orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (04/24/85)
Our current political leader, named as the second most-admired man in
America by a recent poll of teenagers, continues to beat his chest
in proclaiming his Christianity. Recently he claimed that the Pope
supported his plan to give military aid to terrorists in Nicaragua.
The Pope promptly denied any such support.
However several months ago President Reagan cited a parable by
Jesus Christ to support the biggest spending for War in history.
He said:
******************************************************************
* You might be interested to know that the Scriptures are on our side
* on this - Luke 14:31 - in which Jesus, in talking to the disciples,
* spoke about a king who might be contemplating going to war against
* another king with his 10,000 men.
*
* But he sits down and counsels how good he's going to do against the
* other fellow's 20,000 and then says he may have to send a delegation
* to talk peace terms.
*
* Well, I don't think we ever want to be in a position of only being
* half as strong and sending a delegation to negotiate, under these
* circumstances, peace terms with the Soviet Union.
******************************************************************
Wouldn't the Christians and others who admire Jesus Christ's life
of nonviolence say that this is a travesty of all that Jesus
stood for. Jesus allowed himself to be crucified rather than
oppose his persecutors with violence. Here is the actual passage
President Reagan referred to:
******************************************************************
* Or what king, going to encounter another king in war, will not
* sit down first and take counsel whether he is able with ten
* thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand?
* And if not, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends an
* embassy and asks terms of peace.
*
* So therefore, whoever of you does not renounce all that he has
* cannot be my disciple. Luke 14:31
******************************************************************
Isn't it clear that Jesus, as with all his life and words, is counseling
Peace rather than War? In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said:
(Matthew 5:9) "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called
sons of God." Jesus did NOT say "Blessed are the warmakers and
those who prepare for War." When Jesus was seized to be crucified
Matthew 26:51-52 says:
******************************************************************
* And behold one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand
* and drew his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest, and cut
* off his ear. Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into
* its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword."
*******************************************************************
Our President has been wrapping his militaristic policies in a cloak
of Christianity. Is this what Christianity really means? Are
Christians going to support such policies as other "Christians"
supported the Inquisition and the Crusades?
Fundamentalist Christians were reported to have voted for Ronald Reagan
by a margin of about 77%. Is this what you voted for?
Do the Christians on the net really believe the lesson of Christ's life
was to abandon all other social goals to prepare to incinerate the
planet?
tim sevener whuxl!orbpmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (04/25/85)
A response to Tim Sevener's article: >He [Pres. Reagan] said: >****************************************************************** >* You might be interested to know that the Scriptures are on our side >* on this - Luke 14:31 - in which Jesus, in talking to the disciples, >* spoke about a king who might be contemplating going to war against >* another king with his 10,000 men. >* >* But he sits down and counsels how good he's going to do against the >* other fellow's 20,000 and then says he may have to send a delegation >* to talk peace terms. >* >* Well, I don't think we ever want to be in a position of only being >* half as strong and sending a delegation to negotiate, under these >* circumstances, peace terms with the Soviet Union. >****************************************************************** > >Wouldn't the Christians and others who admire Jesus Christ's life >of nonviolence say that this is a travesty of all that Jesus >stood for. Jesus allowed himself to be crucified rather than >oppose his persecutors with violence. Here is the actual passage >President Reagan referred to: > >****************************************************************** >* Or what king, going to encounter another king in war, will not >* sit down first and take counsel whether he is able with ten >* thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? >* And if not, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends an >* embassy and asks terms of peace. >* >* So therefore, whoever of you does not renounce all that he has >* cannot be my disciple. Luke 14:31 >****************************************************************** > >Isn't it clear that Jesus, as with all his life and words, is counseling >Peace rather than War? I don't think this particular passage can be used to support either position. The emphasis of the passage is that persons should count the cost of becoming a Christian before doing so. He uses more analogies than this one to illustrate this (i.e. "building a tower" in the previous verses). Jesus desiged the analogies to talk about counting the cost of discipleship not about war and peace. Jesus doesn't deal with the question of what would be right if the king decided he *could* defeat his enemy. Another thing: Jesus died willingly on the cross for a very good reason. That is, to atone for the sins of mankind. Do we have a similar mission for dying passively at the hands of our enemies? Perhaps Christians do, since