quote
To illustrate my point, I'll throw this out for consideration.  Think about the issue of inferiority, and the criteria for slave selection for a second.  ÃƒÆ’‚ Who, and by what criteria, do we get to decide?  If it is according to the temporal power you have (which God would have to have permitted), us adherents of the Orthodox faith were historically-and continue at present- to be at a disadvantage.  My ancestors lived for 500 years under the Ottomans.  Freedom under liberal democracy has treated my kith and kin much better than monarchy, theocracy (remember, not all theocracies are Christian!) or Communism.  ÃƒÆ’‚ Should culture be considered?  What then constitutes the criteria for an ‘inferior’ and therefore enslavable culture?

Basically this is just an extension of the 'Do you want to be a slave?' Argument which I have already refuted. The fact that a social situation is undesirable does not inherently make its existance immoral.

Quote
Your argument here does not stand.ÂÂ  Christ’s response was to the Centurion’s expression of faith.ÂÂ  We know now, also, that the Golden Rule as applied rarely in such situations.ÂÂ  Our two millennia of intervening history tell us so.ÂÂ  

Again, Christ didn’t come to save the carnal man.  He didn’t come as a social revolutionary.  However, it seems that wherever civil (and Christian) society has spread, slavery has eventually been suppressed.  It is the practical outcome of the application of the Golden Rule that allows us such questioning and revision of our societal norms and social relationships.  ÃƒÆ’‚Â

Actually, it is a practical outcome of Enlightenment Philosophy which has little to do with the Christian faith. The reason that Christ did not condemn the slave owner is because it did not occur to him that the Relationship between the Centurion and his Slave was an immoral one...But fortunately as the Students of the Deists, we have grown in Wisdom beyond that of the Son of Man; we can now correct the Mistakes God made while he was on Earth.

Quote
The institution as practiced in the Ante-Bellum south was upheld by a vile and sinful racial worldview.ÂÂ  This puts it into stark contrast to slavery in either the time of the High Empire or of the Late Antique.ÂÂ  As always, the Devil is in the details.

And slavery in the Old Testament upheld a similar world view, having far more limitations on the enslavement of Jews (generally not permanent and never inherited) than Gentiles (both permanent and inherited). Some of the attudes that arose from certain members of the Said society may have been sinful; however, the social institution was not...or no more so than that which Moses put forth in the Law (The Same Law that first taught us to Love God and our Neighbour).

Quote
LOL, you should enter a contest for composing panegyrics!ÂÂ  You could give most Byzantine court flunkies a run for their money.

Thank you, I do what I can for God-Beloved Emperors and Empresses.

Quote
Like all Panegyrics, you only succeed in expressing hyperbole.ÂÂ  Justinian stood on the shoulders of giants.ÂÂ  His codification was a monumental work, but was simply an organization and streamlining of the extant corpus of Roman law. (Now, an original, elegant and most superior law document is our Constitution!ÂÂ  Wink)ÂÂ  He wasn’t that original, nor did he compile it himself.ÂÂ  That would be like saying that Justinian built (in its literal sense) Hagia Sophia, when we know that its architects were Isidore of Miletus and Anthemios of Tralles.

On top of codifying the Law, which was actually a rewriting of the laws, he also published many volumes of his Novels, written by himself to either amend or alter previous imperial law, which along with his Institutes, Codex, and Digests served as the Basis for Byzantine Law. Furthermore, these Novels and the Codification became the Basis for the Legal Systems throughout most of Europe.

Quote
I think, ultimately, that if you look at the balance of the historical record you will see that, while Justinian was a remarkable figure, he was no saint.

The Great Church of Christ would disagree with you, I believe it is on November 14th that Our Pious and God-Beloved Emperor and Empress St. Justinain most August and His wife St. Theodora most August are commemorated.

Quote
You also don’t directly address his actions in the Hippodrome that ended the Nike riots.ÂÂ  He ended that mess with a bloodbath. Thirty thousand killed? Many would also say Theodora was a conniving and manipulative tramp.ÂÂ  Have you read Procopius?ÂÂ  The balance of modern historians on Justinian and Theodora generally don’t extol their moral fibre.ÂÂ  He funded great buildings and churches, had a really good general, but he also bled and weakened the empire through his actions.

But I did address it, it was a Glorious Victory for the Empire over a Rebel Army; a victory in which the insurrectionists reaped the fruits of their rebellion. They had retreated to the Hippodrome, but were unabel to hold it, the Leigons of Faithful Romans under command the Loyal Officers of Emperor assulted their Posistion, and neutralized the defenders. St. Theodora was probably the more influential and powerful Empress until St. Irene ascended the Throne upon the accidental death of her adulterous son, she was an asset to the Reign of St. Justinian and to the Empire as a whole. Modern Historians try to do anything they can to undermine the Eastern Roman Empire, and I have little faith in their assesments; St. Justinian reconquered many lands that the Empire had lost, subjugated the Barbarian Populations, and consolidated the Defences of Empire; as well as being a Great Builder and Lawgiver. Which is why most list him as the Second Greatest Emperor of Christian Rome after St. Constantine the Great.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #113 on: June 17, 2005, 06:50:59 PM »

On a theological level, slavery denies an individual one thing that we hold to be true of all men:ÂÂ  free will.ÂÂ  I don't mean that in an "everything goes" sense, but in a "nothing goes" sense.ÂÂ  It's a sociological way of upholding Calvinism.ÂÂ  Yeah.ÂÂ  Yeah!ÂÂ  That's it!ÂÂ  You Protestant, you.

When I read this, a quote from the Danish Philosopher Soren Kierkegaard came to mind, 'People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid.' Slavery, which is ultimatley ownership of ones labour, is no more a violation of free will than any other law of our society which regulates our life. The Slave still has freedom of thought, Anarchy is not necessary for free will to exist. Infact in the Church we have many rules that Regulate us, it is the Protestants who advocate an Anarchistic view of religion...who's being Protestant Now?

In conclusion I would like to post a quote from Oscar Wilde's The Soul of Man Under Socialism (an absolutely wonderful work) which demonstrates the Hypocracy of Modern Man's claim for moral High Ground over the Men of past generations.

Quote
Slavery was put down in America, not in consequence of any action on the part of the slaves, or even any express desire on their part that they should be free.  It was put down entirely through the grossly illegal conduct of certain agitators in Boston and elsewhere, who were not slaves themselves, nor owners of slaves, nor had anything to do with the question really.  It was, undoubtedly, the Abolitionists who set the torch alight, who began the whole thing.  And it is curious to note that from the slaves themselves they received, not merely very little assistance, but hardly any sympathy even; and when at the close of the war the slaves found themselves free, found themselves indeed so absolutely free that they were free to starve, many of them bitterly regretted the new state of things.  To the thinker, the most tragic fact in the whole of the French Revolution is not that Marie Antoinette was killed for being a queen, but that the starved peasant of the Vendée voluntarily went out to die for the hideous cause of feudalism.

In the context of our society, none are free, yes one is free to chose between selling his labour for money or being starved, humilitated, and degridated by society...but the slave is free to labour for his master or submit to his master's whip...is the whip really that much more terrible a threat than the aforementioned threats our current society places upon lazy and disobedient slaves? We have not abolished slavery, only altered the form slightly; we have eased our conscience by better entertaining the slaves, though have stopped far short of liberating them.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
SonofAslan
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


« Reply #114 on: June 17, 2005, 06:57:49 PM »

Since he's doing so well, and is much more eloquent and passionate than I, I will let GiC continue. I would only add that if forcing one's will upon others is inherently evil, then the police are evil when they arrest someone.

And GiC is absolutely correct about your view arising out of Enlightenment philosophy. You hold these views precisely because you live in 21st century America, and they are completely relative to that era and culture. You have presented no Scripture, Father or other element of Church teaching or tradition to support your view that it is inherently sinful, while all three can be used to show it's not.
Logged
SonofAslan
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


« Reply #115 on: June 17, 2005, 07:03:41 PM »

I am not trying to correct you, GiC, but I think Kierkegaard is so eloquent, his words must be apreciated in their fulness. Therefore, I am including the full text of your paraphrase. It's one of my favorite S.K. quotes.

"How absurd men are! They never use the liberties they have, they demand those they do not have. They have freedom of thought, they demand freedom of speech."
Either/Or
« Last Edit: June 17, 2005, 07:04:06 PM by SonofAslan » Logged
SonofAslan
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


« Reply #116 on: June 17, 2005, 07:43:36 PM »

Sorry, GiC,

I thought that was your quote, but in fact, I found the one you were quoting.

"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use. "

Never mind. But I still like the other one.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #117 on: June 17, 2005, 10:19:02 PM »

Thanks,

Both are great quotes which demonstrate my point that people always insisting on more 'freedom' yet never exersizing even the most fundamental rights, that truly are inalienable, which they already posess. If one has yet to learn Freedom of Thought, Freedom of Speech is a very dangerous thing to give them.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,418



« Reply #118 on: June 17, 2005, 11:09:22 PM »

Oh great Keble, purveyor of all that is known about economics, bestow upon us, your unworthy servants, the great wisdom you have that shows von Mises to have been a fool.

Well, I am most certainly NOT an Austrian, but that's utterly beside the point.

The point is that people don't act only for economic reasons, and when they think they are acting along economic lines, they frequently are at least partly mistaken.

I'm looking at the paper to which the link was provided, and I notice two things in particular. First, the author deduces that when a fresh supply of captured slaves is available, slavery is profitable. And he goes on to observe that the Brazilian situation fitted this pattern. This is consonant with what the other sources I have found say, and they all agree that political and naval pressure from the British ended slavery in Brazil. This I would not call "dying out", but being put forcibly to an end for non-economic reasons.

The author then goes on to discuss the American situation, in which the external slave trade was cut off. Now, already there is the question of whether this political act has economic origins, or some other. Be that as it may, he then goes on to speculate that the investment in raising slaves would outweigh the income they would bring in. Some of the numbers he uses are, I think, questionable: for instance, he gives an age of fifteen at which they could begin labor, when in fact child labor was obtained from them (and of course in the free world too-- children on farms are not without chores). But at any rate, he then goes on to oberve that the time frame between cessation of the trade and abolition was too short for economic pressures to fully be brought to bear, and he ends by saying, "Thus the possibility that slavery would have eliminated itself remains an open one."
« Last Edit: June 17, 2005, 11:10:21 PM by Keble » Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,418



« Reply #119 on: June 17, 2005, 11:27:51 PM »

While I'm at it, an exerpt from an address by the EP:

Quote
If, on the other hand, it is true, as we believe, that human beings ought to strive constantly towards improvement of their values and their social relations, then, surely, we must today reject certain practices, as for example slavery and piracy, which in the past were deemed lawful and permissible.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #120 on: June 17, 2005, 11:35:53 PM »

While I'm at it, an exerpt from an address by the EP:

I'm not suggesting we bring slavery back, I'm simply saying that past generations were guilty of no sin or immorality by maintaining the institution.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Nacho
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: EasternOrthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,482

The face of Corporate America


« Reply #121 on: June 18, 2005, 12:14:53 AM »

Hmmm (yawn Roll Eyes)....looks like the yankee sympathizers lost the last few rounds. Should we call it game over yet? I would go on to add some more facts but 1. I'm feeling really lazy right now & don't want to spend the time to 2. The previous post by Gic & others are better than mine anyways and they have by far proven their case 3. Until I see some good reasons from the other side on what justified the north to invade the south then it is a moot point.


 
Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,421



« Reply #122 on: June 18, 2005, 12:38:33 AM »

Well, I'm still curious as to any documentation or citations that Union Troops fired on Richmond prior to Fr. Sumter that you asserted earlier. As I wrote, my father has never seen or heard anything like this and he has been reading and studying the Civil War for over 50 years *and* he is a Virginian.

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Nacho
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: EasternOrthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,482

The face of Corporate America


« Reply #123 on: June 18, 2005, 12:47:54 AM »

Quote
Well, I'm still curious as to any documentation or citations that Union Troops fired on Richmond prior to Fr. Sumter that you asserted earlier. As I wrote, my father has never seen or heard anything like this and he has been reading and studying the Civil War for over 50 years *and* he is a Virginian.

I'm going to have to retract that. I stand by the rest of the facts in my post though. I was going off books and other sources I have read many years ago and read about an incident like this occuring before Fort Sumter but I'm probably wrong. It must have been a totally different incident I'm thinking of that had no conection to the war of northern aggression. Sorry for the mistake... Smiley..

Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,421



« Reply #124 on: June 18, 2005, 12:59:24 AM »

Thank you, Nacho, for clearing that up and the retraction.  No disrespect to you, but it sounded wrong and I trusted my father's knowledge and memory.  It's so handy having an authority in the family.  Wink


Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
SonofAslan
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


« Reply #125 on: June 18, 2005, 11:44:04 AM »

Quote
While I'm at it, an exerpt from an address by the EP:

Here's one of the many places the "Phanar's secret agent" and I will differ. My response would simply be, "That's why we don't have a Pope. No individual is infallible."ÂÂ  Grin

I don't buy the argument that we are more civilized now or are more mature now or are wiser now than in the past. I think it belittles our Fathers and our Faith to claim our values/morals/social relations now are somehow so much better or "improved" or more complete than they were in the past.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2005, 12:32:11 PM by SonofAslan » Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #126 on: June 18, 2005, 02:50:55 PM »

Here's one of the many places the "Phanar's secret agent" and I will differ. My response would simply be, "That's why we don't have a Pope. No individual is infallible."ÂÂ  Grin

I don't buy the argument that we are more civilized now or are more mature now or are wiser now than in the past. I think it belittles our Fathers and our Faith to claim our values/morals/social relations now are somehow so much better or "improved" or more complete than they were in the past.

If needed I could have responded in that way, as not even I believe His All-Holiness to be Infallible...but why attack the Oecumenical Throne when another approach works just as well Wink
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,418



« Reply #127 on: June 18, 2005, 02:59:39 PM »

Here's one of the many places the "Phanar's secret agent" and I will differ. My response would simply be, "That's why we don't have a Pope. No individual is infallible."  Grin

If you claim to be Orthodox you are obligated to check with your bishops before making all these moral pronouncements. I sent a message to the OCA's handy question line and got a message back affirming that they do not support slavery, regardless of how it may have been viewed in the past, and also suggesting that I shouldn't waste any more time arguing with you guys.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #128 on: June 18, 2005, 03:16:49 PM »

If you claim to be Orthodox you are obligated to check with your bishops before making all these moral pronouncements. I sent a message to the OCA's handy question line and got a message back affirming that they do not support slavery, regardless of how it may have been viewed in the past, and also suggesting that I shouldn't waste any more time arguing with you guys.

I am simply maintaining a Posistion as old as Mankind, the posistion held by the Apostles and Fathers of the Church, I need no more ask my bishop's opinion on this issue before I present the Biblical and Patristic opinion than I need to ask him about the Church's posistion on the Morality of Murder before I can cite the Scriptures and Fathers of the Church on that issue. Abolitionists, on the other hand, who are condemned by St. Paul as 'He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself' (I Tim. vi. 4-5), may want to consider the Patristic and Biblical Posistions before they go about Condemning the Apostles and Fathers of the Church in the Name of the Enlightenment.

Furthermore, I'm certain the way you worded your question was such as to try and get the response you wanted...perhaps the proper question should have been, Do we Condemn Apostles and Fathers of the Church as immoral men who lived in sin and great workers of iniquity on account of their Holding of Slaves or Supporting the Institution?
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #129 on: June 18, 2005, 03:33:15 PM »

and also suggesting that I shouldn't waste any more time arguing with you guys.

