A NEW interesting question for you (CC)

[Heather in Neverland]

I haven't posted any of the debate questions from my class lately because, to be honest, they haven't been all that interesting. :tongue_smilie: (and yes, I am still taking classes all the way from Malaysia...gotta love technology!).

 

In light of threads on here regarding pacifism, I thought some of you might enjoy this topic from last week's debate:

 

"Christians living in the American colonies in the 1770s had some difficult decisions to make. Romans 13, for example, speaks of obeying political authorities, since they are ordained by God; but many came to believe that revolution was ethically admissable under certain circumstances. IF YOU HAD BEEN A BIBLICAL CHRISTIAN LIVING IN THE 1770s, WOULD YOU HAVE PARTICIPATED IN THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION. IF SO, AT WHAT POINT, TO WHAT EXTENT, AND FOR WHAT REASONS? IF NOT, WHY NOT? USING YOUR OWN CRITERIA, SHOULD AFRICAN SLAVES HAVE REVOLTED AGAINST THEIR COLONIAL MASTERS IN THE SAME PERIOD?"

 

This lead to a lively debate in my class and I'd love to hear what you all have to say about it!

[BalanceSeeker]

:lurk5:

 

I've pondered this myself...

[Julie in Austin]

Fascinating--thanks for sharing.

[Kathleen in VA]

These are great questions which my oldest children and I have discussed many, many times. We've never come to a satisfactory conclusion. I'd love to know what others think.

[TXMomof4]

Alright - I'll jump right in.

 

Yes, I would have participated in the Revolution. I know it is taking it entirely out of context but I always think of the verse about "freeing the oppressed". I don't know that I could have been an instigator of the war, but certainly once the ball was rolling, I would have jumped on.

 

And, using that same logic I think the slaves should have revolted. If they had banded together and worked there's no way the slave owners could have stopped them.

 

I am always so perturbed by the idea that the few control the masses. In WWII if the Jews had truly fought back who knows how many could have been saved.

 

It boils down to this for me - How much are you willing to sacrifice for your freedom?

 

I know that is overly simplistic and I'm sure there's gaping holes in my logic, but that's what you get when it's late and I'm very sleepy!

[Lovedtodeath]

 

"Christians living in the American colonies in the 1770s had some difficult decisions to make. Romans 13, for example, speaks of obeying political authorities, since they are ordained by God; but many came to believe that revolution was ethically admissable under certain circumstances. IF YOU HAD BEEN A BIBLICAL CHRISTIAN LIVING IN THE 1770s, WOULD YOU HAVE PARTICIPATED IN THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION. IF SO, AT WHAT POINT, TO WHAT EXTENT, AND FOR WHAT REASONS? IF NOT, WHY NOT? USING YOUR OWN CRITERIA, SHOULD AFRICAN SLAVES HAVE REVOLTED AGAINST THEIR COLONIAL MASTERS IN THE SAME PERIOD?"

In the Revolution... no. Slaves revolting... yes. The slaves revolting would be a matter of self defense. The revolution was about tax money from what I understand.

[laughing lioness]

To hijack the post for a minute- during WWII the Jews, and others, did fight back. There was resistance going on throughout the war- Jews, Germans, and others. The problem was that 1) Hitler controlled the media and did not let any resistance be broadcast and 2) when a resistance was "discovered" the destruction was usually total and involved far more than those resisting.

Yes, if I had lived in the 1770's I would have resisted. The king was treating the colonists as if they were a conquered people vs. Englishmen with voting rights and citizenry. He was a tryrant using loyal subjects for unjust means.

[ElizabethB]

Before becoming a Christian, yes American revolution.

 

Brand new Christian--yes.

 

More mature Christian--I thought no.

 

Discussed it with my husband, he thinks the Holy Spirit would have prompted Christians to be pro revolution.

 

So, now I think yes.

 

From what I have read, there was a strong Christian influence and presence on the revolution side. I would live to read some primary sources and figure out what devotuted Christians on each side were thinking.