their kingdom is not of this world. But what about the non-christains in this country? Is it fair to ask them to be passive in the face of their enemies? What about third parties (e.g. Afganastan, Poland)? >In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said: >(Matthew 5:9) "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called >sons of God." Jesus did NOT say "Blessed are the warmakers and >those who prepare for War." OK. Here's an application for you: How could we have made peace with Hitler? I am totally convinced of the virtues of being a peacemaker, but you seem to be equating peacemaking with passivity. >When Jesus was seized to be crucified Matthew 26:51-52 says: > >****************************************************************** >* And behold one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand >* and drew his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest, and cut >* off his ear. Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into >* its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword." >******************************************************************* Here you are on better ground. But again, Jesus has a specific cause in mind here (i.e. his own sacrificial death). However, I do think you're right in that the last sentence puts forth a general principle of non-aggression. But the universal application of it escapes me. Again, taking the example of Hitler; when he draws the sword, by whose sword will he perish? >Our President has been wrapping his militaristic policies in a cloak >of Christianity. Is this what Christianity really means? Are >Christians going to support such policies as other "Christians" >supported the Inquisition and the Crusades? I think there has been a great deal of cloak wrapping on both sides. I admit that I have been more confused than illuminated on this whole issue. My inclination is that the Bible is setting up a delicate tension here and that it doesn't provide the exact formula for each situation. Both you and Reagan seem guilty of thinking that it does. It would help me a lot more to see someone take a consistent approach to Scripture with regard to this issue in general and our situation in particular. >Fundamentalist Christians were reported to have voted for Ronald Reagan >by a margin of about 77%. Is this what you voted for? So, a vote for Reagan was a vote for war. That simple, huh? There are two superpowers playing in this game. Who votes for the other one? How have they demonstrated their respect for human life and liberty? Do *they* know what Christianity really means? >Do the Christians on the net really believe the lesson of Christ's life >was to abandon all other social goals to prepare to incinerate the >planet? No, this one doesn't. (What a loaded question.) -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
seifert@mako.UUCP (Snoopy) (04/25/85)
In article <603@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: >Our President has been wrapping his militaristic policies in a cloak >of Christianity. Is this what Christianity really means? Are >Christians going to support such policies as other "Christians" >supported the Inquisition and the Crusades? No, this *isn't* what Christianity really means. This is what *politics* really means. >Fundamentalist Christians were reported to have voted for Ronald Reagan >by a margin of about 77%. Is this what you voted for? Voting for someone for president doen't not imply that one agrees with everything the candidate says or does. It means, that of the limited choices available (usually two in the US) you believe that your choice will do the best job overall. In many elections it's more like the lessor of two evils. Any further discussion should move to net.politics. _____ |___| the Bavarian Beagle _|___|_ Snoopy \_____/ tektronix!mako!seifert \___/
nlt@duke.UUCP (N. L. Tinkham) (04/30/85)
[*] Tim Sevener writes the following (after discussing Reagan's use of one of Jesus' parables to justify a strong military force): > Our President has been wrapping his militaristic policies in a cloak > of Christianity. Is this what Christianity really means? Are > Christians going to support such policies as other "Christians" > supported the Inquisition and the Crusades? > > Fundamentalist Christians were reported to have voted for Ronald Reagan > by a margin of about 77%. Is this what you voted for? > > Do the Christians on the net really believe the lesson of Christ's life > was to abandon all other social goals to prepare to incinerate the > planet? Do not be quick to dismiss modern Christians as followers of Reagan or as apathetic. Many are, and that is regrettable. But there are many of us who are actively working, right now, to try to persuade the U.S. government to refrain from engaging in (or supporting) war for American self-interest, to stop using Christian-sounding statements to rationalize unjust aggression, and to work for world peace and the welfare of other nations. My first-hand experience has been here in Durham, NC -- the local chapter of the Episcopal Peace Fellowship has been working with other peace groups this month to protest the proposed contra aid -- but I understand that similar protests have been organized across the nation. While I understand the desire to prevent the establishment of a repressive government in Central America, it disturbs me that our government would easily resort to a military solution (that is, that they would attempt a military solution before all other means of conflict resolution have been tried and shown to be futile). More significantly, it disturbs many other Christians as well. There is concern and action for peace by Christians in this country; and this is action in the "real world", not just assorted articles on the net. N. L. Tinkham duke!nlt (The above political opinions are not necessarily held by Duke University, or by anyone else, for that matter.)