As an afterthought, this is simply bad advice, dialogue is the best way to learn not only other sides of issues, but your own side -- especially when you are forced to defend it...it can offer knowledge and insights that you may never come across in any other manner. Furthermore, if you believe something you should know why, the assumptions behind your belief, the source of those assumptions, as well as the implications of those assumptions. If your belief is correct and consistant with your world view, you should have little trouble defending it from that perspective; if problems come about in its defence, perhaps you should re-evaluate your posistion.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
cizinec
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 941


There ain't no way but the hard way.


« Reply #130 on: June 18, 2005, 08:09:15 PM »

Quote
who's being Protestant Now?

that sounds like a jewel song:

you say slavery's bad, yeah yeah,
that it makes you mad, yeah yeah
but you don't know what you're saying
and I know just what you're praying

well, the EP says slavery is coo-ool
and that you are just a dumb foo-ool
you should go to theological schoo -ool
so stop being a baptist's too-ool

well-uh who's being Protestant now
You are just an ignorant cow . . .

I hate Jewel's stuff.

So I give up.

The South was right.  Slavery is cool.  What the heck, let's bring it back.  We'll start with religious minorities.  Let's see, who should we start with . . . the Orthodox Christians!  They're all for slavery anyway, so they won't mind it if we sell them like manimals and rip their kids from them whenever we like!
Logged

"Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery."
cizinec
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 941


There ain't no way but the hard way.


« Reply #131 on: June 18, 2005, 08:11:32 PM »

Hey, GIC, wanna be my slave?  My lawn needs a-mowing and I hate changing stinky nappies.

Dang, all these song title ideas just keep coming from this thread.
Logged

"Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery."
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,418



« Reply #132 on: June 19, 2005, 08:35:17 AM »

I am simply maintaining a Posistion as old as Mankind, the posistion held by the Apostles and Fathers of the Church, I need no more ask my bishop's opinion on this issue before I present the Biblical and Patristic opinion than I need to ask him about the Church's posistion on the Morality of Murder before I can cite the Scriptures and Fathers of the Church on that issue.

If Genesis is to be believed, sin itself is almost as old as mankind, and slavery at least had to wait for some years after. Antiquity of error is no defense.

Quote
Furthermore, I'm certain the way you worded your question was such as to try and get the response you wanted...

These are the exact words I sent:

Quote
I'm engaged in a discussion with a group of Orthodox men who are holding that there is nothing morally wrong with having slaves. Does the OCA/modern Orthodoxy have a teaching on this? Reference to scripture isn't getting anywhere because they refer to the passage in Ephesians as tacit acceptance of slave-holding as morally neutral, and I'm unable to get very far through Google due to the multiplicity of hagiographic hits.

Thanks in advance for what answer you may be able to provide.

If you're looking for sin, we need go no further than your baseless accusation of intellectual dishonesty against me.

Quote
perhaps the proper question should have been, Do we Condemn Apostles and Fathers of the Church as immoral men who lived in sin and great workers of iniquity on account of their Holding of Slaves or Supporting the Institution?

The apostles and the fathers are the first to testify to their own sinfulness.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #133 on: June 19, 2005, 12:35:24 PM »

If you're looking for sin, we need go no further than your baseless accusation of intellectual dishonesty against me.

My accusation was not baseless, you didn't even ask the primary point that I am debating here, that the fathers of the Church are guilty of no Immorality or Sin on Account of their Holding Slaves or Supporting the said Institution. Rather you wrote the question from the assumption that your, thus far unsubstantiated, posistion is correct and simply asked for confirmation that someone agreed with you. I'm guessing the reason you were given advice not to continue this Debate is because the person you wrote had no better a defence of your posistion than you do.

The apostles and the fathers are the first to testify to their own sinfulness.

Yes, but you are arguing that they lived a live in Perpetual Sin, unrepentant of their Actions even to their death. Before you make such baseless accusations against Fathers and Saints of the Church, please do a bit more research and try to defend your posistion with something more legitimate than Enlightenment Philosophy. The mere fact that Slavery is distasteful does not make it immoral.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,418



« Reply #134 on: June 19, 2005, 12:57:54 PM »

My accusation was not baseless, you didn't even ask the primary point that I am debating here, that the fathers of the Church are guilty of no Immorality or Sin on Account of their Holding Slaves or Supporting the said Institution.

Your "primary point" is an unwelcome conclusion from the real primary point: the morality of slave-holding. Your distaste for it is immaterial. If you cannot tell the difference between the leading question that you would ask, and the neutral question I did ask, then Fr. Matusiak is probably right.

Quote
Yes, but you are arguing that they lived a live in Perpetual Sin, unrepentant of their Actions even to their death.

No, you are arguing that I imply that. I am sure, and I am sure that the fathers would agree with me, that we do not go to our deaths with every sin knowingly repented of.

Quote
The mere fact that Slavery is distasteful does not make it immoral.

Actually I disagree. That it is distasteful (and you choose a euphemism in that word, though at the moment I have not the time to think of a better word) to be enslaved is a sufficient argument that it is immoral to will it upon another, unless you can find a reason why it is good to be enslaved.

That's what Jesus teaches.
Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,421



« Reply #135 on: June 19, 2005, 01:27:29 PM »

The Slave still has freedom of thought,

Free thoughts in a body in chains....  I wonder if a slave would agree that it was enough.

Quote
In conclusion I would like to post a quote from Oscar Wilde's The Soul of Man Under Socialism

Oscar Wilde, a talented writer, but hardly close to chattel slavery. (a slave to fashion and notoriety maybe)
 And such ex-slaves as Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman and Soujourner Truth did take action and did what they could to free others.  The words and deeds of those who suffered under slavery hold more weight.

http://www.frederickdouglass.org/douglass_bio.html
http://www.nyhistory.com/harriettubman/life.htm
http://www.lkwdpl.org/wihohio/trut-soj.htm

Quote
In the context of our society, none are free, yes one is free to chose between selling his labour for money or being starved, humilitated, and degridated by society.

Life is not binary.  Nor is "society" a monolith.  And there are degrees of freedom.  To compare doing a job and recieving pay for it to chattel slavery is over simplistic. No-one told me what jobs I would seek. There is a wide zone between Total control and Utter Freedom (which might also be "Chaos".)

Quote
..but the slave is free to labour for his master or submit to his master's whip...is the whip really that much more terrible a threat than the aforementioned threats our current society places upon lazy and disobedient slaves?

Or labour and still be whipped, used, sold.  Being under the total control of another human being is also to be humiliated adn denigrated and sometimes staved. 


Quote
We have not abolished slavery, only altered the form slightly; we have eased our conscience by better entertaining the slaves, though have stopped far short of liberating them.

Slightly?  One may search for other work, one may move to other areas, one may choose a career or job with more freedom then a chattel slave. 

I don't know what "Society" you have lived in, but it isn't the same one I've been in all these years.

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,421



« Reply #136 on: June 19, 2005, 01:39:58 PM »

The mere fact that Slavery is distasteful does not make it immoral.

"Distasteful"?!?ÂÂ  

You would reduce the owning of Human Beings made in the image of God to being "distasteful"?ÂÂ  The abuse and buying and selling and using of another person as the owner wishes as "distasteful"?ÂÂ  The rape of slaves by owners as 'distasteful"?ÂÂ  Treating Human Beings like animals and selling off their children or their wife or husband as it suits the owner is "distasteful"?

1 : objectionable because offensive to one's personal taste : DISAGREEABLE

Personal taste,  that seems so "relative".   Somehow that word just doesn't seem to cover the situation.

Ebor



« Last Edit: June 19, 2005, 01:41:13 PM by Ebor » Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #137 on: June 19, 2005, 04:24:31 PM »

That's what Jesus teaches.

I personally find manual labour of any type to be distasteful...therefore can we logically conclude that maintaining a society in which certain members will have to engage in manual labour inorder to sustain it is immoral? Furthermore, St. Paul wouldn't have agreed with you about the Teachings of Christ relative to the Institution of Slavery, for in I Timothy 6, as I have quoted before, he said:

Quote
Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.

I have given you biblical and patristic references, and I can give more if needed...you have yet to give me anything to support your posistions other than enlightenment notions of 'equality.' I am still awaiting support for your posistion.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #138 on: June 19, 2005, 04:44:08 PM »

Free thoughts in a body in chains....ÂÂ  I wonder if a slave would agree that it was enough.

Many slaves in history would have, some even sold themselves into slavery inorder to insure that they would have a place to sleep and food to eat.

Quote
Oscar Wilde, a talented writer, but hardly close to chattel slavery. (a slave to fashion and notoriety maybe)
 And such ex-slaves as Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman and Soujourner Truth did take action and did what they could to free others.ÂÂ  The words and deeds of those who suffered under slavery hold more weight.

The point he made, however, was a valid one, that the street sweeper on the East End of London was no better off than many slaves. Furthermore, that many liberated Slaves had harder lives after there 'freedom' than while they were slaves, quotes from many slaves to this extent in the South after the War Between the States have been Recorded, even by certain ex slaves who were in the State Legislature during Reconstruction.

Quote
Life is not binary.ÂÂ  Nor is "society" a monolith.ÂÂ  And there are degrees of freedom.ÂÂ  To compare doing a job and recieving pay for it to chattel slavery is over simplistic. No-one told me what jobs I would seek. There is a wide zone between Total control and Utter Freedom (which might also be "Chaos".)

Then what Patristic or Biblical evidence do you have for drawing the line of immoral/moral treatement of people at Slavery/Imprisonment of Criminals...or Slavery/Poverty?

Quote
Or labour and still be whipped, used, sold.ÂÂ  Being under the total control of another human being is also to be humiliated adn denigrated and sometimes staved.ÂÂ  

The belief that slaves were badly abused is a myth, it simply doesnt make economic sense, considering a Slave could cost one as much as $5,000 in the 1850's. Furthermore, I have already addressed the issue of the separation of the Institution and Abuses.

Quote
Slightly?ÂÂ  One may search for other work, one may move to other areas, one may choose a career or job with more freedom then a chattel slave.ÂÂ  

So now the slave gets to choose whether he wants to work in the Fields or in the House...what a great improvement...what of the supposedly free man who decides he simply does not want to work, or wants to dedicate his time to something more noble than economic pursuits? Is he free to make this Choice? Or will society punish him for it?

Quote
I don't know what "Society" you have lived in, but it isn't the same one I've been in all these years.

Upper middle class America is the society I've lived in, though I cannot speak for you. I just don't believe the lies i'm told about freedom, democracy, equality and all that, or at least I haven't believed it since I started to think for myself around the age of 12.

You would reduce the owning of Human Beings made in the image of God to being "distasteful"?

Depending on the Situation and what it is compared to. One branch of my family was Irish, who came over here during the potato famine (some of the last in my family to come to the United States); frankly, relative to their standard of living in the cities and factories of the North, the Slavery in the south was far from 'distasteful'...such a standard of living was desirable. Furthermore, it's not like one can own their soul or conscience, they only owned their labour, and in exchange they were given their due wages, they were cared for...even when they were too old or sick to work, more than could be said for the factory workers of the North.

Quote
The abuse and buying and selling and using of another person as the owner wishes as "distasteful"?  The rape of slaves by owners as 'distasteful"?  Treating Human Beings like animals and selling off their children or their wife or husband as it suits the owner is "distasteful"?

The ABUSES, are Immoral, but the Institution itself is not...please read St. Paul's instructions to Masters from Ephesians that I posted a little ways back.

Quote
Personal taste, that seems so "relative". Somehow that word just doesn't seem to cover the situation.

But in large part, that is all it is. There was not this adamant objection to slavery prior to then Englightenment, it is a response of distaste from those who have been raised in a post-enlightenment culture, and essentially only members of such a culture who are unable to comprehend other Cultures, espeically those of the past, have these strong objections.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Nacho
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: EasternOrthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,482

The face of Corporate America


« Reply #139 on: June 19, 2005, 06:27:27 PM »

Quote
The belief that slaves were badly abused is a myth, it simply doesn't make economic sense, considering a Slave could cost one as much as $5,000 in the 1850's. Furthermore, I have already addressed the issue of the separation of the Institution and A

I have heard this also. There was a government study that took place in the early 1930's that interviewed the last remaining former slaves about the conditions they lived under. The majority of them reported that their masters treated them very good and that their living conditions were not as bad as everyone thought. This surprised allot of people when they were saying positive things about their situation. Many of the former slaves also did not flee north after they were free, but decided to continue to work on the same plantations. The slaves that were abused were the ones that would leave the plantation and flee north. It wouldn't make sense for any person at the time who had slaves to abuse them seeing that was their bread & butter.
Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity
cizinec
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 941


There ain't no way but the hard way.


« Reply #140 on: June 19, 2005, 08:48:36 PM »

Oh come on, guys.

Still no takers?  If slavery is such a great institution how come nobody's wanting to be my slave?  You'd be well fed and I wouldn't sell your children to another family until they were, like, 13.
Logged

"Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery."
sin_vladimirov
ANAXIOS!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 477

ICXC NIKA


« Reply #141 on: June 19, 2005, 10:08:03 PM »

I like his songs, but as I do not ask Bethoween or Vivaldi, Bono or O'Connor about my salvation, so I will not ask Moby.


As far as musicians are concerned, St. Romanos the Melodist and similar people have said enough about it, to believe some who CAN'T even CROSS themselves properly.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2005, 10:08:25 PM by sin_vladimirov » Logged

Lord have mercy.
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,418



« Reply #142 on: June 20, 2005, 07:41:09 AM »

I personally find manual labour of any type to be distasteful...therefore can we logically conclude that maintaining a society in which certain members will have to engage in manual labour inorder to sustain it is immoral?

OK-- first of all, I don't believe in Society, but only in the choices and agreements made by individuals. Second, it says in Genesis 3 that manual labor is the fate of mankind, because of sin. Therefore the resistance to doing same is sinful (and it is a sin I readily confess).

Quote
Furthermore, St. Paul wouldn't have agreed with you about the Teachings of Christ relative to the Institution of Slavery[.]

You haven't listed any spot where Paul says straight out what you wish him to say. And if we are allowing private interpretation, I notice that the letter to Philemon is basically Paul trying to persuade Philemon to free Onesimus.

As far as the interpreting that is therefore required: your style of argument is Protestant. If your bishops say that slave-holding is immoral, then it is their interpretation which carries weight, and not yours. Furthermore, you exhibit the tell-tale marks of bad theology. Posturing about my "enlightenment notions" is just that: posturing. If "love your neighbor as yourself" was good enough for Jesus, then what of it if 18th century intellectuals said the same? (They got it from the bible, after all.) It is exalted as a moral principle, not devalued, when every tribe and faith on the earth can see it! But YOU: you go on these elaborate roundabouts to avoid having to face up to that principle. When real, proper theology does this, it avoids evasions and steps up to the ugly task of having to do casuistry, and thus choose the lesser sin.
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,418



« Reply #143 on: June 20, 2005, 07:41:47 AM »

Oh come on, guys.

Still no takers?  If slavery is such a great institution how come nobody's wanting to be my slave?  You'd be well fed and I wouldn't sell your children to another family until they were, like, 13.

Perhaps the price is too low. I open bidding at a thousand quatloos!
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,418



« Reply #144 on: June 20, 2005, 07:49:33 AM »

The belief that slaves were badly abused is a myth, it simply doesnt make economic sense, considering a Slave could cost one as much as $5,000 in the 1850's. Furthermore, I have already addressed the issue of the separation of the Institution and Abuses.