Edited July 29, 2009 by ElizabethB

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

As so many folks were in the colonies due to religious persecution I have a hard time imagining them viewing the king in England as any sort of legitimate authority on a biblical level. More of a worldly reality.

 

Not exactly a "what would I do" answer but rather how I view one aspect of their take on events.

[SquirrellyMama]

Revolution: I'm not sure anymore. I talked with my dh about it and he said no. We've discussed it and I can see his point.

 

Slavery: No, I don't think they should have revolted. Honestly, I think more slave owners should have been brave and freed their slaves. There were some prominent people with slaves who didn't like slavery but were afraid to free them. That is what I would like to have seen. I think people in power could have persuaded others with that act.

 

 

Kelly

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

Those are very hard questions. Which I have also thought about often. I think I would have been very upset by many of the tactics used by the revolutionaries. I don't believe war, if it is just, excuses downright disregard for the welfare of others, especially those who wish to remain neutral or are not participating in the sins of the tyrannical regime but do not want to revolt either. One could even question our "right" to be in this land to begin with.

 

The slave revolt in the 1770's was publicly sanctioned by the Colonial (English) Government, solely for the purpose of discouraging the revolutionaries. That government was using the slaves for their purposes, it didn't really believe that they should be free men. Even so, it brings up another question, who should the slaves have obeyed, their personal masters or their governmental masters? They were not free to choose to obey noone.

 

I once wrote a poem about the subject of freedom and slavery. Here is a portion:

 

Freedom is an illusion

Independence a child's fantasy

All are slaves

Willingly or unwillingly

Serving countless masters

Past, present, and possibilities

In ignorance believing

They are masters of their destinies

 

No one has the freedom

to do exactly as he pleases

And live

At the very least

We must obey our stomachs

Or die....to be

Bound in chains eternally

 

Freedom from one master

Does not mean absolute liberty

If I loose the bonds of tyranny

I become the servant of responsibility

I must answer to the Lord

Whether or not I am serving me.

Only before conception

Was I completely free

 

 

ETA: I believe the question of whether or not slaves should revolt assumes the institution of slavery is condoned. The best question is whether or not one person should be allowed, by the government and/or society, to enslave another. I might qualify that with "without his consent." Another question would be whether or not voluntary slaves should have basic rights protected by the government. Those are far easier questions to answer.

 

By voluntary slaves I mean indentured servants and those subject to contracts that they entered into of their own free will. Even those that owe money are slaves in a sense, perhaps that is why the phrase "Neither a borrower or a lender be."

Edited July 29, 2009 by Virginia Dawn

[Soph the vet]

In the Revolution... no. Slaves revolting... yes. The slaves revolting would be a matter of self defense. The revolution was about tax money from what I understand.

Actually, the whole "taxation without representation" was down about number 17 or so on the list of 27 gripes in the Declaration of Independence. The Revolution was about so much more than just that. The emphasis on economic reasons for the revolution did not arise until the early 20th century when history texts were being written in that fashion.

 

I would have supported the revolution. I also would have helped any slaves I could.

[lionfamily1999]

IF YOU HAD BEEN A BIBLICAL CHRISTIAN LIVING IN THE 1770s, WOULD YOU HAVE PARTICIPATED IN THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION. IF SO, AT WHAT POINT, TO WHAT EXTENT, AND FOR WHAT REASONS? IF NOT, WHY NOT? USING YOUR OWN CRITERIA, SHOULD AFRICAN SLAVES HAVE REVOLTED AGAINST THEIR COLONIAL MASTERS IN THE SAME PERIOD?"

Good for you, continuing your education all the way over there :)

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "Biblical" Christian, so I might be waaaay off target with my answer, but I'll try :tongue_smilie:

 

First, I'm don't think that Christianity would have stood in my way. The writings and speaches from that time were incredibly moving. While I might have tried to pray about it, I'm pretty sure Paine's words would've been churning in my head enough to deafen me to anything God might've had to say. I am human, and the ideals they put worth would have appealed to me greatly.