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (04/30/85)
> > > > Do the Christians on the net really believe the lesson of Christ's life > > was to abandon all other social goals to prepare to incinerate the > > planet? > > Do not be quick to dismiss modern Christians as followers of Reagan > or as apathetic. Many are, and that is regrettable. But there are many > of us who are actively working, right now, to try to persuade the > U.S. government to refrain from engaging in (or supporting) war for > American self-interest, to stop using Christian-sounding statements > to rationalize unjust aggression, and to work for world peace and the > welfare of other nations. My first-hand experience has been here in Durham, NC > -- the local chapter of the Episcopal Peace Fellowship has been > working with other peace groups this month to protest the proposed > contra aid -- but I understand that similar protests have been organized > across the nation. > While I understand the desire to prevent the establishment of a > repressive government in Central America, it disturbs me that our government > would easily resort to a military solution (that is, that they would attempt a > military solution before all other means of conflict resolution have > been tried and shown to be futile). More significantly, it disturbs > many other Christians as well. There is concern and action for peace > by Christians in this country; and this is action in the "real world", > not just assorted articles on the net. > > N. L. Tinkham > duke!nlt > > (The above political opinions are not necessarily held by Duke University, or > by anyone else, for that matter.) I am glad that you and the members of your Church are trying to follow Christ's true path of nonviolence rather than support of war and violence. One of the very positive things happening in Eastern Europe has been growing support for the Peace Movement in the Churches in Communist countries. Last year, when the Soviets announced planned new deployments of SS-20's in Eastern Europe newspapers and other institutions were flooded with letters of protest, many from Christians in those countries. Unfortunately many Christians seem very hypocritical in their Christianity: they want to go to Heaven but they don't wish to follow Christ's admonition to "turn the other cheek" or the example of nonviolence and love he set with both his life and teachings. When this country was debating slavery many Christians were active in trying to abolish it, but unfortunately there were also many who argued slavery was "supported by the Bible". I would like to know how any Christians can argue that war and particularly preparations for nuclear war when there is already the capability to destroy the planet several times over, can be supported by the Gospels? tim sevener whuxl!orb
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (05/04/85)
In article <whuxl.614> orb@whuxl.UUCP (TIM SEVENER) writes: > >When this country was debating slavery many Christians were active in trying >to abolish it, but unfortunately there were also many who argued slavery >was "supported by the Bible". The pro-slavery Christians ignored the Hebrew laws regulating "slavery". Under Mosaic law, a man could sell himself into slavery (e.g. to pay depts) but for at most SEVEN YEARS. There was no such thing as lifetime slavery. Furthermore, children of slaves were free. Such servitude is more of a contractual agreement, reminicient of the status of many Irish immigrants when they entered this country. In the Bible, there is no assumption of a permanent servant class, race or nation. This is an example of people reading into the Bible what they want to believe. This is why some churches are uncomfortable when laymen try to interpret the Bible. No doubt many pro-slavers would have insisted that they received their interpretation by divine inspiration. Frank Silbermann
mat@mtx5b.UUCP (Mark Terribile) (05/04/85)