Humans are no more constrained to do what makes economic sense than they are to do what morality teaches them. And anyway, "love thy neighbor as thy horse" is obviously a step down. It directs one towards mistreatment. Finally, not being beaten is a pretty low standard to meet. Jesus demands more of us.

Nacho, I need a better citation than a vague "study in the 1930s". I might also postulate that slaves who survived into their 90s were among the better treated.
Logged
PhosZoe
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 346

One foot in the cradle


« Reply #145 on: June 20, 2005, 01:10:04 PM »

That makes all police forces in the world inherently a great evil.


Obviously you haven't watched Cops, the ultimate racist, welfare hating crack hunt.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #146 on: June 20, 2005, 01:47:23 PM »

As far as the interpreting that is therefore required: your style of argument is Protestant. If your bishops say that slave-holding is immoral, then it is their interpretation which carries weight, and not yours. Furthermore, you exhibit the tell-tale marks of bad theology. Posturing about my "enlightenment notions" is just that: posturing. If "love your neighbor as yourself" was good enough for Jesus, then what of it if 18th century intellectuals said the same? (They got it from the bible, after all.) It is exalted as a moral principle, not devalued, when every tribe and faith on the earth can see it! But YOU: you go on these elaborate roundabouts to avoid having to face up to that principle. When real, proper theology does this, it avoids evasions and steps up to the ugly task of having to do casuistry, and thus choose the lesser sin.

It is most interesting that you accuse my style of argument of being protestant, yet you are the one who puts the witness of Protestant Philosophers from the  18th-19th Centuries above the Witness of the Church. For 1800+ years the Church's practice demonstrated a belief in a Consonance between Slavery and the Golden Rule, yet on the word of a few protestant Philosophers of the last few hundred years, you dismiss the practice and history of the Church as Sinful and Immoral. Using YOUR Method of Argument, perhaps we could argue that Luther and Calvin were also Correct, they at least used far more of the Bible than these Deist Enlightenment Philosophers seem to follow, and since modern inventions hold as much weight as the Ancient Practice of the Church what advantage does Orthodox Theology have over Protestant Theology? Furthermore, though you have yet to demonstrate that any Synod of the Orthodox Church supports your posistion, the argument of 'well the bishop says this as his belief, therefore it must be true' may not be protestant, but nor is it Orthodox, it's distinctively Papist; it may be authoritive, but that doesn't make it true.

Finally, is the best defence you can present for your posistion to attack my style of argument? There may be some protestant stylistic elements to it, but that is because Abolitionism really only arose in Protestant Lands, and thus it was only Protestants who had to argue against these agents of revolution and evil; infact, the Enlightenment, and hence Abolitionism which arose from it, can be demonstrated to be a direct result of the Reformation. Notable abolitionist movements seem to be, interestingly enough, absent from Orthodox Lands; and where they did exist (e.g. the movement to end serfdom in Russia) their arguments and philosophies were clearly Western in origin, not Orthodox.

I'm still waiting for a real argument with some meat to it, not this half-hearted attack on my Style, and rather poor attempt to use Christ to justify Jacobism, which has been considered and refuted.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
SiviSokol
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: SOC
Posts: 135


Tamburica u mom srcu


« Reply #147 on: June 20, 2005, 02:27:16 PM »

I had a touch of the flu over the weekend, so don’t take my silence as some sort of capitulation.  GiC, there are so many problems with your arguments that I don't know where to begin.
 
Quote
Considering Millenia of History are on my Side, and in support of your Ideals you can present little more than Enlightenment Philosophy, I would disagree and place the burden of proof on you who Challenge Nearly Every Society, Civilization, and Culture in the History of the World

The end product of millennia of human history and moral thought is on my side. Not only that, but your fobbing off of my point as “Enlightenment Philosophy” as if it then deserves no further consideration is a stupid rhetorical trick that seems to only work in online Orthodox fora.  Engage the idea head on.

Quote
These elements of inequality are apparent in every society, even our own, though we are all equal in the eyes of God, we are not equal in the Eyes of Men, we never will be. Some will be born with the capacity of being Nobel Prize winning Physicists, others will never have the mental capacity to go beyond Secondary School, and few will not even have the mental capacity to read or write...are we to say that they are equal in our Society? Before God, yes, before the Law, yes, but their opportunities are far from equal. Let us now consider culture, Does one born in the Belgan Congo or Amazon Rainforests have the Same opportunity as one Born in the United States or Western Europe? No, they are naturally disadvantaged because of the culture and country they are born into, the person may be an absolute genius, but never have the opportunity to exploit it. As far as war, Europe fortunately developed a civlized approach to War, resulting in the Geneva Convention, but this is by no means Universal. War is ultimately forcing your will on another by force of arms, the goal of war is to become the master and make the other your slave, to bend them to your will, the enslavement of a vanquished foe is simply an extension of this natural reality.

No one doubts that there are inequalities between people.  My point is that slavery is always served by some criteria on who gets enslaved, why, and for how long.  This is where a great percentage of the sin enters into the picture. 
Also, to address some of the points that you made, someone who is brilliant and a native son of the Belgian Congo or the Amazon Rainforest could have wonderful opportunities within their own culture. It is only when you compare those achievements by Western criteria to Western material standards that they look poor.  How old are you, anyway?  The Belgian Congo hasn’t been named such for some time.  Also, some have made the argument that Orthodoxy supports a pacifist outlook.  I'm going to have to dig for that source though.  More later...

Quote
And the Institution must be separated from its abuses. Eating is not sinful, but an abuse of it, gluttony, is. Wealth is not sinful, but an abuse of it is, for Scripture says that the Love of Money is the Root of All evil. Which brings us to Love, which is a Divine Characteristic, but even this can be abused and turned to Sin such as love of Money. St. Paul certainly envisioned the Institution separated form it's abuses in Ephesians vi 5-9 where he said,

Yes, I forgot, you live in abstract theory land.  Okay, even if I grant you that there is nothing sinful about slavery in and of itself, it would still carry with it what RC’s would call a great ‘occasion of sin.’   You still haven’t given a convincing argument here.  Also, I appreciate the point that was brought up (Keble?) that why —if it isn’t immoral--, how is it either distasteful or undesireable (except by economic standards.  But the discipline of economics is a byproduct of decadent Western civilization- as are all the social sciences).  By your own criteria, shouldn’t we still have this institution?  We can’t improve our lot, we can’t bring our institutions to a more perfect level.  We apparently can’t progress (since any notion of ‘progress’ is derived from that horrible Enlightenment philosophy. Oh my!). 

Quote
Basically this is just an extension of the 'Do you want to be a slave?' Argument which I have already refuted. The fact that a social situation is undesirable does not inherently make its existance immoral.

Where have you refuted this?  Show me.  You have just proffered your opinion on something, with no patristic exegesis and flying in the face of educated opinion, and have pointed to it as if it has some authority.  You alone have no authority.
You say that our church tradition actively supports the fact that slavery is moral.  Please provide sources.  The scripture that we are bandying about can be interpreted in more than one way.

Quote
Actually, it is a practical outcome of Enlightenment Philosophy which has little to do with the Christian faith. The reason that Christ did not condemn the slave owner is because it did not occur to him that the Relationship between the Centurion and his Slave was an immoral one...But fortunately as the Students of the Deists, we have grown in Wisdom beyond that of the Son of Man; we can now correct the Mistakes God made while he was on Earth.

You enjoy pandering to the rabble, don’t you?  I already addressed this cheap rhetorical trick above (re. ‘enlightenment thinking’).  I also pointed out your misuse of this piece of scripture.  Christ’s response was to the centurion’s statement of faith.  He said nothing concerning slavery itself- how you get a tacit approval of it as a social institution, I don’t know.  Look at the bigger picture. He didn’t physically, and coercively destroy our sinful world, either.  He always allows us the freedom to sin.  Also, a blanket ban on the institution would have created havoc in the Late Antique world.
I should add in here a fine distinction between slavery in the Roman period and that of the ante-bellum South.  In antiquity, one could sell himself into slavery and eventually work his way out.  One could also be born a slave, and then- through luck/hard work- climb their way upward through Roman society.  A black person born as a slave in the south was screwed.  They would always- by virtue of an external characteristic- be viewed as inferior.  They would most likely remain as property.  They would always be a ‘nigger.’  How is that not sinful?

Quote
And slavery in the Old Testament upheld a similar world view, having far more limitations on the enslavement of Jews (generally not permanent and never inherited) than Gentiles (both permanent and inherited). Some of the attudes that arose from certain members of the Said society may have been sinful; however, the social institution was not...or no more so than that which Moses put forth in the Law (The Same Law that first taught us to Love God and our Neighbour)

Racialist/Racist views are sinful.  Social systems that need such views to remain tenable are sinful.  If you can’t see this, I don’t know what else to say.

Quote
Thank you, I do what I can for God-Beloved Emperors and Empresses.

It’s over, man.  God let it happen, He punished you.  The Slavs inherited the mantle of Third Rome long ago.   Grin

Quote
On top of codifying the Law, which was actually a rewriting of the laws, he also published many volumes of his Novels, written by himself to either amend or alter previous imperial law, which along with his Institutes, Codex, and Digests served as the Basis for Byzantine Law. Furthermore, these Novels and the Codification became the Basis for the Legal Systems throughout most of Europe.

How does this counter what I said?  He had the entire machinery of Late Roman Bureaucracy at his disposal.  He was as good as his support staff. 

Quote
The Great Church of Christ would disagree with you, I believe it is on November 14th that Our Pious and God-Beloved Emperor and Empress St. Justinain most August and His wife St. Theodora most August are commemorated.

Most cases of sainthood are defined by a local cult that spreads and is then officially recognized.  How many churches have you seen dedicated to Saint Justinian the mighty and St Theodora the unrepentant trampy social climber?  How many icons? (Don’t cite the mosaics of San Vitale in Ravenna.  They aren’t devotional images.)

Quote
But I did address it, it was a Glorious Victory for the Empire over a Rebel Army; a victory in which the insurrectionists reaped the fruits of their rebellion. They had retreated to the Hippodrome, but were unabel to hold it, the Leigons of Faithful Romans under command the Loyal Officers of Emperor assulted their Posistion, and neutralized the defenders. St. Theodora was probably the more influential and powerful Empress until St. Irene ascended the Throne upon the accidental death of her adulterous son, she was an asset to the Reign of St. Justinian and to the Empire as a whole. Modern Historians try to do anything they can to undermine the Eastern Roman Empire, and I have little faith in their assesments; St. Justinian reconquered many lands that the Empire had lost, subjugated the Barbarian Populations, and consolidated the Defences of Empire; as well as being a Great Builder and Lawgiver. Which is why most list him as the Second Greatest Emperor of Christian Rome after St. Constantine the Great.

You are a priggish anti-intellectual.  “Modern Historians…I have little faith in their assessments.”  How many have you read?  Procopius (whose info I have relied on) was a contemporary biographer of Justinian.  Many modern Byzantine historians, who are very favorable of Byzantium, point out Justinian’s triumphs.  I don’t deny he was a great emperor (read Norwich or Ostrogorsky). He simply wasn’t a moral exemplar.  He also was unpopular and fiscally unwise. 

Barbarians?  You are of barbarian stock, aren’t you?  You are a convert, correct?
That’s it…I’m coming to Brookline and enslaving you!!  I need a honkey to mow my lawn.  Hey, it’s moral right?
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,418



« Reply #148 on: June 20, 2005, 03:26:37 PM »

For 1800+ years the Church's practice demonstrated a belief in a Consonance between Slavery and the Golden Rule[.]

But this claim is (as far as I can tell) incorrect. I don't feel I need to call up every Orthodox bishop in the world, nor contact every synod, to find out that they oppose slavery. It's also hard to believe that you aren't aware of such opposition. Indeed, what I see is that you are having to go around them and impose your own interpretation in order to reach the conclusions you wish to present. That simply isn't proper Orthodox theology. If you think you can go off in a corner by yourself and do theology in opposition to your bishops, you are wrong.

If you can find a modern bishop to agree with you, then name the man.
Logged
SonofAslan
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


« Reply #149 on: June 20, 2005, 05:38:24 PM »

Quote
also suggesting that I shouldn't waste any more time arguing with you guys.


Hmmm, There was a man who had two sons. He told the first to go work in the field. the son said, "I will go", and didn't. He told the second son to go work in the field, and the son said, "I will not", but later did go. Which of the two sons obeyed his father?

You criticize me for not getting permission from my bishop (btw, the EP is not my Bishop), and yet disregard the directives of your own.

If they told you not to spend any more time arguing with us, then why are you posting?

Your claim that antiquity is no defense is certainly valid, but immaterial and beside the point, because no one has argued that it is morally neutral because it is old. It is morally neutral because the fathers, Scriptures and Church all allow it and justify it.



Darn it! I need to go to work and can't answer all this stuff.

Cinezec, you'r point has been dealt with. The fact I don't want to do it doesn't make it evil.

Personally, i tend to agree with GiC that the fact that your position is detrived from Enlightenment Philosophy makes it unworthy of giving credence too, but if you don't. Ok. just consider this, Nietzsche is the logical consequence of Enlightenment Philosophy. If you want extensive criticisms of freedom and equality as the highest values in a society, well they can be given. But they seem self-evident to me. But that is the basis of your argumehnt. It is wrong to deny someone their freedom. I would respond, it is impossible to deny people their freedom on an essential level, and denying them freedom of movement, labor etc. is incosequential, because everyone is denied that freedom. I can't choose what to do for a living. I can only accept what other people offer me. The fact that a slave had 2  options and I have 3 is irrelevant. Both deny my freedom to choose what I want to do. I can't go wherever I want, because I lack the funds and for other reasons. It is merely accidental that one lacks these freedom because he's "owned" by another human being and I lack these freedoms for different reasons. If the denial of freedom is the sin, then the basis of denying that freedom is inconsequential.

As for "opportunity to sin", hell, everything is that. That's not a good argument.

Darn. gotta go.
Logged
SiviSokol
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: SOC
Posts: 135


Tamburica u mom srcu


« Reply #150 on: June 20, 2005, 06:54:31 PM »

SonofAslan,

In your response, you have offered rebuttals to more than one person.  You need to be a little clearer.  I haven't responded to posts yet...but I will. 

First, not every tangible product of Enlightenment thought is without merit or anti-Christian.  You live in a very American, black and white world, since it doesn’t all have to “end in Nietzsche” as you so glibly write.  You are selective in the fruits of Western civilization that you seek to use or extoll.  For an absurd (but logical) extension of your argument, you should quit using your computer, since one could argue that modern science, and the technology that it gave birth to, would never have been developed (or perhaps developed but delayed a millennia or two) by the Christian east and is a byproduct of that horrid “Enlightenment thought.”  Give me patristics on immunology and space travel!!  Face it, building, discovering and making things is not our strong suit.  Just look at the Yugo.  Anyway, that's a whole other conversation.

For the sake of this argument, let's say that the modern West is entirely wrong in considering slavery 'evil.'  You can throw out a couple of lines by Chrysostom, a little Augustine, and voila- you can feel justified in your Southern ancestors.  (Although if you use Augustine, I challenge you to explain his behavior of freeing slaves ‘unfairly’ enslaved by North African pirates).   