 

Secondly, I don't really believe that political/government leaders are ordained by God. Render unto Ceasar, sure, but what if there was a chance to usurp Ceasar? The idea that an island has no business running a continent would've had some play in the debate as well. Not to mention, separating from the Church of England and being able to worship how I see fit. I wonder, if I had a chance to get rid of the fiery furnace (so to speak), if I would've seen it as a chance given to me by God. IOW, if it had been possible for the older Christians to end the grasp of government upon them and their religion, I would be surprised if they didn't take advantage of it.

 

I would not have taken a gun, I am a lady after all :lol: but, I would've done whatever I could as far as housing, clothing, feeding, ministering, and whatever else to help our soldiers. I would probably have to have kissed my dh goodbye too.

 

Finally, the slaves thought they were fighting for their own freedom too. That's why they didn't rebel. They heard all this beautiful talk about all men being equal and assumed it included them. It wasn't until the slaves started celebrating that the white people realized they thought they were free too.

[WTMCassandra]

From what I have read, there was a strong Christian influence and presence on the revolution side. I would live to read some primary sources and figure out what devotuted Christians on each side were thinking.

 

I have heard "doctrine of interposition" used to describe their position, but I'm uncertain what primary source it comes from.

[Jill- OK]

I'm not sure what you mean by "Biblical" Christian, so I might be waaaay off target with my answer, but I'll try :tongue_smilie:

 

...she means Christians who try to live by Biblical standards.

 

I think it's harder to reconcile some of these things if you're a Christian that attempts to live by Scriptural precepts.

 

If I'm not mistaken, many of the Christian Loyalists (colonists who didn't support the Revolution) cited Romans 13:1 as part of their reasoning.

 

Honestly...I don't know. It's something I've thought about, and I'm glad to see a thread about this, because it's a thought/conversation-provoking topic.

 

As it stands, right now, I don't believe I would have felt good about the Revolution. I wouldn't have felt good about the Civil War, either. I would hope that I'd be in a position to be a part of the Abolitionist movement, had I lived during the Civil War, and while I don't know that I could have encouraged family members to fight against Britain**, I don't know that I could have assisted them against my own countrymen, either. (Sort of an Israelite midwife attitude, I guess, lol. Not exactly rising up, violently, but doing the right thing, peacefully).

 

(**Yes, those of you who are remembering that my husband is a retired military guy are correct; I'm not saying I'd have any pull, lol...just that I wouldn't be happy about it. ;-) I can tell you that my husband wouldn't agree with me on this issue.)

 

I'm not giving a hard and fast answer, I guess, because after all of these years of being a Christian, this is still something I'm sorting out. I'm certainly farther away from the assumption that everything our forefathers did was great, wonderful, Scriptural and right than I was, several years ago, but I wrestle with reconciling that with my strong belief that America ended up being a great blessing to many in this world, precisely because of the type of government that emerged from...revolution. It was softer and more civilized than others (the French revolution, for example), but revolution, nonetheless.

 

When I think of Bible verses, I can come up with plenty that would seem to discourage rebellion against a king. I can't think of any that justify it, offhand. (And I'm talking about clearly...not an implied meaning). Not saying they don't exist...just saying I don't know them. I'd be happy to know about them, though, because honestly...I'd like very much to believe that the American Revolution was the Right Thing.

 

I don't know if our position and place in the world is because of the Revolution, or in spite of it, in other words.

 

Or maybe just a mix of both?

Edited July 29, 2009 by Jill, OK
spelling error

[Jill- OK]

I know someone might look at my questioning of the Revolution on biblical grounds and wonder why I would feel justified being an Abolitionist. I've read many Christians' opinion that the slavery going on in 18th/19th century America was under the same sanction that the slavery talked about in the Bible was, and I don't personally believe that.