>> Do the Christians on the net really believe the lesson of Christ's life >> was to abandon all other social goals to prepare to incinerate the >> planet? > > Do not be quick to dismiss modern Christians as followers of Reagan >or as apathetic. Many are, and that is regrettable. But there are many >of us who are actively working, right now, to try to persuade the >U.S. government to refrain from engaging in (or supporting) war for >American self-interest, to stop using Christian-sounding statements > . . . . > While I understand the desire to prevent the establishment of a >repressive government in Central America, it disturbs me that our government >would easily resort to a military solution (that is, that they would attempt a >military solution before all other means of conflict resolution have >been tried and shown to be futile). More significantly, it disturbs >many other Christians as well. There is concern and action for peace >by Christians in this country; and this is action in the "real world", I don't consider myself apathetic; I do like to think of myself as a Christian. I am disturbed deeply by this article, and by the attitude of my church as well. Is war the worst thing that can happen? Can peace never be worse than war? Here are some thoughts that I hope you will find one half as disturbing as I find distressing: I recall hearing about a parade a couple of weeks ago: a parade to honor Viet Nam veterans. Today, more than 50% of the people in this country feel that that war was wrong from the start. Well, among those who turned out for that parade there was a group of several dozen Vietnamese ``boat people''. Now during all the years that we were at war in Southeast Asia, during the years of forced conscription of Vietnamese citizens (remember WE had forced conscription, too) I never heard of people abandoning the country to cross the Pacific in sampans. But now they are abandoning the country under the first peace that the region has known in a generation. Could it be that life under the current government is worse than the war with its Mai Lai and napalm and ...? What about nuclear weapons? How can we justify having THEM? Have you any idea how toxic today's nerve gasses are? A drop the size of a grain of sand on your skin will kill you in two minutes. These compounds aren't new. The Germans had them during WWII. Why didn't Hitler use them? Because British Intelligence succeeded in convincing Hitler that the British had the same thing. That is deterrence. If British Intelligence had not succeeded ... If Warmongers and antiChrists like Churchill and Roosevelt had not prepared for war while veryone else negotiated, or prided themselves on how civilized they were ... Dear God! what might have happened! It almost did, you know. With just a little more determination on Goering's part, the Battle of Britain would have gone the other way. Let us all thank God for the people who made that war come out all right. Is Christianity doomed to fail? Must we accept the role of barbarians? I don't think so. But if we wish to have the freedom in which we CAN love one another ... in which we CAN spread the word of the Gospel, then we must be prepared to make sacrifices. Being prepared to stand in defense against an enslaver is not unChristian. Handing yourself and others over to him probably is. The questions with South America aren't all that simple. As to diplomatic solutions, I seem to recall that the Sandinistas were originally backed by the US -- until they took over and the promises they made to us about freedom became an obligation. Then they embraced the USSR. How far should we trust them in a diplomatic solution? Accepting the assurances of a known liar and allowing him to rule people with an iron claw is not working for the ideals that Christ espoused. I don't recall Jesus ever saying that we should become helpless. Blessed are those who ARE helpless, for their Father in heaven shall see that they get their due, but what of those who make themselves helpless -- and refuse to help others, either? Let us say that Ferdinand Marcos, to take an example, were to be replaced by a ruler who danced on a Soviet string. Would the people of the Phillipines be any better off then they were yesterday? I doubt it. Would they be better off 20 years from now? In twenty years, Mr. Marcos AND his wife may well have died of old age ... or palace intrigue. There is a good chance that whatever government replaced them would have less power than he does, and would HAVE to look to either the people for support ... or to the USSR. But if we remain friendly with everyone there, we have a chance to make things better. Look at Spain. I DO want peace. Desperately. Because if war came either I would have to fight or I wouldn't. In one case, I would be placing my life at the disposal of the war. In the other, I would be ashamed that I wasn't. But I could not be ashamed to fight for the rights of people to live without a machine gun at their necks. I could be ashamed for allowing it to happen. And many could die in that shame. Thy kingdom come Thy will be done On earth As it is in Heaven ... -- from Mole End Mark Terribile (scrape .. dig ) hou4b!mat on 5/1/85 ..,,. mtx5b!mat ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.