I'll retort, saying that - even if we can agree to some sort of morally-neutral ideal slavery that exists in some ideal world- that its practical application is almost always sinful.  I'll argue this with great vigor concerning slavery in the South.  Slavery is always upheld by some system that informs who can be enslaved, when, why, and for how long.  Most modern ideologies that can feed this are sinful.   We most frequently either get a racialist/racist ideology, or a cultural imperialist ideology.  In the latter camp, we Orthodox are at a disadvantage.  Many converts of the white, Anglo-Saxon, middle American variety don’t think about that, since they don’t usually have any deep personal/cultural memory of oppression.  Face it, Orthodox haven’t been major players on the world stage since the Russian Revolution.  Even then, we were looked on by the enlightened West (who are your ancestors, yes?) as a bunch of medieval bumpkins.

Getting back to the patristic quotes, though, one could also argue that neither Chrysostom, Paul, Augustine, etc. could have foreseen slavery as practiced in the South.  They spoke to the institution as practiced in their time.  Slavery of the late Roman Period was different, as I have previously shown you.  ,

Quote
I can't choose what to do for a living. I can only accept what other people offer me. The fact that a slave had 2  options and I have 3 is irrelevant. Both deny my freedom to choose what I want to do. I can't go wherever I want, because I lack the funds and for other reasons. It is merely accidental that one lacks these freedom because he's "owned" by another human being and I lack these freedoms for different reasons.

This is an illustration of your very modern, American two-tone thinking.  Your situation in no way resembles that of a slave, to say so denies the nuances in human relationships.   Try again.


 
Logged
cizinec
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 941


There ain't no way but the hard way.


« Reply #151 on: June 20, 2005, 07:49:15 PM »

Quote
Ok. just consider this, Nietzsche is the logical consequence of Enlightenment Philosophy.

Wow.  Any (decently honest and read) student of Western philosophy will tell you that the Austrian School of economics does not inevitably end with Nietzsche's conclusions.  When we talk about Communism, that's where "enlightenment philosophy" ends.  Now that you (pl.) want to attack the opposite school you make the same argument.

Other than the fact that you just dismiss it because it is either (a) from Austria or (b) not from an Orthodox theologian, let me ask:  what about the economics of von Mises causes you to conclude that Nietzsche will follow and what, pray tell, is your view of economics.  I'm assuming that everyone here realizes that every government on the planet and in the histroy of mankind makes economic decisions based on some sort of economic theory.  On what economic theories should a government be making its decisions?
Logged

"Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery."
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,418



« Reply #152 on: June 21, 2005, 12:19:38 AM »

It is most interesting that you accuse my style of argument of being protestant, yet you are the one who puts the witness of Protestant Philosophers from the  18th-19th Centuries above the Witness of the Church.

As I've said more than once, you are failing to convince me that your position is that of the church. I say that because every time I bring up a teaching from someone in authority in the present church, you dismiss it. Your interpretation in place of theirs is not acceptable.

I've presented a teaching from the EP, and I've presented a teaching from the OCA. If the latter isn't a good enough synod for you, what would be?

Quote
[Y]et on the word of a few protestant Philosophers of the last few hundred years, you dismiss the practice and history of the Church as Sinful and Immoral.

You do not present the church's teaching, and anyway, I don't need no steeenking philosophers to tell me that I would prefer being free to being captive.

Quote
Using YOUR Method of Argument, perhaps we could argue that Luther and Calvin were also Correct, they at least used far more of the Bible than these Deist Enlightenment Philosophers seem to follow, and since modern inventions hold as much weight as the Ancient Practice of the Church what advantage does Orthodox Theology have over Protestant Theology?

I do not think you are up to the task of executing "my" method of argument. I anm not practing guilt by association, and you are.

And again, you beg the question. Over and over I have shown evidence from authoritative sources as to what Orthodoxy teaches (notice the present tense). You are not an authoritative source-- you cannot be. Given a choice between believing your bishops and believing you, I'll take them.

Quote
Furthermore, though you have yet to demonstrate that any Synod of the Orthodox Church supports your posistion[.]

You say that because you simply reject any material I present from a modern church authority. Tell you what: go to the OCA answer line and ask your question, as you want to ask it, and report back.

Quote
Finally, is the best defence you can present for your posistion to attack my style of argument? There may be some protestant stylistic elements to it, but that is because Abolitionism really only arose in Protestant Lands, and thus it was only Protestants who had to argue against these agents of revolution and evil; infact, the Enlightenment, and hence Abolitionism which arose from it, can be demonstrated to be a direct result of the Reformation.

And if that is so, then I am honored to be numbered among them.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2005, 12:20:59 AM by Keble » Logged
cizinec
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 941


There ain't no way but the hard way.


« Reply #153 on: June 21, 2005, 07:47:00 AM »

Yeah.  I agree with Keble.

Logged

"Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery."
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,421



« Reply #154 on: June 21, 2005, 04:43:14 PM »

Many slaves in history would have, some even sold themselves into slavery inorder to insure that they would have a place to sleep and food to eat.

Such were acts of desperation.ÂÂ  People who have things going tolerably well don't decide one day that life would be even better as a slave.ÂÂ  And there are the cases of people captured and sold by others against their will and choice.

Quote
The belief that slaves were badly abused is a myth, it simply doesnt make economic sense, considering a Slave could cost one as much as $5,000 in the 1850's.

and your source for that knowledge is?ÂÂ  

Quote
So now the slave gets to choose whether he wants to work in the Fields or in the House.

I was writing of people who are not slaves and have some choice in their path.

Quote
what of the supposedly free man who decides he simply does not want to work, or wants to dedicate his time to something more noble than economic pursuits? Is he free to make this Choice? Or will society punish him for it?

Well, I don't know what circles you frequent, but people who have chosen to, for example, join the Peace Corps or other service organizations aren't in it for economic reasons and I haven't seen them being "punished" for it.ÂÂ  People have chosen to be artists or writers or other occupations and there isn't a general public scorn that I have seen.ÂÂ  But maybe things are different in Montana where I grew up and aslo my family encouraged us to find the path we liked or wanted.ÂÂ  

There is a difference between "not want to work" and "work in a noble pursuit".ÂÂ  And how is it "Punishment" if someone who *will* not work does not have things that someone who has worked does?ÂÂ  Consequences might be more the correct word.

Quote
Upper middle class America is the society I've lived in, though I cannot speak for you. I just don't believe the lies i'm told about freedom, democracy, equality and all that, or at least I haven't believed it since I started to think for myself around the age of 12.

Lies? If that we've "Arrived" at an ideal, no, but there has been progress and there is still a ways to go.ÂÂ  Life is like that.

Quote
Furthermore, it's not like one can own their soul or conscience, they only owned their labour, and in exchange they were given their due wages, they were cared for...even when they were too old or sick to work, more than could be said for the factory workers of the North.

wages?ÂÂ  Some may have gotten money, for others any money they made went to their masters.ÂÂ  Cared for?ÂÂ  Some were, some weren't.ÂÂ  Some were traded or sold when they were not useful any more.ÂÂ  The situation in the factories was bad too.ÂÂ  I don't think anyone here is claiming that it was, and such continues today with sweatshops and miserable conditions around the world. Ever heard of the "Triangle Shirtwaist Fire"?ÂÂ  That was a tiny tip of the miserable working conditions of thousands of people.ÂÂ  Then there are the coal mines and the Company Store.ÂÂ  None of these is treating other people the same as the Owners. That doesn't make it Right.ÂÂ  It is something that people tried to stop and are still trying to do.ÂÂ  .

Quote
But in large part, that is all it is.

In your opinion.ÂÂ  

Quote
There was not this adamant objection to slavery prior to then Englightenment, it is a response of distaste from those who have been raised in a post-enlightenment culture, and essentially only members of such a culture who are unable to comprehend other Cultures, espeically those of the past, have these strong objections.

It would seem that here is one of our points of disagreement.ÂÂ  Not everything that came from the "Enlightenment" is evil or wrong.ÂÂ  It's a rather broad area. How much of it have you actually read?ÂÂ  In primary sources?ÂÂ  

As to your assertion that only those who cannot comprehend other Cultures would do this, on what do you base this?  How is it not understanding another culture to prevent cruelty to another person?  ÃƒÆ’‚  What cultures and histories are you versed in? And what of Empathy with other Human Beings?  "Culture" has many facets and details.  No Culture is all good or all bad.   

Ebor
« Last Edit: June 21, 2005, 05:22:06 PM by Ebor » Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,421



« Reply #155 on: June 21, 2005, 05:17:04 PM »

I have heard this also. There was a government study that took place in the early 1930's that interviewed the last remaining former slaves about the conditions they lived under.

May we have a citation, please?  Have you *read* this study?  or have your read a secondary or tertiary source that mentions it or interprets it?

Quote
The majority of them reported that their masters treated them very good and that their living conditions were not as bad as everyone thought. surprised allot of people when they were saying positive things about their situation. Many of the former slaves also did not flee north after they were free, but decided to continue to work on the same plantations. The slaves that were abused were the ones that would leave the plantation and flee north. It wouldn't make sense for any person at the time who had slaves to abuse them seeing that was their bread & butter.

What have *you* read that says this?  What do you have to back up this assertion? 

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,421



« Reply #156 on: June 21, 2005, 05:22:45 PM »

I can't choose what to do for a living. I can only accept what other people offer me. The fact that a slave had 2ÂÂ  options and I have 3 is irrelevant. Both deny my freedom to choose what I want to do. I can't go wherever I want, because I lack the funds and for other reasons. It is merely accidental that one lacks these freedom because he's "owned" by another human being and I lack these freedoms for different reasons. If the denial of freedom is the sin, then the basis of denying that freedom is inconsequential.

Accept?!? ÂÂ You have *no* say? No career or interests that you choose to follow? ÂÂ Where did you lose your freedom to choose? Who is dictating your life path for you? ÂÂ Are you in ill-health that prevents you? How old are you? ÂÂ  "merely accidental"? Slaves were owned not by accident but on purpose. ÂÂ Circumstances and causes matter. I was on the dole once. ÂÂ I found things to do that bit by bit got me up and out. ÂÂ It's not true that "You can do anything if you try." ÂÂ But one may do many things if one tries. ÂÂ Sometimes we don't try, but that is our choice or our fear or our reluctance to step out.

 Some things we can't have for unchangeable reasons. ÂÂ I wanted to be an astronaut or a pilot when I was a child, but my eyesight is too bad to pass the tests. There was still a myriad of things to learn or do or see if I was good at them. ÂÂ No one can do everything. ÂÂ But people have found ways in the past and they do so now. ÂÂ There are vast numbers of people in this world who try to improve their lives and strive under grim circumstances.

There is no binary between total subjection and total freedom. There is a spectrum.

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #157 on: June 21, 2005, 06:00:08 PM »

The end product of millennia of human history and moral thought is on my side. Not only that, but your fobbing off of my point as “Enlightenment Philosophy” as if it then deserves no further consideration is a stupid rhetorical trick that seems to only work in online Orthodox fora. Engage the idea head on.

It works in Orthodox Circles in general because of the Importance of Tradition in the Orthodox Church, if a posistion can be demonstrated to only be a few hundred years old, by virtue of that fact it looses much credibility. The Reason it doesn't work in the West is because of their notion of development of Doctrine, that is to say the belief that we are more wise than the Fathers of the Church, the Apostles, and even Christ.

Quote
No one doubts that there are inequalities between people. My point is that slavery is always served by some criteria on who gets enslaved, why, and for how long. This is where a great percentage of the sin enters into the picture.
Also, to address some of the points that you made, someone who is brilliant and a native son of the Belgian Congo or the Amazon Rainforest could have wonderful opportunities within their own culture. It is only when you compare those achievements by Western criteria to Western material standards that they look poor. How old are you, anyway? The Belgian Congo hasn’t been named such for some time. Also, some have made the argument that Orthodoxy supports a pacifist outlook. I'm going to have to dig for that source though. More later...

Are we to say that there is sin in the Law of Moses when criteria were established? Consider Leviticus xxv. 38-46, [emphasis added]

Quote
I am the LORD your God, which brought you forth out of the land of Egypt, to give you the land of Canaan, and to be your God. And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant: But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubile. And then shall he depart from thee, both he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return. For they are my servants, which I brought forth out of the land of Egypt: they shall not be sold as bondmen. Thou shalt not rule over him with rigour; but shalt fear thy God. 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 over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

Quote
Yes, I forgot, you live in abstract theory land. Okay, even if I grant you that there is nothing sinful about slavery in and of itself, it would still carry with it what RC’s would call a great ‘occasion of sin.’ You still haven’t given a convincing argument here. Also, I appreciate the point that was brought up (Keble?) that why —if it isn’t immoral--, how is it either distasteful or undesireable (except by economic standards. But the discipline of economics is a byproduct of decadent Western civilization- as are all the social sciences). By your own criteria, shouldn’t we still have this institution? We can’t improve our lot, we can’t bring our institutions to a more perfect level. We apparently can’t progress (since any notion of ‘progress’ is derived from that horrible Enlightenment philosophy. Oh my!).

As I have said earlier, even Love can offer a great 'occasion of sin,' everything is an occasion to sin, as one sin is overcome another stands before us.

Quote
Where have you refuted this? Show me. You have just proffered your opinion on something, with no patristic exegesis and flying in the face of educated opinion, and have pointed to it as if it has some authority. You alone have no authority.
You say that our church tradition actively supports the fact that slavery is moral. Please provide sources. The scripture that we are bandying about can be interpreted in more than one way.

How about St. John Chrysostom, surely he is a moral authority, in his commentary on the I Corinthians vii. he says:

Quote
"Let each man abide in that calling wherein he was called. Hast thou been called, having an unbelieving wife? Continue to have her. Cast not out thy wife for the faith's sake. Hast thou been called, being a slave? Care not for it. Continue to be a slave. Hast thou been called, being in uncircumcision? Remain uncircumcised. Being circumcised, didst thou become a believer? Continue circumcised. For this is the meaning of, "As God hath distributed unto each man." For these are no hindrances to piety. Thou art called, being a slave; another, with an unbelieving wife; another, being circumcised.

Astonishing! where has he put slavery? As circumcision profits not, and uncircumcision does no harm, so neither doth slavery, nor yet liberty. And that he might point out this with surpassing clearness, he says, "But even (All eikai dunasai) if thou canst become free, use it rather:" that is, rather continue a slave. Now upon what possible ground does he tell the person who might be set free to remain a slave? He means to point out that slavery is no harm but rather an advantage.

Now we are not ignorant that some say the words, "use it rather," are spoken with regard to liberty: interpreting it, "if thou canst become free, become free." But the expression would be very contrary to Paul's manner if he intended this. For he would not, when consoling the slave and signifying that he was in no respect injured, have told him to get free. Since perhaps someone might say, "What then, if I am not able? I am an injured and degraded person." This then is not what he says: but as I said, meaning to point out that a man gets nothing by being made free, he says, "Though thou hast it in thy power to be made free, remain rather in slavery."

Next he adds also the cause; "For he that was called in the Lord being a bondservant, is the Lord's free man: likewise he that was called, being free, is Christ's bondservant." "For," saith he, "in the things that relate to Christ, both are equal: and like as thou art the slave of Christ, so also is thy master. How then is the slave a free man? Because He has freed thee not only from sin, but also from outward slavery while continuing a slave. For he suffers not the slave to be a slave, not even though he be a man abiding in slavery: and this is the great wonder.