 

In fact, 18th/19th century American slavery prevented slave owners, in some cases, from acting biblically toward their slaves. There were instances where a person couldn't legally free a slave they owned.

 

I believe the Abolitionist movement in some respects was advocating for a unified system, with regards to slavery (some states allowed slavery, some didn't), and (I know this doesn't sit well with many states' rights proponents) I don't think it's going against the established government to encourage them to bring civil order to all of the states in a union. (Abolishing the type of slavery that was operating at that time was the only civilized option, in my opinion.)

Edited July 29, 2009 by Jill, OK

[lionfamily1999]

...she means Christians who try to live by Biblical standards.

 

I think it's harder to reconcile some of these things if you're a Christian that attempts to live by Scriptural precepts.

Thank you, I wasn't sure.

 

I do agree that it would be hard to reconcile them, but at the same time, I based my answer on my complete nature (including all the not so great stuff). I wonder if they would not have seen it as the walls of Jericho (sp, sorry), or like Moses freeing his people. There were times when God's people fought back, because it was what God wanted and I wonder if people then didn't feel that God wanted them to have a place where they can worship as they see fit.

[Jill- OK]

I wonder if they would not have seen it as the walls of Jericho (sp, sorry), or like Moses freeing his people. There were times when God's people fought back, because it was what God wanted and I wonder if people then didn't feel that God wanted them to have a place where they can worship as they see fit.

 

In fact, I think I just read something about sermons during that time (from preachers advocating the rebellion) pointing to America as the New Israel, or something to that effect. I do believe that the Christians who rebelled saw it as God's will.

 

But...(treading lightly here, going tippy-toe, lol)...that doesn't always mean it is, you know. Just because Christians feel that something's right doesn't automatically make it God's Will. (Wasn't "God Wills It!" the cry of the first--or second, or whichever--Crusade?)

 

That's why I think it's worthwhile to examine these types of things in light of Scripture, if we're going to talk about how "Christian" something is. (Not saying that Christians always do things precisely how the Bible directs, or, like you mention, don't ever just act out of our own inclinations...just saying that I think we need to make a distinction when we do.)

 

And again...not saying the Revolution wasn't the Biblical thing to do. Just reasoning out loud, I guess.

Edited July 29, 2009 by Jill, OK

[lionfamily1999]

In fact, I think I just read something about sermons during that time (from preachers advocating the rebellion) pointing to America as the New Israel, or something to that effect. I do believe that the Christians who rebelled saw it as God's will.

 

But...(treading lightly here, going tippy-toe, lol)...that doesn't always mean it is, you know. Just because Christians feel that something's right doesn't automatically make it God's Will. (Wasn't "God Wills It!" the cry of the first--or second, or whichever--Crusade?)

 

That's why I think it's worthwhile to examine these types of things in light of Scripture, if we're going to talk about how "Christian" something is. (Not saying that Christians always do things precisely how the Bible directs, or, like you mention, don't ever just act out of our own inclinations...just saying that I think we need to make a distinction when we do.)

 

And again...not saying the Revolution wasn't the Biblical thing to do. Just reasoning out loud, I guess.

Ah, but we're not discussing whether or not it was right, lol, we're discussing how WE would've handled it. At least, that's the distinction I thought I saw, but I could very easily be wrong ;)

 

I'm sure they debated the topic and I'm sure it got hot and heavy. The Quakers are very clear on their stance regarding violence, but a lot of the various Christian denominations see things differently. Strictly speaking on the scripture is so different from how particular sects or denominations see things :(

 

Strictly Christian Biblical world view, they should not have been involved anyway, having sold their stuff and being much too busy going out into the world to be able to fight a wordly war.

[Jill- OK]

Ah, but we're not discussing whether or not it was right, lol, we're discussing how WE would've handled it.

 

I thought the question was, "If you were a Biblical Christian, would you..."

 

So...doesn't "What Does "Biblical" Mean?" come into play, there?