nlt@duke.UUCP (N. L. Tinkham) (05/06/85)
[*] Mark Terribile writes the following in response to my article on Christian groups which oppose war in general and American involvement in the war in Nicaragua in particular: > I don't consider myself apathetic; I do like to think of myself as a > Christian. I am disturbed deeply by this article, and by the attitude of > my church as well. Let us take this as given, then: Mark and I are both Christians, sincerely seeking to apply our faith to a difficult world situation. The discussion which follows, then, will not question anyone's commitment to Christ; we will address, rather, how to interpret and apply our faith. Mark makes these points (if I understand him correctly): 1. It is possible for a government in a nation to so mistreat its citizens that conditions in that nation are worse than they would be in time of war. (Example: modern Vietnam.) 2. The threatened use of weapons (including chemical and nuclear weaponry) can be such an effective deterrent that that threat can keep the peace or make existing war more humane. (Example: Britain vs. Germany, WWII.) 3. Warfare is sometimes necessary to preserve freedom. 4. Warfare to prevent the enslavement of self or others is consistent with, and perhaps even required by, Christianity. 5. The situation in Central America is complex. 6. Since the Sandinistas have broken promises (to the U.S.) in the past, they cannot be trusted in diplomacy. 7. We are not called as Christians to become helpless. Nor are we justified in refusing to help others. I agree easily with #1 and #5. On #2: The threatened use of weapons can indeed be an effective deterrent. The danger, particularly with nuclear weapons, is that sometimes threats become actions. Only a few hundred years of hindsight will tell us whether the attempt to keep the peace using a nuclear deterrent resulted in lasting world peace or the complete destruction of human civilization. On #3 and #4: In a real world, I probably have to grant this. In WWII (isn't it convenient to have a "just war" to refer to!) I probably would have supported the war against Hitler and his allies. I grant the point reluctantly, however, because I see it as a serious compromise of moral convictions. A necessary compromise, perhaps, but still a "compromise" in the negative sense. On #6: Of course we should not accept without question the promises of the Sandinistas. It still seems to me that verification, and thus diplomatic negotiation, is possible. (It can be observed, can it not, whether fair elections are held, whether treatment of Indians improves, etc.? Such observed actions can be taken into account in negotiation; blind trust is not required.) On #7: Of course we are not helpless, and of course we are to help others. (Refusal to engage in violence does not imply helplessness, by the way.) But I would add the caution that not all actions which help someone are morally justifiable; some defensive actions are worse than the actions being defended against. Now, some comments of my own: Let us agree that we want the citizens of Nicaragua to receive better treatment from their government than they are now receiving. Further, I will allow, for the time being, that in some extreme situations, morally questionable means (including warfare) may be used to accomplish important morally "good" ends, provided there is no morally "good" means by which those ends may be accomplished. The question is: Is the situation in Nicaragua one of these "extreme situations"? I think we have to establish at least the following: 1) The "evil" to be overcome is worse than the war which will be waged to overcome it. 2) There is good reason to believe that the war will indeed correct the evil in question. 3) There is no morally preferable means by which to overcome this evil. (This includes 3a: There is no adequate reason to believe the evil will correct itself.) There are probably other points to be considered, but these will get us started. In the Nicaraguan situation, in my judgement: #1 is difficult to assess, since it is partially a judgement of what the Sandinistas will become in the next ten years or so, and since it requires an evaluation of what Nicaragua would be like if there were no civil war. Neither are directly observable. #2 has not been established to my satisfaction. I foresee a parallel with Vietnam: a war escalated by American and Soviet aid which neither we nor the Soviets dare try to win, lest we begin a nuclear war. #3 deserves at least a good chance before the point is conceded. A belief that the evil will correct itself is probably (drum roll, please) wishful thinking; but given that neutral Latin American states have shown a willingness to supervise negotiations, diplomacy deserves another try. Carefully applied economic pressure might also help. We have not, in my judgement, reached the "last resort" in which war is our only remaining option. Thus the statement in my original article: "It disturbs me that our government would...attempt a military solution before all other means of conflict resolution have been tried and shown to be futile." The above, then, is why I as a Christian am unable to support American military action (including funding of the civil war) in Nicaragua, in the present circumstances. N. L. Tinkham duke!nlt (Opinions here are my own; they are not necessarily the views of Duke University, Jesse Helms, or anybody else in North Carolina.)
teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) (05/06/85)
> In article <whuxl.614> orb@whuxl.UUCP (TIM SEVENER) writes: > > > >When this country was debating slavery many Christians were active in trying > >to abolish it, but unfortunately there were also many who argued slavery > >was "supported by the Bible". > > The pro-slavery Christians ignored the Hebrew laws regulating "slavery". > Under Mosaic law, a man could sell himself into slavery (e.g. to pay depts) > but for at most SEVEN YEARS. There was no such thing as lifetime slavery. > Furthermore, children of slaves were free. Such servitude is more of > a contractual agreement, reminicient of the status of many Irish immigrants > when they entered this country. In the Bible, there is no assumption > of a permanent servant class, race or nation. > Sorry, but this isn't true. The Bible states that a Jew may sell himself, or be sold to pay for robbery, and that his sale is for six years. After six years he goes free. However, if the Jew decides to stay on with his master, he may, but he must go through a process in court. He gets his ear pierced ( to signify his lack of hearing the statement that G-D made that the Jews are His servants and not servants to others ) anf d he then serves his master until te jubilee year ( the jubilee year cancels all Jewish slavery, even if it falls in the initial six year period ). The Bible also relates a second type of slavery, the selling of non- Jews. In this type of slavery there is no freedom at all, even at the jubilee, and not only is the person sold a slave, his descendants after him are also slaves. The Bible seems to be talking of a person selling himself, and not of being sold against his will. Also, according to Jewish law, the slave becomes obligated in many commandments, and if the slave is freed, he becomes a full Jew, whether he wants to or not. The slave can be freed by either being let go by his master, or if the master knocks off a limb ( the Talmud lists 24 limbs, including teeth, eyes, etc ). The Bible does not list laws for slave traders, who took people and sold them to others. Eliyahu Teitz.
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (05/07/85)
In article <137@unc.UUCP> fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) writes: > The pro-slavery Christians ignored the Hebrew laws regulating "slavery". > Under Mosaic law, a man could sell himself into slavery (e.g. to pay depts) > but for at most SEVEN YEARS. There was no such thing as lifetime slavery. Why should Hebrew laws concern Christians? Hardly any follow Mosiac dietary laws. And I've seen numerous people in net.religion claim that JC abolished the old law. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (05/07/85)
> From Frank Silberman: > The pro-slavery Christians ignored the Hebrew laws regulating "slavery". > Under Mosaic law, a man could sell himself into slavery (e.g. to pay depts) > but for at most SEVEN YEARS. There was no such thing as lifetime slavery. > Furthermore, children of slaves were free. Such servitude is more of > a contractual agreement, reminicient of the status of many Irish immigrants > when they entered this country. In the Bible, there is no assumption > of a permanent servant class, race or nation. > > This is an example of people reading into the Bible what they want to believe. > This is why some churches are uncomfortable when laymen try to interpret > the Bible. No doubt many pro-slavers would have insisted that they received > their interpretation by divine inspiration. > > Frank Silbermann So does this mean slavery is justified for seven years? Or should the interpretation of religion be a living and growing thing which is not locked into staid dogmas? tim sevener whuxl!orb
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (05/08/85)
In article <whuxl.626> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: >> From Frank Silberman: >> The pro-slavery Christians ignored the Hebrew laws regulating "slavery". >> Under Mosaic law, a man could sell himself into slavery (e.g. to pay depts) >> but for at most SEVEN YEARS. There was no such thing as lifetime slavery. >> Furthermore, children of slaves were free. Such servitude is more of >> a contractual agreement, reminicient of the status of many Irish immigrants >> when they entered this country. In the Bible, there is no assumption >> of a permanent servant class, race or nation. >> >> This is an example of people reading into the Bible what they want to believe. >> This is why some churches are uncomfortable when laymen try to interpret >> the Bible. No doubt many pro-slavers would have insisted that they received >> their interpretation by divine inspiration. > So does this mean slavery is justified for seven years? We have such "indentured servitude" here in the U.S. For instance, the army will pay for medical school training in exchange for a seven year hitch as a doctor in the service. Once you've accepted, you can't quit until your time is up! I'm not going to debate whether "indentured servitude" is or is not justified in the Bible. My point is that, even WERE it justified, the Bible did NOT justify the type of slavery of the Old South. Some Christians at the time (ignorantly) thought it did. > Or should the interpretation of religion be a living and growing > thing which is not locked into staid dogmas? > tim sevener whuxl!orb That statement is so vague and touchy-feely that I'm not at all sure what you're talking about. Frank Silbermann