But how is the slave a free man while continuing a slave? When he is freed from passions and the diseases of the mind: when he looks down upon riches and wrath and all other the like passions.

Ver. 23. "Ye were bought with a price: become not bondservants of men." This saying is addressed not to slaves only but also to free men. For it is possible for one who is a slave not to be a slave; and for one who is a freeman to be a slave. "And how can one be a slave and not a slave?" When he doeth all for God: when he feigns nothing, and doeth nothing out of eye-service towards men: that is how one that is a slave to men can be free. Or again, how doth one that is free become a slave? When he serves men in any evil service, either for gluttony or desire of wealth or for office's sake. For such an one, though he be free, is more of a slave than any man.

Quote
It’s over, man. God let it happen, He punished you. The Slavs inherited the mantle of Third Rome long ago. Grin

So long as the Patriarchate of Constantinople Exists, the Empire yet survives Wink

Quote
Most cases of sainthood are defined by a local cult that spreads and is then officially recognized. How many churches have you seen dedicated to Saint Justinian the mighty and St Theodora the unrepentant trampy social climber? How many icons? (Don’t cite the mosaics of San Vitale in Ravenna. They aren’t devotional images.)

Looking through the Synaxarion I can find thousands of saints of whom I've never even seen an Ikon, though I have seen Ikons of St. Justinain and St. Theodora before (though I can't recall where, I'd have to look for a specific example)...the Fact that they are Listed in the Synaxarion of the Great Church is enough for me to regard them as Saints.

Quote
You are a priggish anti-intellectual. “Modern Historians…I have little faith in their assessments.” How many have you read? Procopius (whose info I have relied on) was a contemporary biographer of Justinian. Many modern Byzantine historians, who are very favorable of Byzantium, point out Justinian’s triumphs. I don’t deny he was a great emperor (read Norwich or Ostrogorsky). He simply wasn’t a moral exemplar. He also was unpopular and fiscally unwise.

The west has always been Unfavourable to the Eastern Empire, generally even trying to deny it the title of Roman. Justinian did many great things for the Church and the Empire, and was spoken very highly of by many of those who Succeeded him...Justinian II summoned the Synod of Trullo in hopes of one day being remembered as Justinian I was, a Wise and Just Lawgiver and Emperor, the Herald of a Golden Age of Rome.

Quote
Barbarians? You are of barbarian stock, aren’t you? You are a convert, correct?

Yes I am of barbarian stock, so what? During the Time of Sts. Justinain and Theodora, my ancestors need to be subjucated to Roman Law and civilized.

This is an illustration of your very modern, American two-tone thinking. Your situation in no way resembles that of a slave, to say so denies the nuances in human relationships. Try again.

Actually you are the one using 'two-tone thinking,' SonofAslan is simply saying that slavery is simply another form of our current social reality. Ultimately, there is no absolute freedom, even in anarchy you become subject to the Rule of the Mob, we must always be slaves to some degree, it is an element of nature. Your attempted black and white distinction between Slavery and our Current Situation is the only 'two-tone thinking' going on here.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Nigula Qian Zishi
Administrator Emeritus, Retired Deacon, Inactive Poster, Active Orthodox Christian, Father, and Husband
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 1,836


我美丽的妻子和我。

nstanosheck
WWW
« Reply #158 on: June 21, 2005, 06:08:52 PM »

It works in Orthodox Circles in general because of the Importance of Tradition in the Orthodox Church, if a posistion can be demonstrated to only be a few hundred years old, by virtue of that fact it looses much credibility.

Like the new calendar? Tongue
Logged

在基督         My Original Blog
尼古拉         My Facebook Profile
前执事         My Twitter Page
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #159 on: June 21, 2005, 07:31:36 PM »

As I've said more than once, you are failing to convince me that your position is that of the church. I say that because every time I bring up a teaching from someone in authority in the present church, you dismiss it. Your interpretation in place of theirs is not acceptable.

Seeing how Slavery is not a significant topic of discussion amongst our synods, your requests are unreasonable, most Bishops probably don't even have an informed opinion on the Subject, and certainly don't have an official statement. Furthermore, why do you insist on a sitting bishop? Were the past Bishops of the Church not Orthodox Enough for you? You're right, who would want to hear the St. John Chrysostom when they could hear the opinion the Bishop of [Insert some American city here]?...LOL Cheesy
Quote
I've presented a teaching from the EP, and I've presented a teaching from the OCA. If the latter isn't a good enough synod for you, what would be?

You have presented an opinion of the Oecumenical Patriarchate that Slavery should not be promulgated into our age...which I have already said that I agree with, you have not presented an opinion that Condemned those who supported the Institution in the Past or Slave Owners of the Roman Empire. Concerning the OCA, first off you never did post what they said in full, you only paraphrased it. Secondly, it was the opinion of an individual priest not a formal episcopal decree on the issue. Finally, you are correct the latter is not a good enough synod for me, frankly I would prefer to hear from a Synod not made up of Americans who have been tainted by our cultural experience.

Quote
You do not present the church's teaching, and anyway, I don't need no steeenking philosophers to tell me that I would prefer being free to being captive.

Please look at the Quote from St. John Chrysostom I just posted in response to SiviSokol...for not presenting the Church's teaching, I'm in pretty good company, company I don't mind sharing.

Quote
And again, you beg the question. Over and over I have shown evidence from authoritative sources as to what Orthodoxy teaches (notice the present tense). You are not an authoritative source-- you cannot be. Given a choice between believing your bishops and believing you, I'll take them.

You say that because you simply reject any material I present from a modern church authority. Tell you what: go to the OCA answer line and ask your question, as you want to ask it, and report back.

Are you suggesting that the Morals and Doctrines of the Church Change with time? That is far more frightening than even your acceptance of Abolitionism...Perhaps all those prohibitions against Homosexuality are 'outdated' as well, if bishops start defending homosexuality does that mean that the Posistion of the Church is that it ceases to be a sin? Animal rights seem to be all the rage now, perhaps one day we'll condemn the consumption of Meat as immoral too...history, fathers, and councils be damned.

AH, speaking of councils, they completely slipped my mind, Gangra (the one I was refering to in reference to eating meat) decrees in Canon 3:

Quote
If anyone, on the pretext of godliness, teach a slave to scorn his master, and to leave his service, and not to afford his services to his own master with favor and all honor, let him be anathema.

And Apostles 82:

Quote
We do not permit house servants to be ordained to the clergy without the consent of their masters, to the sorrow of the masters owning them. For such a thing causes an upheaval in the households. But if any house servant should appear to be worthy to be ordained to any rank, as our own Onesimus did, and their masters are willing to permit it, and grant them their freedom, and allow them to leave home, let him be so ordained.

Do you accept these as official teachings of the Church, seeing how Gangra and the Canons of the Apostles were eventually Ratified by Oecumenical Synods, a rejection of their authority would be tantamount to a Rejection of the Authority of the Oecumenical Synods.

Finally, as you mentioned Philemon earlier, I though you might want to know what St. John Chrysostom thought of it. He quite liked the book, and wrote three Homilies on the short book, but here I will quote from his argument as to why it should be included in the Canon of Scripture, the Saint is here telling his Audience what we learn from the book:

Quote
But it is useful for you to learn that this Epistle was sent upon necessary matters. Observe therefore how many things are rectified thereby. We have this one thing first, that in all things it becomes one to be earnest. For if Paul bestows so much concern upon a runaway, a thief, and a robber, and does not refuse nor is ashamed to send him back with such commendations; much more does it become us not to be negligent in such matters. Secondly, that we ought not to abandon the race of slaves, even if they have proceeded to extreme wickedness. For if a thief and a runaway become so virtuous that Paul was willing to make him a companion, and says in this Epistle, "that in thy stead he might have ministered unto me" (v. 13), much more ought we not to abandon the free. Thirdly, that we ought not to withdraw slaves from the service of their masters. For if Paul, who had such confidence in Philemon, was unwilling to detain Onesimus, so useful and serviceable to minister to himself, without the consent of his master, much less ought we so to act. For if the servant is so excellent, he ought by all means to continue in that service, and to acknowledge the authority of his master, that he may be the occasion of benefit to all in that house. Why dost thou take the candle from the candlestick to place it in the bushel?

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #160 on: June 21, 2005, 07:37:18 PM »

Ebor,

Quote
Such were acts of desperation.  People who have things going tolerably well don't decide one day that life would be even better as a slave.  And there are the cases of people captured and sold by others against their will and choice.

Acts of desperation that demonstrate that in the eyes of many slaves, slavery was a lesser evil than the alternative society offered them.

Quote
I was writing of people who are not slaves and have some choice in their path.

I have yet to see how it is somehow immoral to deny someone the choice of their career, but with that said I may have some choice, but it is quite limited. Let's say I want to be the CEO of Microsoft...are you honestly going to tell me that it's a possibility?

Quote
Well, I don't know what circles you frequent, but people who have chosen to, for example, join the Peace Corps or other service organizations aren't in it for economic reasons and I haven't seen them being "punished" for it.

Ah, but they are, they are punished by economic sanctions. They do not have the same opportunity at economic means that someone who dedicates himself to, say, business or economics has.

Quote
People have chosen to be artists or writers or other occupations and there isn't a general public scorn that I have seen.  But maybe things are different in Montana where I grew up and aslo my family encouraged us to find the path we liked or wanted. 

There are varying degrees, this is true, but take the artist for example. If one desires to pursue an area of art for which he can find no patrons, which is often the case, he will find himself sanctioned economically by the capitalistic mechanisms of our society.

Quote
There is a difference between "not want to work" and "work in a noble pursuit".  And how is it "Punishment" if someone who *will* not work does not have things that someone who has worked does?  Consequences might be more the correct word.

And perhaps the proper name for the penalities a slave endures for his failure to work faithfully for his master, and serve his master with love and honour are not 'punishments' but rather 'consequences.'

Quote
Lies? If that we've "Arrived" at an ideal, no, but there has been progress and there is still a ways to go.  Life is like that.

I dont know that we have progressed substantially, perhaps we even regressed. The Ending of Serfdom in Russia was condemned by many socialist philosophers as a step backwards, because by better entertaining the serfs all that effectively happened was that the move towards revolution was temporally undermined. Improving things to make people happy without a Change at the most fundamental level is not necessarially progress.

Quote
wages?  Some may have gotten money, for others any money they made went to their masters.  Cared for?  Some were, some weren't.  Some were traded or sold when they were not useful any more.  The situation in the factories was bad too.  I don't think anyone here is claiming that it was, and such continues today with sweatshops and miserable conditions around the world. Ever heard of the "Triangle Shirtwaist Fire"?  That was a tiny tip of the miserable working conditions of thousands of people.  Then there are the coal mines and the Company Store.  None of these is treating other people the same as the Owners. That doesn't make it Right.  It is something that people tried to stop and are still trying to do.  .

And the fundamental problems of greed, economic demand, and currency based capitalistic economies were never addressed. Things have not Fundamentally Changed as a result of emancipation.

Quote
It would seem that here is one of our points of disagreement.  Not everything that came from the "Enlightenment" is evil or wrong.  It's a rather broad area. How much of it have you actually read?  In primary sources? 

Not everything from the Englightenment is bad, I actually agree with the premise that slavery should eliminated; however, the fact that I would prefer to see it eliminated does not mean that it was or even is sinful. Furthermore, I do find condemning the Practices of Ancient Christians based on enlightenment philosophy to be problematic at best.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Bono Vox
The Orthodox Bagpiper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,620



« Reply #161 on: June 21, 2005, 09:59:08 PM »

Quote
No Culture is all good or all bad.   

I agree with this statement.

I find it interesting that the Yankees on the board here are unwilling/turn a blind eye to the atrocities of the Union. What were the people here in my home state of Missouri supposed to do when union troups come in on a regular basis and unjustly wreak havoc upon thousands of innocent people?? Do you think that Frank & Jessie James were fighting for slavery?? Was William Clark Quantrill fighting for the instituion of slavery? (was that their primary purpose in defending the south?)

I am amazed that anyone who seriously reads history actually believes that slavery was the primary purpouse of the war of northern aggression.

Also, doesn't it bother you yankee lovers that the north was coming from a secular humanist view point (just watch the movie "Gods and Generals" to see this in action).

If anyone here believes that the uncivil war was fought primarily about slavery, then I have some swamp land in florida to sell you.  Cheesy Cheesy

I WISH I WAS IN THE LAND OF COTTON, OLD TIMES THERE ARE NOT FORGOTTEN!!

LOOK AWAY, LOOK AWAY, LOOK AWAY DIXIELAND!!!!!!!!!!


God bless Dixieland and the Confederacy!!!!

Bagpiper
Logged

Troparion - Tone 1:
O Sebastian, spurning the assemblies of the wicked,You gathered the wise martyrs Who with you cast down the enemy; And standing worthily before the throne of God, You gladden those who cry to you:Glory to him who has strengthened you! Glory to him who has granted you a crown!
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,418



« Reply #162 on: June 22, 2005, 09:42:58 AM »

It works in Orthodox Circles in general because of the Importance of Tradition in the Orthodox Church, if a posistion can be demonstrated to only be a few hundred years old, by virtue of that fact it looses much credibility. The Reason it doesn't work in the West is because of their notion of development of Doctrine, that is to say the belief that we are more wise than the Fathers of the Church, the Apostles, and even Christ.

No, no, no. You don't get to do theology this way; as an Anglican, I can, but as an Orthodox Christian you are bound to what your bishops teach. And when you say

Quote
Seeing how Slavery is not a significant topic of discussion amongst our synods, your requests are unreasonable, most Bishops probably don't even have an informed opinion on the Subject, and certainly don't have an official statement.

...you aren't even bothering to ask them, so how would you know? So far the score on current statements is 2-0 in my favor, and as for "informed opinion", that's a euphemism on your part for "accepting the arguments that I assert".

My insistence-- not request-- that you listen to your bishops is merely Orthodox. And it's far more likely that the reasons there isn't significant "discussion" of slavery are (a) that almost every country where there is a significant Orthodox presence has outlawed slavery, and (b) the teaching that it is immoral to hold slaves is so universally held that there is no need for further discussion.

Quote
Are we to say that there is sin in the Law of Moses when criteria were established? Consider Leviticus xxv. 38-46[.]

Oh, please. I can quote Jesus on this one:

Quote
They say to him: Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put away? He saith to them: Because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. Matt. 19: 7-8 (D-R)

And in looking at your citations of Chrysostom, I notice that the commentary on Philemon addresses a completely different point, and that on 1st Corinthians is addressing the issue of seeking freedom, not of holding slaves. I do not think it can be assumed that Chrysostom would have looked upon the institution of slavery in the USA with the same equanimity.

And then there's this:

Quote
Are you suggesting that the Morals and Doctrines of the Church Change with time? That is far more frightening than even your acceptance of Abolitionism...Perhaps all those prohibitions against Homosexuality are 'outdated' as well, if bishops start defending homosexuality does that mean that the Posistion of the Church is that it ceases to be a sin? Animal rights seem to be all the rage now, perhaps one day we'll condemn the consumption of Meat as immoral too...history, fathers, and councils be damned.

Well, the doctrines of the church do change with time, at least as far as one age finds it necessary to condemn that which the previous did not condemn. The evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity was there from the beginning, but the doctrine was not formulated until Nicea. Likewise, the teaching that enslavement was immoral was implicit in the gospel from the beginning, but it waited until a late date to be expounded.

The rest of your posturing here is beside the point. Your bishops do not teach any of these other things, so making hypothetical and rhetorical questions about how one should act if they did is immaterial.

Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,418



« Reply #163 on: June 22, 2005, 10:26:44 AM »

I find it interesting that the Yankees on the board here are unwilling/turn a blind eye to the atrocities of the Union.

The fact is that atrocities are part of war, for war itself is, in the end, an atrocity. I do not turn a blind eye to them, but as far as we are arguing now, they are a distraction from the main point.

Quote
I am amazed that anyone who seriously reads history actually believes that slavery was the primary purpouse of the war of northern aggression.

I didn't say that. What I would say instead is that slavery was the ultimate cause of the civil war.

Quote
Also, doesn't it bother you yankee lovers that the north was coming from a secular humanist view point (just watch the movie "Gods and Generals" to see this in action).

First, I don't agree. Second, when it takes secular humanists to teach us what we should have already seen in our own scriptures, it does not reflect well on us.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #164 on: June 22, 2005, 07:10:13 PM »

No, no, no. You don't get to do theology this way; as an Anglican, I can, but as an Orthodox Christian you are bound to what your bishops teach. And when you say

You're confusing Orthodoxy and Catholicism, perhaps you need to take a closer look at Orthodox Ecclesiology. We don't have infallible bishops, furthermore the authority of which you are Refering to is not the Authority of Individual Bishops, but the Authority of a Synod...If all the bishops of a synod independently put forward a posistion, it carries about as much authority as the opinion of an equal number of Theologians, if they then get together and formally declare it in synod, that's different. With this in mind, please give me a SYNOD which condemned Slavery as immoral and sinful...I have given you Two Synods, Gangra and the Synod in Trullo, the latter of which is an Oecumenical Synod, an authority that can ONLY be Contradicted or Overruled by another Oecumenical Synod (No Individual Bishops, Reigonal Synods, Patriarchal Synods, Endimousa Synods, or Pan-Orthodox Synods have this authority) which promulgated Canons protecting the Rights of Slave Owners and ANATHEMATIZING those who incited dissent, or even dishonouring of their masters, amongst slaves. I am curious as to the Synod which reversed these decrees.

Quote
...you aren't even bothering to ask them, so how would you know? So far the score on current statements is 2-0 in my favor, and as for "informed opinion", that's a euphemism on your part for "accepting the arguments that I assert".

Next Time I'm sitting before the Patriarchal Throne at an Oecumenical Synod, and we run out of things to talk I'll bring the issue up. Heck, if this issue comes up before a mere Patriarchal Synod, I'll try and remember to bring the issue up to get their opinion, though, of course, that synod cannot change the Decrees of Trullo.

Quote
My insistence-- not request-- that you listen to your bishops is merely Orthodox. And it's far more likely that the reasons there isn't significant "discussion" of slavery are (a) that almost every country where there is a significant Orthodox presence has outlawed slavery, and (b) the teaching that it is immoral to hold slaves is so universally held that there is no need for further discussion.

Perhaps you can find a Synod from while slavery was still popular condemning it? My guess is that if a Synod were to Rule on the Issue, the decision would be similar to how Rome condemned the Death Penalty (which is essentially what I am aruging). Being very careful not to condemn past people or societies for instituting it, yet arguing that it is inappropriate within our current social context. Though Personal opinions of a few Bishops on this topic may be rash, a synod would probably not be willing to try and decree such broad condemnation on our forefathers, thus the reason that Synods and not Individuals are invested with the authority you refer to.

Quote
And in looking at your citations of Chrysostom, I notice that the commentary on Philemon addresses a completely different point, and that on 1st Corinthians is addressing the issue of seeking freedom, not of holding slaves. I do not think it can be assumed that Chrysostom would have looked upon the institution of slavery in the USA with the same equanimity.

Let me post again some brief quotes from the longer one of Chrysostom I first posted:

Quote
"But even if thou canst become free, use it rather:" that is, rather continue a slave. Now upon what possible ground does he tell the person who might be set free to remain a slave? He means to point out that slavery is no harm but rather an advantage...

This then is not what he says: but as I said, meaning to point out that a man gets nothing by being made free, he says, "Though thou hast it in thy power to be made free, remain rather in slavery"...

Ver. 23. "Ye were bought with a price: become not bondservants of men." This saying is addressed not to slaves only but also to free men. For it is possible for one who is a slave not to be a slave; and for one who is a freeman to be a slave. "And how can one be a slave and not a slave?" When he doeth all for God: when he feigns nothing, and doeth nothing out of eye-service towards men: that is how one that is a slave to men can be free. Or again, how doth one that is free become a slave? When he serves men in any evil service, either for gluttony or desire of wealth or for office's sake. For such an one, though he be free, is more of a slave than any man.

I fear I missed the Part where slavery was a great evil...St. John Chrysostom even went as far as calling it an 'advantage.'

Quote
Well, the doctrines of the church do change with time, at least as far as one age finds it necessary to condemn that which the previous did not condemn. The evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity was there from the beginning, but the doctrine was not formulated until Nicea. Likewise, the teaching that enslavement was immoral was implicit in the gospel from the beginning, but it waited until a late date to be expounded.

First of all, there is no synod which has condemned it, or at least if there is one, no one involved in this discussion has been able to find it, so it clearly was not a significant one. Furthermore, I question how any synod of lesser authority than an Oecumenical Synod could condemn the institution as immoral when the Apostolic Canons, as ratified by the Sixth Oecumenical Synod, protect the Rights of Slave Owners. And in it's ratification of Gangra, went even further in dealing with Abolitionists, who taught Slaves to have anything less than Love and Honour for their Masters, and Anathematized them as heretics, or perhaps I should say using the words of St. Paul, blasphemers. You are not suggesting that the Church address something that has thus far not been addressed, but rather that they overturn past decrees of both Scripture and an Oecumenical Synod.

Quote
The rest of your posturing here is beside the point. Your bishops do not teach any of these other things, so making hypothetical and rhetorical questions about how one should act if they did is immaterial.

Ah yes, the decrees of the Oecumenical Synods, the only truly authoritive decrees we have on the Subject matter apart from Scripture are irrelevant (the decrees of Chrysostom carry Moral Authority, but not the Authority of the Synods)...you really need to get a grasp of Orthodox Ecclesiology.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
SonofAslan
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


« Reply #165 on: June 22, 2005, 10:24:15 PM »

Accept?!?  You have *no* say? No career or interests that you choose to follow?  Where did you lose your freedom to choose? Who is dictating your life path for you?  Are you in ill-health that prevents you? How old are you?   "merely accidental"? Slaves were owned not by accident but on purpose.  Circumstances and causes matter. I was on the dole once.  I found things to do that bit by bit got me up and out.  It's not true that "You can do anything if you try."  But one may do many things if one tries.  Sometimes we don't try, but that is our choice or our fear or our reluctance to step out.

I lose my freedom many places. In my genetics, when I am not born with the talent to pursue what i would like. In society, if they are not interested in exchanging the things I need to live for the things I wish to pursue. In colleges that reject my application for whatever reason (and please, I know you're not so idealistic as to say that they are only rejected if my qualifications aren't good enough). And even if I get into a college, eventually, if I don't get into the right one, even opportunites in the field I have chosen may be seriously curtailed. I lose my freedom everywhere everyday. I also lose it at work where I have to do what my master tells me or else my food is taken away (that's essentially what happens if I get fired, isn't it). Your freedom is largely an illusion. You can choose what to think and how to respond to your surroundings, but what happens to you is largely out of your control.



Logged
SonofAslan
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


« Reply #166 on: June 22, 2005, 10:33:11 PM »

Sorry. Ok, I’ll try to be clearer (and use a spell check, but I don’t have one on my mother’s computer, and the one here, well, last time I used it it screwed up my whole posts).

Sivisokol said:
Quote
it doesn’t all have to “end in Nietzsche” as you so glibly write

But it does have to end in Nietzsche. He is the logical consequence of a system of philosophy that had lost all transcendence because it was trapped in the subject. This is why Enlightenment philosophy is so humanistic, because it didn’t have anything outside of man to turn to. This was a result of Descartes’ “turn” from the object to the subject. The Enlightenment followed naturally from Descartes and Nietzsche followed necessarily. This is why freedom and equality are the lynchpins of our system of government, because where man is the measure of all things (there really is nothing new under the sun) one man can’t be better or worse than another (hence equality) and nothing outside of man can tell him what to do (hence freedom). But when you elevate these values above all others, which inheres in their very natures, i.e. the concept of freedom itself fights against any restriction from above or outside and the concept of equality against any hierarchy (including saint vs sinner), hence when you elevate these values to the highest values of a society, as America has done, then you can’t help but devolve into anarchy. It is a blatantly anti-Christian system of thought. You can see it in our society today. The problem with America isn’t that she isn’t living up to her values. The problem is that she finally is living up to them. Freedom and equality only work as any kind of value whatsoever if you have an over-arching ethic which contains and restricts them. America, by its very notion of separation of Church and State, has rendered any such over-arching ethic impotent. This is also inherent in Enlightenment philosophy with its humanistic focus, which also denies any over-arching ethic outside of man himself. This is why you got such weak attempts to overcome this problem as Social Contract theory, Utilitarianism, Enlightened Self-interest, etc. This is also why such claims as “equality of opportunity” or “freedom within limits” are untenable. These understandings of these concepts assume an over-arching ethic which limits equality to opportunity and limits freedom, the principles of Enlightenment philosophy and the principles of American Democracy themselves, deny any such over-arching ethic. They are claims to an understanding of equality and freedom not allowed either by the foundations of our Democracy nor its clearly stated principles. Even when America seeks to impose an over-arching ethic, as she does from time to time, she does so in contradiction to the principles she espouses. Even such attempts at an over-arching ethic as “as long as it doesn’t impinge on someone else’s freedom” is hypocritical in this way. If impinging on freedom is the great evil which must be avoided, then even impinging my freedom when it impinges on another’s freedom should be avoided? What principle allows you to choose which freedom to impinge in a system designed precisely to avoid impinging freedom?

Nietzsche is the logical and necessary conclusion to this line of thought, because he was the first to recognize and consistently and coherently deal with the lack of transcendence. Read his Madman epigram in The Gay Science (or joyful Wisdom, depending on the translation). It is a beautiful and completely accurate statement of the situations that we are in after Descartes.

This is why I say that you are arguing from a post-Enlightenment American mindset that has almost nothing in common with Christianity, and therefore renders your arguments, when based thereon, invalid. Especially when those ideas contradict the clear teaching of everything in our tradition.

The previous discussion should also reveal why your strange arguments against computers are not on point. The problem  lies in the values you are elevating as foundational too morality, i.e. freedom and equality.
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,418



« Reply #167 on: June 24, 2005, 11:34:11 AM »

You're confusing Orthodoxy and Catholicism, perhaps you need to take a closer look at Orthodox Ecclesiology. We don't have infallible bishops, furthermore the authority of which you are Refering to is not the Authority of Individual Bishops, but the Authority of a Synod.

For the purposes of the current discussion I think a reply from the OCA spokeman is a good enough substitute for a synod. And you, after all, fail to provide me anything.

Quote
I have given you Two Synods, Gangra and the Synod in Trullo, the latter of which is an Oecumenical Synod[.]

Trullo is not an ecumenical council. It has never been accepted in the west.

But be that as it way, the point is that you're picking and choosing. Your interpretation of these counciliar canons lacks the authority that even a single present day bishop carries. Given a choice between you and your bishops, I'll pick your bishops as interpreters.

FIND ME A BISHOP. So far you've failed to produce even one modern hierarchical exponent of your views.

FIND ME A BISHOP. Right now you're just an eastern Martin Luther.

FIND ME A BISHOP. If you can't, you're just another layman espousing a crackpot theology.

FIND ME A BISHOP!
« Last Edit: June 24, 2005, 11:35:13 AM by Keble » Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #168 on: June 24, 2005, 12:18:13 PM »

For the purposes of the current discussion I think a reply from the OCA spokeman is a good enough substitute for a synod. And you, after all, fail to provide me anything.

The OCA's Synod isn't even a good subsitute for a Synod, much less some OCA priest answering internet questions. Furthermore, there are no subsitutes for Synods, not even the Common Opinion of All the Bishops who are members of a synod making consonant private decrees.

Quote
Trullo is not an ecumenical council. It has never been accepted in the west.

It's an extension of the Sixth Oecumenical Synod, and was regarded as that by the Fathers of the Seventh Oecumenical Synod. Thus it is Ratified by the Statement of Faith of Nicea II, Trullo's Canons are as Oecumenical as the Seventh Oecumenical Synod.

Quote
But be that as it way, the point is that you're picking and choosing. Your interpretation of these counciliar canons lacks the authority that even a single present day bishop carries. Given a choice between you and your bishops, I'll pick your bishops as interpreters.

I've presented the Evidence for my side of the Argument. Now it's your turn. You go find the Synodal Decrees and Patristic and Scriptural references to support your side of the Argument...that is how these debates go. Perhaps you should look around the other discussions on this board, debates are not entirely accomplished by trying to get modern hierarchs on your team. Furthermore, the burden of Proof is on you, I'm arguing moral neutrality and the fact that no one can be condemned for what you claim to be a sin. If you're going to make an act that was traditionally not regarded as a sin into a sin, and condemn those engaged in the institution of slavery, you need to present some evidence that a Synod formally Changed the Church's posistion on the Issue.

So I ask you again, What SYNOD Supports your condemnation of the Fathers? Even a few patristic quotes would be nice to move this discussion along at this point.

Quote
FIND ME A BISHOP. ...

I did, St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople. I also found you SYNODS...Infinitely more important than Bishops. You have failed to find either to support your innovation.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #169 on: June 24, 2005, 12:44:53 PM »

After going back and looking at the Source of the Quote you gave earlier on in the discussion from the Oecumenical Patriarch, I believe that could quite clearly be construed as a modern endorsement of my posistion. His All Holiness equated Slavery and War, yet did not condemn either, he established that Peace and Freedom as greater virtues, but did not go as far as you do to condemn War or Slavery but rather listed them as things that 'need to be kept under strict control.' St. Basil says that one who kills in war commits no sin, so though Peace may be the greater virtue, war is still not Sinful. Though Freedom may be a greater Virtue (which is more questionable than establishing peace as a greater virtue than war), Slavery is not sinful, and His All Holiness is careful and does not condemn it as such.

I fear the open condemnation that you want is not to be found, a preference for one over the other, yes...and on this I agree, but I, like the Oecumenical Patrairch, am Unwilling to condemn such a long maintained Institution that was condoned by the Fathers as sinful, the radicalism you advocate will rarely be found in the Church, and where it is found it is almost always a detriment.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,418



« Reply #170 on: June 24, 2005, 04:08:32 PM »

The OCA's Synod isn't even a good subsitute for a Synod, much less some OCA priest answering internet questions. Furthermore, there are no subsitutes for Synods, not even the Common Opinion of All the Bishops who are members of a synod making consonant private decrees.

You are not a substitute for such a synod either, but that's what you are trying to be here. The councils do not state your position; you interpret them as endorsing it. It is precisely this intepretation that is the probloem, because in your theology, you aren't a definitive source of such a statement. Your bishops (and especially your bishops in synod) are. An OCA priest speaking as a representative for his bishops is better than you, and your implication that the bishops themselves would, in synod, express a different position is outlandish to the point of near disingenuity.

FIND ME A BISHOP.