 

I guess I was exploring what I might think was right...to explain what I might do. :D

 

(ETA: And I use the word "might" heavily, here, because I have a hard enough time picturing myself not living in the wonderful 21st century, without adding ethical questions to it, lol. Who knows what 18th century Jill would do?!?)

Edited July 29, 2009 by Jill, OK

[Dirtroad]

You are under the authority of the government. You obey the laws and practive to be a good citizen. YOU ARE NOT to obey them (and there is the open door for revolution) if their authority goes against the laws of God. You do not obey if the laws are non-Christian and you are being forced into sin. (could really apply to today's government!)

 

I am not sure if high taxes is a reason for revolt, but if taxes that are taken from you & given to a church that is not humbly & respectfully teaching God's word (in some areas, not teaching anything or the exact opposite)... then you enter into a possible area that could be used to revolt.

 

The corruption of the King mandating so many things of the colonist could open doors if those acts lead them contrary to God's law ex. in the freedom to worship God.

 

As for slavery, that is not the same. The slaves often were taken to church (or allowed to worship) and not forced into such compromises with the government. They are not treated well in all cases, but some were treated very well (but still slaves & no real choices in their life). Their situation is to be good "servants" (as others are to be good citizens) until the owner tells them to murder, steal, etc. That is when they are being forced to contradict God's word. However... overwork, underfeeding, and physical abuse dont' fall into that category. God did not have the Jews REVOLT against Egypt... he used Moses to convince Pharoah and lead them away after Pharoah granted them FREEDOM. Then he used the SEA to settle the issue when Pharoah broke his word.

 

This is not a pro-slavery post... but slaves have been throughout the history of the world (sadly)... cheap labor & spoils of war (sadly).... but it is a (pitiful) form of employment and NOT contrary to obeying God (if you are the slave). I think it is the same as being rich/poor, red/brown/white, or educated/uneducated - different roles in society (hardships or not)... and you obey God. Dont' lie on the bills for the employer... don't steal for your boss... and (for many) don't work on the Sabbath.

 

The one who is contrary to God is the one who abuses, neglect & mistreats, his slave/citizen and isn't obeying God in HIS behavior to these people by whom he is served.

 

sorry if too long - trying to be clear & not start something!

[lionfamily1999]

I thought the question was, "If you were a Biblical Christian, would you..."

 

So...doesn't "What Does "Biblical" Mean?" come into play, there?

 

I guess I was exploring what I might think was right...to explain what I might do. :D

 

(ETA: And I use the word "might" heavily, here, because I have a hard enough time picturing myself not living in the wonderful 21st century, without adding ethical questions to it, lol. Who knows what 18th century Jill would do?!?)

Oh, right, I just took it to mean, what's your opinion...

 

Augh... I'm not disagreeing with you, all I meant was that I didn't think you had to tear into the Bible to answer, so much as answering from the perspective of a Biblical Christian, if you know what I mean, lol... and if you do, I think you're ahead of me :lol:

[Guest Katia]

Ok, jmo here:

 

The way I understand it, the revolution happened because the Colonists were supposedly Englishmen with all the rights and redresses of Englishmen......except for the fact that the King ignored their rights, ignored their pleas and protests (to which all Englishmen at that time had the right to make), and instead of treating the Colonists like English subjects, they were treated like bondsmen and given no rights. It was simply an intolerable situation.

 

This quote from the movie 1776 has always stood out to me as the main reason for the revolution:

 

Benjamin Franklin: If I'm to hear myself called an Englishman, sir, I assure I prefer I'd remained asleep.

 

John Dickinson: What's so terrible about being called an Englishman? The English don't seem to mind.

 

Benjamin Franklin: Nor would I, were I given the full rights of an Englishman. But to call me one without those rights is like calling an ox a bull. He's thankful for the honor, but he'd much rather have restored what's rightfully his.