You have yet to come up with a single modern bishop to endorse-- not be misinterpreted as endorsing-- your position. It's reasonable to believe that every single Orthodox bishop out there-- yea, and with them every Anglican bishop, every Catholic bishop, every presbytery and every Methodist conference-- endorses my position and rejects yours. You are simply refusing instruction from your own church.

FIND ME A BISHOP.

As for Trullo:

Quote
It's an extension of the Sixth Oecumenical Synod, and was regarded as that by the Fathers of the Seventh Oecumenical Synod. Thus it is Ratified by the Statement of Faith of Nicea II, Trullo's Canons are as Oecumenical as the Seventh Oecumenical Synod.

You can say that until the cows come home. Trullo was not so accepted in the West, and the West has always considered it a local, Eastern council and has always rejected some of its canons. It's not ecumenical, even if the present Orthodox churches accept it as binding.

That's all rather beside the point, as again you are having to interpret the council to get it to agree to your claim.

FIND ME A BISHOP. If you can't find one single modern bishop to defend your thesis-- not say things that you interpret as supporting it, but defend it outright-- then the evidence is that your interpretation of the fathers and of scripture is idiosycratic and doesn't represent the teaching of The Church. It's not good enough to find ancient sources that you can bend to your point; you have to find a current church authority who will agree to your interpretation as representing the teaching of The Church. I've presented at least some evidence in that regard (even if you dismiss it). You've presented NOTHING.

FIND ME A BISHOP. Surely you can find one who teaches as you would teach.

FIND ME A BISHOP.
Logged
SonofAslan
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


« Reply #171 on: June 24, 2005, 04:37:30 PM »

Quote
Trullo was not so accepted in the West, and the West has always considered it a local, Eastern council and has always rejected some of its canons. It's not ecumenical, even if the present Orthodox churches accept it as binding.

You can't be serious here!! Trullo did one thing and one thing only. It made no dogmatic statement. It declared no faith issues. It passed canons. That’s all it did. It passed canons. It did so because no canons had been passed at the 6th EC. So Trullo met to pass canons. It did so and nothing more. Now, when the 7th EC met, every canon Trullo passed was also ratified by the 7th EC. So if you want to persist in asserting that Trullo is not ecumenical, fine. The 7th Council is, and everything Trullo was  was declared to be true by the 7th EC.

So GiC, next time, just tell him the 7th EC says it, and he can’t argue. The 7th EC repeats verbatim Trullo. And sincee everyone in the West accepts the 7th, except the Protestants, all this arguing is really pointless.

Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,418



« Reply #172 on: June 24, 2005, 05:49:45 PM »

You can't be serious here!! Trullo did one thing and one thing only. It made no dogmatic statement. It declared no faith issues. It passed canons. That’s all it did. It passed canons. It did so because no canons had been passed at the 6th EC. So Trullo met to pass canons. It did so and nothing more. Now, when the 7th EC met, every canon Trullo passed was also ratified by the 7th EC. So if you want to persist in asserting that Trullo is not ecumenical, fine. The 7th Council is, and everything Trullo wasÂÂ  was declared to be true by the 7th EC.

Prove it. The Catholic Encyclopedia says: "In fact, the West never recognized the 102 disciplinary canons of this council, in large measure reaffirmations of earlier canons."

Quote
So GiC, next time, just tell him the 7th EC says it, and he can’t argue. The 7th EC repeats verbatim Trullo.

This claim is untrue. I have looked at the CCEL texts of both and they are profoundly different. The canons of the 7th EC are much less extensive and do not, for example, condemn the iconographical imagery of the "lamb of God", as Trullo does.
Logged
SonofAslan
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


« Reply #173 on: June 24, 2005, 06:49:51 PM »

Well, GiC, there you go.

I'm going to let GiC respond to your "prove it" claim, because he is much MUCH better at that sort of thing than I am. i'm sure he will enjoy immensely recounting the history of the canons to you.  Smiley
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #174 on: June 24, 2005, 08:54:42 PM »

You are not a substitute for such a synod either, but that's what you are trying to be here. The councils do not state your position; you interpret them as endorsing it. It is precisely this intepretation that is the probloem, because in your theology, you aren't a definitive source of such a statement.

No synod has definitively spoken on the Subject, we have no episcopal decrees on it. I have none that directly support my posistion (though as has been pointed out, some that indirectly support it) and you have none that directly support yours. You seem to be trying to compensate for you inability to argue your posistion by trying to place the burden of proof on me. First of all, you are the one arguing for people's condemnation, not I...it is you who should demonstrate that they are diserving of Condemnation for their actions...it is reasonable to assume one is Innocent until Guilt can be proven and established. You would have us assume guilt of wrong doing until innocence can be proven. Secondly, as no Synod has formally addressed the matter, neither opinion is 'fully endorsed' by the Church, thus it is subject to debate...which is exactly what I thought I was doing, but you seem to wish to simply harp on the fact that there are no Synodal Decrees on the issue, and thus somehow that automatically makes you right.

Quote
Your bishops (and especially your bishops in synod) are. An OCA priest speaking as a representative for his bishops is better than you,

Since I dont have to go into what I think of the OCA's current situation right now, I wont...but don't cite some priest of theirs who has an internet advice column as authoritive. The GOA through Holy Cross has a similar programme, if I had so desired, last year I could have signed up for a class that would have allowed me to answer such questions proposed online...if that had happened, perhaps you would be citing my statements in your arguments...LOL.

Quote
and your implication that the bishops themselves would, in synod, express a different position is outlandish to the point of near disingenuity.

This is not at all outlandish, as an example, in the recent Excommunication of Archbishop Christodolous (which, thanks be to God, has been resolved) I know of three Bishops of the Oecumenical Throne, for certain and off the Top of my Head though I'm sure there were many more, who privately supported Archbishop Christodolous, and some of whom had made public statements implying such support if not openly declaring it. But when the Synod met, and the Archbishops and Metropolitans of the Oecumenical Throne Summoned and Assembled, in spite of some disagreement in the debates, not one Failed to Sign the Document of Excommunication, and the Synod Spoke with One, Unified, Unanimous Voice...there was not a single dissenter. Those three bishops I mentioned, they Signed in spite of the Private Opinions they had previously made.

Quote
You have yet to come up with a single modern bishop to endorse-- not be misinterpreted as endorsing-- your position. It's reasonable to believe that every single Orthodox bishop out there-- yea, and with them every Anglican bishop, every Catholic bishop, every presbytery and every Methodist conference-- endorses my position and rejects yours. You are simply refusing instruction from your own church.

I couldn't care less about the Anglican, Catholic, Lutheran, Presbyterian, and Methodist Hierarchy...but as far as the Orthodox Hierarchy, you have yet to find a Bishop to direclty Endorse your Posistion, in fact the one Quote you gave from a Bishop, the Oecumenical Patriarchate, on closer inspection seemed to support my posistion. So since the vast majority of Modern Bishops are Silent on the Issue (and I do not believe they would agree with you, most are not that rash when it comes to condemning people, espeically our Fathers and Past Orthodox for their Social Practices...Remember, the Church even supported the Tzar in Russia when Serfdom (which is essentially slavery) was the law of the land) perhaps you would care to actually DEBATE the issue rather than begging it.





Quote
You can say that until the cows come home. Trullo was not so accepted in the West, and the West has always considered it a local, Eastern council and has always rejected some of its canons. It's not ecumenical, even if the present Orthodox churches accept it as binding.
...
Prove it.

Since the debate here is about what the Orthodox Posistion is, not the posistions of the Heresiarchs in the West, their Opinion about our Oecumenical Synods really isn't relevant. But with that Said, in defence of the Synod in Trullo Session 4 of the Seventh Oecumenical Synod states:

Quote
There are certain affected with the sickness of ignorance who are scandalized by these canons [viz. of the Trullan Synod] and say, And do you really think they were adopted at the Sixth Synod? Now let all such know that the holy great Sixth Synod was assembled at Constantinople concerning those who said that there was but one energy and will in Christ. These anathematized the heretics, and having expounded the orthodox faith, they went to their homes in the fourteenth year of Constantine. But after four or five years the same fathers came together under Justinian, the son of Constantine, and set forth the before-mentioned canons. And let no one doubt concerning them. For they who subscribed under Constantine were the same as they who under Justinian signed the present chart, as can manifestly be established from the unchangeable similarity of their own handwriting. For it was right that they who had appeared at an ecumenical synod should also set forth ecclesiastical canons. They said that we should be led as (by the hand) by the venerable images to the recollection of the incarnation of Christ and of his saving death, and if by them we are led to the realization of the incarnation of Christ our God, what sort of an opinion shall we have of them who break down the venerable images?

And then in the first canon of the said Synod:

Quote
Seeing these things are so, being thus well-testified unto us, we rejoice over them as he that hath found great spoil, and press to our bosom with gladness the divine canons, holding fast all the precepts of the same, complete and without change, whether they have been set forth by the holy trumpets of the Spirit, the renowned Apostles, or by the Six Ecumenical Councils, or by Councils locally assembled for promulgating the decrees of the said Ecumenical Councils, or by our holy Fathers.

In light of the Statement in Session 4, there is no way this could not be construed as a promulgation of the Canons of the Synod in Trullo. Thus we see, that Nicea II both Decrees the Synod in Trullo to be an Extension of the Sixth Oecumenical Synod, and then Promulgates the Canons in her Own Canons...Thus giving the Canons of Trullo the Same authority as the Canons of Nicea II...the Authority of Canons of an Oecumenical Synod.

Furthermore, though the Pope of Rome at the time of the Synod of Trullo did not sign the Canonical Decrees of the Sixth Oecumenical Synod, they were eventually accepted by Pope Hadrian I, demonstrating an eventual acceptance of the Canons in the West, for in writing to Oecumenical Patriarch Tenasius he says, 'All the holy six synods I receive with all their canons, which rightly and divinely were promulgated by them, among which is contained that in which reference is made to a Lamb being pointed to by the Precursor as being found in certain of the venerable images [Canon 82 of Trullo].'

quod erat demonstrandum





Quote
That's all rather beside the point, as again you are having to interpret the council to get it to agree to your claim.

And just as much interpreting is going on here about the words of current Bishops, as demonstrated by our debates about the Meaning of the Oecumenical Patriarch's speech that you brought up. But this is a significant part of DEBATE, I presented Canons and Patristic Quotes that Supported my Posistion. If you want to dismiss them, you should start my arguing how Canons protecting the Rights of Slave Owners or Anathematizing radical Abolitionists are consonant with your posistion, namely that Slavery is Sinful. Then I address your arguments, and so on and so forth, thus we make progress through Discussion...there's a little more to debate than defining Authority and Appealing to it...And when your definition of Authority excludes the Oecumenical Synods and Father of the Church, there's a whole new problem introduced. We dont have a theological or moral oracle that we ask questions and magically answers appear...Rome has tried to create that, but the Orthodox do not even want it; synods must take time and decide and even then, that often is not the end of it, other Synods will have to accept it as well as the Church as a whole, it's a slow and difficult process that includes much DEBATE...not nearly as clear cut as you'd like to make it out to be.

Quote
Surely you can find one who teaches as you would teach.

Should be trivial considering the volumes that have been wirtten on the Subject by current Bishops. They probably consider it a non-issue, which it is until someone either tries to reinstitute it or tries to go back and Condemn Saints and Fathers of the Church thousands of years after their deaths; neither of which are significant concerns, except for on this thread. But as I've said before, you haven't presented any resounding defences of your posistions either. I'm still waiting for that Synod condemning the Fathers of the Church and the Oecumenical Synods to defend your seemingly infallible posistion.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,418



« Reply #175 on: June 24, 2005, 10:41:06 PM »

No synod has definitively spoken on the Subject, we have no episcopal decrees on it. I have none that directly support my posistion (though as has been pointed out, some that indirectly support it) and you have none that directly support yours.

Um, no. I don't I have "none"; it's just that you're twisting the EP's words, and you don't care for Matusiak as a spokesman for his, um, synod. And suppose I write back to Matusiak and he directs me to an official condemnation of slavery. Will that be good enough for you? RIght now, I doubt it. It's getting to the point where I'm less than willing to accept you as an authority on theological polity either.

Also, since the explanation doesn't seem to be sinking in: there's no "indirect support" in this context. You interpret these authorities as supporting you, but again I'm going to stick to preferring actual churches to you as an interpretive authority. I fail to see how this is an unreasonable standard, especially since you can't FIND ME A BISHOP.

Quote
You seem to be trying to compensate for you inability to argue your posistion by trying to place the burden of proof on me.

It isn't going to work that way. I looked up a statement by a bishop (happened to be the EP); I asked someone representing the OCA. You've produced nothing beyond your spin of the fathers. It doesn't seem to me to be unreasonable to expect you to come up with some present-day authority besides just yourself.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a category error. It is it is about whether someone has done something, not about the moral significance about what they are known to have done.

Quote
Since I dont have to go into what I think of the OCA's current situation right now, I wont...but don't cite some priest of theirs who has an internet advice column as authoritive. The GOA through Holy Cross has a similar programme, if I had so desired, last year I could have signed up for a class that would have allowed me to answer such questions proposed online...if that had happened, perhaps you would be citing my statements in your arguments...LOL.

Or perhaps in that class they would have educated you as in how to answer the question properly. I dunno-- I'm tempted to seek out the GOARCH version just to see what answer I would get. I could call up the Matthewes-Greens too.

In any case, you are still anticipating that whomever I asked would give me an answer favorable to me and adverse to you. See, I am giving you a lower standard to meet, because you are saying that even if I found a bishop repeating exactly my position, you wouldn't accept him.

Quote
[P]erhaps you would care to actually DEBATE the issue rather than begging it.

I've said I won't directly debate the morality of slavery.

Quote
Since the debate here is about what the Orthodox Posistion is, not the posistions of the Heresiarchs in the West, their Opinion about our Oecumenical Synods really isn't relevant.

No, it isn't. To be ecumenical, it must be Catholic (that is, held in all times and places by all) and pre-schism rejection by the West means that it isn't so held. It's a bit of a pointless argument because, again, you're going to interpret Trullo's canons for me.

Quote
But with that Said, in defence of the Synod in Trullo Session 4 of the Seventh Oecumenical Synod states:

And then in the first canon of the said Synod:

In light of the Statement in Session 4, there is no way this could not be construed as a promulgation of the Canons of the Synod in Trullo. Thus we see, that Nicea II both Decrees the Synod in Trullo to be an Extension of the Sixth Oecumenical Synod, and then Promulgates the Canons in her Own Canons...Thus giving the Canons of Trullo the Same authority as the Canons of Nicea II...the Authority of Canons of an Oecumenical Synod.

This passage is in no on-line copy of the session that I can see, and in fact seems to be a modern excursus. The actual text of the session that I see says something rather different.

Quote
Furthermore, though the Pope of Rome at the time of the Synod of Trullo did not sign the Canonical Decrees of the Sixth Oecumenical Synod, they were eventually accepted by Pope Hadrian I, demonstrating an eventual acceptance of the Canons in the West, for in writing to Oecumenical Patriarch Tenasius he says, 'All the holy six synods I receive with all their canons, which rightly and divinely were promulgated by them, among which is contained that in which reference is made to a Lamb being pointed to by the Precursor as being found in certain of the venerable images [Canon 82 of Trullo].'

I will accept this correction as I can confirm this passage. Nonetheless Hadrian's acceptance does not seem to have signified any lasting acceptance, as far as I can tell.

Again, it's in the end a bit of a quibble.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #176 on: June 25, 2005, 03:12:11 PM »

I've said I won't directly debate the morality of slavery.

Thank you, that is what I was getting at. I will accept that statement as a Capitualtion and an acquiescence of the Superority of the Arguments in Defence of Slavery. For this statement, which is essentially tantamount to an admission of your inability to defend your posistion, is as close as you will get to this truth.

Quote
No, it isn't. To be ecumenical, it must be Catholic (that is, held in all times and places by all) and pre-schism rejection by the West means that it isn't so held. It's a bit of a pointless argument because, again, you're going to interpret Trullo's canons for me.

Then the 'pre-Schism' west was in Schism long before their formal removal from the Dyptics of the Great Church in the early 11th century...though from the quote of Pope Hadrian, I do not believe this to be entirely true...it just took the west a little longer to come around.

Quote
This passage is in no on-line copy of the session that I can see, and in fact seems to be a modern excursus. The actual text of the session that I see says something rather different.

There are many good books out there that are not online...the fact that something is not on the Internet does not undermine its value, but with that said, I actually cut and pasted that passage from the Session 4 of Nicea II...because it was easier than typing it:

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-161.htm#P10194_1923154

Roughly a third of the way down.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,418



« Reply #177 on: June 25, 2005, 05:15:30 PM »

Thank you, that is what I was getting at. I will accept that statement as a Capitualtion and an acquiescence of the Superority of the Arguments in Defence of Slavery. For this statement, which is essentially tantamount to an admission of your inability to defend your posistion, is as close as you will get to this truth.

There are two reason why I won't make such a defense. First, being an Anglican, I'm not going to cripple my arguments by staying within the lines of anyone's Orthodoxy. That's not how we do it, and since I'm dead certain you won't accept that high a standard, engagement is impossible.

Second, frankly, I believed when I originally said that-- about ten pages of postings back-- that anyone who would argue for the morality of slavery was pretty much beyond hope. You aren't changing my mind.

The only position I'm even vaguely is that Orthodoxy, NOW, teaches that slavery is wrong.

Quote
Then the 'pre-Schism' west was in Schism long before their formal removal from the Dyptics of the Great Church in the early 11th century...though from the quote of Pope Hadrian, I do not believe this to be entirely true...it just took the west a little longer to come around.

Your opinion, for which I care not a fig.

I apologize for the mistake about search for the conciliar passage; I think I searched for something you wrote (which obviously wouldn't be there).

FIND ME A BISHOP.
Logged
SonofAslan
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


« Reply #178 on: June 25, 2005, 09:00:51 PM »

Quote
being an Anglican, I'm not going to cripple my arguments by staying within the lines of anyone's Orthodoxy. That's not how we do it, and since I'm dead certain you won't accept that high a standard, engagement is impossible.



So what you're essentially saying is that you think your standards are higher than those of the Church? So you actually would assert that Scripture, the Councils and the opinions of men who were personally taught by Christ and walked with Christ every day are inferior to your "standards"? Is it any wonder the Anglican Church is as screwed up as it is? You allow heretics not only to stay in your Churches but to actually LEAD your Churches. And yet, Anglican standards are so supposedly high? Hmmm....... If by "high standards" you mean rejecting all moral concepts, tossing out 2 millennia of Church Tradition, rejecting the teachings of Christ and His apostles, and basically abandoning every teaching that defines Christianity, then you take the high road, and I'll take the low road, and I'll be in heaven before ye.

Sorry, just couldn't resist that. I'm not saying you won't be in heaven or that I will. It was just too good to pass up. The point is valid though. Exactly what is it, since Anglicans consider it acceptable to reject the notion of a personal God, the efficacy of prayer, Scripture as true, Christ as divine, the resurrection as real, etc., that Anglicans believe that allows them to still maintain that they should be considered part of the Christian family? And if you dispute that Anglicanism accepts these teachings as valid, I can quote one of your own Archbishops who asserts every single one of them. Was he excommunicated? No. Was he defrocked? No. Was he even censured? No. Did any Anglican authority ever once tell him, "John, these teachings are false and heretical and you can't teach them in the Church"? No.

So if this is what you mean by "high standards", I will happily "cripple my arguments" by staying within the confines of the Truth. And if engagement is impossible, because you won't accept those confines, so be it.


And stop shouting "FIND ME A BISHOP!". Our bishops aren't the final word on what is true and what isn't. But even so, many have already been found. All the bishops and several of the Councils, Paul, etc. The list could go on ad nauseum.
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,418



« Reply #179 on: June 25, 2005, 10:06:34 PM »

So what you're essentially saying is that you think your standards are higher than those of the Church?

No. The point is that to engage in argument by authority (which is what both of you are trying to do) the authority has to be mutally accepted. If you are going to argue with me directly about slavery, I won't accept Orthodox sources alone as sufficent authorities, because for me, as an Anglican, they aren't good enough by themselves. "Higher" here is simply a measure of difficulty.

As I've said over and over again: it's not scripture and it's not the church fathers. It that you're interpreting, and by your own standards you aren't a legitimate authority to do so. By my standards, you're merely doing it badly, but that's another story.

The problem continues to be that neither of you is making any attempt at all to convince that the Orthodox churches teach now what you say they teach. Endless repetition of your interpretations isn't going to convince me that the church teaches it, because the one thing you aren't doing-- the only sufficient thing-- is to make a connection between current church teaching and your claims. They are still only your claims.

And sniping about the Anglicans is supremely pointless when you say that you "don't have infallible bishops", which essentially means that you feel free to toss aside what yours say as easily as I do in fact toss aside many of mine. Which means you're just another crypto-Protestant.

FIND ME A BISHOP. They may not be the "final word" but they have some semblance of status as official spokesman and you have none. If you can't find me a single bishop to express your position, the reasonable conclusion is that you express a private opinion and nothing more.
Logged
SonofAslan
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


« Reply #180 on: June 26, 2005, 03:11:31 AM »

Quote
And sniping about the Anglicans is supremely pointless when you say that you "don't have infallible bishops", which essentially means that you feel free to toss aside what yours say as easily as I do in fact toss aside many of mine. Which means you're just another crypto-Protestant.


Lord have mercy. This would only be true if submitting to everything our bishops taught was the distinctive mark of Orthodoxy, which it is not. You haven’t been listening to what GiC has said. I think, if I haven’t misread (and I must admit that much of what I read I did so cursorily), he has stated the true Orthodox opinion on several occasions. We aren’t puppets of our bishops. We must submit to them as long as it doesn’t compromise the integrity of the Church, but even this doesn’t mean we must blindly accept everything they say as truth. We must do what they say, but we can still have our own opinions.

Quote
As I've said over and over again: it's not scripture and it's not the church fathers. It that you're interpreting, and by your own standards you aren't a legitimate authority to do so. By my standards, you're merely doing it badly, but that's another story.


Ok, well I’m always ready to be corrected when I’m wrong. So why don’t you show me how these passages should be interpreted and why you think your interpretation is better than mine or ours. All you’ve done so far is say, “You’re wrong in your interpretation.” Ok, so show me how you interpret them.

See, I don’t like this “It’s not Scripture and it’s not the Fathers, it’s just your interpretation” stuff. I hear this a lot from people 1) who don’t want to deal with what Scripture says or 2) want to dismiss Scripture as not significant enough because it’s too complicated. And to be honest, I hear these types of arguments mostly from Orthodox who want to hold onto certain non-Orthodox beliefs even though Scripture clearly contradicts them. See, Scripture says what it says, and it doesn’t require a secret decoder ring to understand. There are passages that are difficult, particularly if you have a preconceived view when you come to Scripture rather than simply let Scripture speak and put your own ideas aside, but if you come to Scripture honestly, read the whole thing and not just parts, and if you seek to let Scripture speak to you instead of trying to make it say what you want, then it becomes amazingly clear, even though there are always new depths in Scripture to be discovered.

Your argument is bogus because a man’s earthly status, i.e. whether he’s a slave or not, is completely irrelevant to his spiritual condition. God doesn’t care whether you’re a slave or a slave owner. This is all over Scripture, and this is why slavery, as an institution, can be nothing but morally neutral. What do you think it means when Paul tells slaves to treat their masters with respect, and masters to treat their slaves likewise? It isn’t important whether we’re slave or free. This is totally insignificant, and this is why it’s morally neutral. It doesn’t matter. What matters is how we treat each other, and whether we reflect the love of Christ. This is possible whether you own slaves or are a slave. Your arguments render our social status as somehow having some profound moral, and thus spiritual, significance, but this is false. Whether we’re slave or slave owner is completely irrelevant to our spiritual condition.

I find it interesting that the things the tradition of the Church, Scripture and the Fathers clearly declare to be immoral, e.g. divorce and homosexuality, the Anglican Church is ready to embrace with wide open arms, but if we talk about slavery, something the Bible, Church tradition and the fathers never once condemn, this is some great evil that can’t be tolerated even for a moment. You guys have elevated the self with its personal selfish desires above Scripture, the Fathers, and I would add God Himself.

You have been shown many bishops. Your argument that you want to know what we teach NOW is meaningless to us, because unlike Anglican teaching, ours doesn’t change. What Chrysostom said is every bit as valid today as it was when he was here on earth. Our teaching isn’t contextually relative. It is what it is and has always been. If a bishop today said something that contradicted what Chrysostom, Paul or any other ancient bishop wrote, it would not render Chrysostom’s, Paul’s or whatever other bishop’s opinion no longer relevant or valid. Your problem is that you have divorced yourself from the history of the Church, while we have not. Paul, Peter and every other bishop throughout history is every bit as much a part of the Church today and relevant to the Church today as he was in the year 100 AD, 400 AD, 800 AD, 1000 AD, etc.

You say “FIND ME A BISHOP.” Many have been found and shown to you. You don’t happen to like them because they aren’t alive now. Our response would be, “How is that relevant?” What makes you think a current bishop is more relevant than one from 1000 years ago? The only response you can give is if you think truth is relative, which, in my opinion, is heretical and completely outside the realm of Christian thought. But I think you’re church has gone there, and so I can see why this would be a problem for you. This is not intended to be "sniping" at your church, rather the simple recognition of the reason why our position is so hard for you to grasp. Chrysostom, Paul, Clement, Ignatius, Photius, etc. are no less relevant than +Kallistos Ware, Archbishop Demetrios, +Isaiah, +Maximos, etc. In fact, since many of the previous bishops are recognized as saints in the Church, their opinions are more relevant than those of current bishops who are not recognized as saints. So you have been given bishops, some of the greatest bishops with the greatest authority in our Church, bishops with far more authority than any current bishop.

And as GiC can attest, I’ve been called a Protestant many times. One of these days, I’ll stop banging my head against a door every time it happens. Wink

« Last Edit: June 26, 2005, 03:36:06 AM by SonofAslan » Logged
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #181 on: June 26, 2005, 03:23:59 AM »

Guess what CD I listened to a half-hour ago? Moby! Smiley
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,418



« Reply #182 on: June 26, 2005, 08:51:47 AM »

I think, if I haven’t misread (and I must admit that much of what I read I did so cursorily), he has stated the true Orthodox opinion on several occasions. We aren’t puppets of our bishops. We must submit to them as long as it doesn’t compromise the integrity of the Church, but even this doesn’t mean we must blindly accept everything they say as truth. We must do what they say, but we can still have our own opinions.

Fine: it can be your own opinion. But I'm not convinced that it is the Church's.

Quote
All you’ve done so far is say, “You’re wrong in your interpretation.” Ok, so show me how you interpret them.

I think you are wrong in your interpretation, that is true. And what the heck, I feel up to taking some potshots at your general principles:

Quote
Your argument is bogus because a man’s earthly status, i.e. whether he’s a slave or not, is completely irrelevant to his spiritual condition.

And I don't agree, and the church doesn't agree either. Some states are indifferent, some are not; that is what The Church teaches. And it's really common sense.

I've already said it once: being a slave isn't an issue; taking and keeping slaves-- that is the issue.

Quote
I find it interesting that the things the tradition of the Church, Scripture and the Fathers clearly declare to be immoral, e.g. divorce and homosexuality, the Anglican Church is ready to embrace with wide open arms, but if we talk about slavery, something the Bible, Church tradition and the fathers never once condemn, this is some great evil that can’t be tolerated even for a moment. You guys have elevated the self with its personal selfish desires above Scripture, the Fathers, and I would add God Himself.

You're making lots of errors here about Anglicanism, the chief of which is to imply that I am somehow more bound to follow my bishops than you are to follow yours. Please: this is just intellectual laziness on your part. The truth, I suspect, is that you would do a lot worse job of approaching Anglican moral thought than you're already doing with your own church.

Quote
You have been shown many bishops.

What bishops I have been shown do not say directly what you claim.

Quote
Your argument that you want to know what we teach NOW is meaningless to us, because unlike Anglican teaching, ours doesn’t change.

You say that, but it isn't true. What bishop today would agree that the Orthodox cannot patronize Jewish doctors? It's right there in Trullo! And besides, your word isn't good enough. It's an empirical claim which needs to be demonstrated empirically. FIND ME A BISHOP or I shall continue to claim that the church no longer teaches this!

Quote
What makes you think a current bishop is more relevant than one from 1000 years ago?

Because the living bishops can object to being misinterpreted, while the dead cannot. And because it's an utterly reasonable test.

FIND ME A BISHOP.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2005, 08:53:30 AM by Keble » Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,421



« Reply #183 on: June 29, 2005, 10:57:06 AM »

I lose my freedom many places.

I'm sorry, but you seem to be lumping any possible meaning of "freedom" into one mass and if you lack any one of them then you lack all.  You seem to be confusing "Omnipoteniality" with freedom. 

Quote
In my genetics, when I am not born with the talent to pursue what i would like.

Talent?  Not everyone is a prodigy at 4.  Practice and work build talent.  Then there are talents that are discovered that we have as time passes.  It doesn't all happen at once.  And genetics?  Somethings are beyond the control of any Human Being. What does genetics have to do with freedom?  I haven't lost freedom by needing glasses. 

Quote
In society, if they are not interested in exchanging the things I need to live for the things I wish to pursue. In colleges that reject my application for whatever reason (and please, I know you're not so idealistic as to say that they are only rejected if my qualifications aren't good enough). And even if I get into a college, eventually, if I don't get into the right one, even opportunites in the field I have chosen may be seriously curtailed

Not *only*. there are many factors for not getting into things like colleges. However, it is one factor. Others might be that available slots are filled, lack of finances, or that you might just not be suited among other things.  It doesn't *have* to be due to malice on others' part.  To borrow a cliche, it's not all about you.  No one gets everything they want and not everything one *wants* is necessarily good.  As to opportunites, they don't just come to one on a silver plate.  There's work and seeking involved.  I gather that you are late teens or early 20's? 

Quote
I lose my freedom everywhere everyday. I also lose it at work where I have to do what my master tells me or else my food is taken away (that's essentially what happens if I get fired, isn't it). Your freedom is largely an illusion. You can choose what to think and how to respond to your surroundings, but what happens to you is largely out of your control.

If you don't like the work, seek other paths.  You are not helpless.  You *can* do things.  But freedom doesn't mean getting whatever we want when ever we want it.  It can take time and work.    And by making a choice between several things, you have the freedom to pick one, but by so doing you cannot then also have all the others.  Why should an employer be obliged to pay you if you do not fulfill your part of the job?  A person's actions *do* apply to what happens to them in many cases.

What does "freedom" mean to you beyond "Doing whatever I want."?


Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
********