 

So.....let's put it into a context for today: Say the national government keeps making laws that take more and more of American's Constitutional freedoms away from you. You follow all the proper procedures, laws, rights, etc. that you have available to you as an American citizen to show TPTB that you do actually have these rights and that the government has no right to demand something else of you or to take those rights away. But TPTB in government ignores you. What do you do?

 

Just follow them blindly and give up your rights? Or....fight for them?

 

I am a Bible believing Christian. I would fight for my right to remain a Constitutional American citizen. But in that day in time would I? Those were rare, hearty and brave men.

 

But, there is also that fact that if they had lost....they would all have been hung, completely within English rights and laws, for treason and traitors to the Crown. Interesting discussion.

Edited July 29, 2009 by Katia
non-specific pronouns corrected (I hope)

[Ginger]

So does anyone think another revolution is on the horizon?

[lionfamily1999]

So does anyone think another revolution is on the horizon?

May I recommend an s/o thread?

 

If you start it they will come.

 

I will too :)

[Ginger]

Spinning off of Heather's thread and talk of whether we would have supported the American Revolution. This has been in my thoughts a lot lately. I don't like where this country is going. The parties are so polarized that it doesn't leave much room for a middle ground. I don't think we are at that point...but perhaps fastforward 10-15 years...I can't help but wonder if we are heading that way.

[Ginger]

oops...that was supposed to be a new thread.

[mrsrevmeg]

My kids studied the Revolutionary War last year. I had really never learned all the facts surrounding it. Of course, in school I had always learned that the colonists revolted because of the taxes. Then come to find out, they were being taxed because of the war debt England had racked up, HELPING them. My perspective has really changed. Also, we have so many things written in our national documents about freedom, but it was written by people who owned slaves. I can not imagine OWNING another person. I do not understand how these people could treat other humans as less than human. When taking census, the slaves counted as 3/5 of a person, whereas a white person counted as a full person. To be quite honest with you, it now makes me cringe to hear people say "America was founded on Godly principals," because truthfully, no we weren't.

[katilac]

Spinning off of Heather's thread and talk of whether we would have supported the American Revolution. This has been in my thoughts a lot lately. I don't like where this country is going. The parties are so polarized that it doesn't leave much room for a middle ground. I don't think we are at that point...but perhaps fastforward 10-15 years...I can't help but wonder if we are heading that way.

 

I'm pretty sure discussing this (a possible current revolution) violates board policy, so you might not want to start that thread without double-checking the rules.

[Heather in Neverland]

You are under the authority of the government. You obey the laws and practive to be a good citizen. YOU ARE NOT to obey them (and there is the open door for revolution) if their authority goes against the laws of God. You do not obey if the laws are non-Christian and you are being forced into sin. (could really apply to today's government!)

 

I am not sure if high taxes is a reason for revolt, but if taxes that are taken from you & given to a church that is not humbly & respectfully teaching God's word (in some areas, not teaching anything or the exact opposite)... then you enter into a possible area that could be used to revolt.

 

The corruption of the King mandating so many things of the colonist could open doors if those acts lead them contrary to God's law ex. in the freedom to worship God.

 

As for slavery, that is not the same. The slaves often were taken to church (or allowed to worship) and not forced into such compromises with the government. They are not treated well in all cases, but some were treated very well (but still slaves & no real choices in their life). Their situation is to be good "servants" (as others are to be good citizens) until the owner tells them to murder, steal, etc. That is when they are being forced to contradict God's word. However... overwork, underfeeding, and physical abuse dont' fall into that category. God did not have the Jews REVOLT against Egypt... he used Moses to convince Pharoah and lead them away after Pharoah granted them FREEDOM. Then he used the SEA to settle the issue when Pharoah broke his word.

 

This is not a pro-slavery post... but slaves have been throughout the history of the world (sadly)... cheap labor & spoils of war (sadly).... but it is a (pitiful) form of employment and NOT contrary to obeying God (if you are the slave). I think it is the same as being rich/poor, red/brown/white, or educated/uneducated - different roles in society (hardships or not)... and you obey God. Dont' lie on the bills for the employer... don't steal for your boss... and (for many) don't work on the Sabbath.

 

The one who is contrary to God is the one who abuses, neglect & mistreats, his slave/citizen and isn't obeying God in HIS behavior to these people by whom he is served.

 

sorry if too long - trying to be clear & not start something!

 

This was pretty much the gist of my answer in the class but not quite as detailed as yours. You made some excellent points!

[Heather in Neverland]

My kids studied the Revolutionary War last year. I had really never learned all the facts surrounding it. Of course, in school I had always learned that the colonists revolted because of the taxes. Then come to find out, they were being taxed because of the war debt England had racked up, HELPING them. My perspective has really changed. Also, we have so many things written in our national documents about freedom, but it was written by people who owned slaves. I can not imagine OWNING another person. I do not understand how these people could treat other humans as less than human. When taking census, the slaves counted as 3/5 of a person, whereas a white person counted as a full person. To be quite honest with you, it now makes me cringe to hear people say "America was founded on Godly principals," because truthfully, no we weren't.

 

This is definitely a perspective I have not heard before. Can you explain more about the war debts?

[A.D.]

You are under the authority of the government. You obey the laws and practive to be a good citizen. YOU ARE NOT to obey them (and there is the open door for revolution) if their authority goes against the laws of God. You do not obey if the laws are non-Christian and you are being forced into sin. (could really apply to today's government!)

 

I am not sure if high taxes is a reason for revolt, but if taxes that are taken from you & given to a church that is not humbly & respectfully teaching God's word (in some areas, not teaching anything or the exact opposite)... then you enter into a possible area that could be used to revolt.

 

The corruption of the King mandating so many things of the colonist could open doors if those acts lead them contrary to God's law ex. in the freedom to worship God.

 

As for slavery, that is not the same. The slaves often were taken to church (or allowed to worship) and not forced into such compromises with the government. They are not treated well in all cases, but some were treated very well (but still slaves & no real choices in their life). Their situation is to be good "servants" (as others are to be good citizens) until the owner tells them to murder, steal, etc. That is when they are being forced to contradict God's word. However... overwork, underfeeding, and physical abuse dont' fall into that category. God did not have the Jews REVOLT against Egypt... he used Moses to convince Pharoah and lead them away after Pharoah granted them FREEDOM. Then he used the SEA to settle the issue when Pharoah broke his word.

 

This is not a pro-slavery post... but slaves have been throughout the history of the world (sadly)... cheap labor & spoils of war (sadly).... but it is a (pitiful) form of employment and NOT contrary to obeying God (if you are the slave). I think it is the same as being rich/poor, red/brown/white, or educated/uneducated - different roles in society (hardships or not)... and you obey God. Dont' lie on the bills for the employer... don't steal for your boss... and (for many) don't work on the Sabbath.

 

The one who is contrary to God is the one who abuses, neglect & mistreats, his slave/citizen and isn't obeying God in HIS behavior to these people by whom he is served.

 

sorry if too long - trying to be clear & not start something!

 

Slavery, as practiced in the US, was not a form of employment. To try and argue it was is simply absurd, and frankly, quite insulting. If you believe that expecting someone to be involuntarily forced to serve another, and to have them and their family subject to the whims of their owner is Biblical, then I want no part of your Bible.

 

I find it interesting that you find a slave uprising to go against the Bible (because the slavemasters took the slaves to church? oh my...), yet are quick to assert your right to break free of an "oppressive" government. That says a great deal about your understanding of slavery.

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

The Stamp Act and the Townsend Act were to pay debts from the French and Indian War. The tea tax was to bail out the East India Company which was in financial trouble. (This according to dh who is something of an expert on this time period.)

[Kathleen in VA]

Slavery, as practiced in the US, was not a form of employment. To try and argue it was is simply absurd, and frankly, quite insulting. If you believe that expecting someone to be involuntarily forced to serve another, and to have them and their family subject to the whims of their owner is Biblical, then I want no part of your Bible.

 

I find it interesting that you find a slave uprising to go against the Bible (because the slavemasters took the slaves to church? oh my...), yet are quick to assert your right to break free of an "oppressive" government. That says a great deal about your understanding of slavery.

 

As a Christian, I've always wondered how those calling themselves Christians at that time reconciled owning other people with Christ's mandate to treat other people as they would want to be treated themselves. I just don't understand that in the least. However, the Bible does say that slaves should obey their masters. I think it comes down to each individual's conscience.

 

We read Amos Fortune, Free Man this year as one of our read-alouds (it is based on a true story). The description of his capture was horrific - it was wrong for the men involved (slave traders and other Africans) to engage in such activity. The whole slave industry was wrong. But when Amos got to America he made the most of it. He learned several trades from the different masters who owned him (they were all of the kind sort) and eventually bought his freedom as well as that of many others. He was also able to buy land and leave a legacy.

 

So it was wrong for those who captured and sold him. I'm not so sure about the man who bought him because his motive was pity and he took very good care of Amos. Seeing that Amos had no way to make a living, he was careful to train him in his own trade. His plan was to free Amos but he died before the deed was accomplished. (Amos actually refused the first offer his owner made to free him.) Amos became a Christian while living with his first owner. He then lived his life according to the Bible and remained a slave until he was able to purchase his freedom. He did not revolt. I guess my point is, both the owner and Amos made a point of obeying the Bible in regards to what it says about slaves. They each had to deal with their own consciences regardless of the wicked deeds of others.

 

In the case of those slaves who were not treated kindly, I lean more to the notion that they needed to act in self defense. That would not have meant a revolt, necessarily, but running away seems reasonable. I really don't have enough knowledge to make a decision about whether a revolt would have been reasonable. When I think of a revolt I think of a situation where innocent people might end up paying for the wicked deeds of others - not exactly my idea of justice.

 

We all find ourselves, from time to time, in situations over which we have no control. We can choose to become bitter and angry and vindictive when things are handled unjustly, but life is full of curve balls and you have to just move on. Being bitter and angry about it accomplishes nothing positive - it is a complete waste of time and energy. So you make the most of today and just keep going. We are each responsible for own own actions - I can not control those of others, whether good or bad. (I may be able to influence them, but not control.)

 

The story of Joseph is an excellent example of someone who was treated maliciously (sold into slavery) but who kept his eyes on God, trusting for God's timing for his deliverance and vindication. He saw God's hand in everything that happened to him. He allowed God to deal with those who had treated him unjustly.

 

The real pity is why didn't the founders see fit to outlaw slave ownership as well as the slave trade during the Constitutional Convention??? It was discussed, but a compromise was reached in order not to alienate the South from agreeing to its terms. They outlawed the slave trade but set the date ahead (sometime in the early 1800s - can't remember exactly.) I know, I know - too late to cry over that. Still, it does leave me wondering what they could have possibly been thinking.

[pqr]

To hijack the post for a minute- during WWII the Jews, and others, did fight back. There was resistance going on throughout the war- Jews, Germans, and others. The problem was that 1) Hitler controlled the media and did not let any resistance be broadcast and 2) when a resistance was "discovered" the destruction was usually total and involved far more than those resisting.

Yes, if I had lived in the 1770's I would have resisted. The king was treating the colonists as if they were a conquered people vs. Englishmen with voting rights and citizenry. He was a tryrant using loyal subjects for unjust means.

 

 

To further hijack the thread. One of the reasons that resistance was so difficult is that the Nazi Government, like almost every other dictatorship in the 20th Century, instituted strict gun control legislation which deprived the people of the means to resist.

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.---Adolph Hitler

 

Would I have betrayed my king, a man to whom I had given my oath??? Only after great provocation.

 

Remember that even after he took up arms George Washington still toasted the King.