Sentences with phrase «were against slavery»

It does not mean all white women were against slavery.

If you take Democrats out of your sentence it reads «Actually originally «conservatives» were those who were against slavery during the American revolution, so if you think slavery was a good part of history then i guess your right, again irony is a female dog

Actually originally conservatives were Democrats who were against slavery during the American revolution, so if you think slavery was a good part of history then i guess your right, again irony is a female dog

And there were some more Deist founders who were against slavery.

PaulD The ones who were against slavery were described as «liberal», non-Bible-believing, and not «real» Christians.

They were AGAINST slavery, that is why Missouri kicked them out with an extermination order.

We were against slavery and pro-civil rights.»

And we in the modern West are against slavery and the racism that supported it, right?

Is against slavery, but ignores the large number of verses in the bible that obviously accept and promote slavery.

«God is against slavery.»

Repetition of this facile argument is key, down to a speech given here by a pre-Civil War Republican: «We, the Republicans, are against slavery, and the Democrats are for slavery.»

He was against slavery and he knew it was the right thing to do.

When he finally met his grandmother he could have become a wealthy man but he was against slavery and hated the way the slaves were treated.

Not exact matches

An argument against my position, of course, is having African - American soldiers serving at forts named for very or even fantically pro-slavery men (not Lee [although he was okay with slavery], but check out some of the others).

To say Jesus was not against slavery is total falsehood.

The false prophets or dreamers who try to lead you astray must be put to death, for they encourage rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of slavery in the land of Egypt.

Molly Oshatz is the author of Slavery and Sin: The Fight Against Slavery and the Rise of Liberal Protestantism.

The first Christian abolitionists were a tiny minority, fighting a difficult battle against Christian slavery supporters who could quote twice as much scripture for their position, and still could.

What logical, caring person can support slavery, discrimination against women, discrimination against gays, discrimination against the handicapped, beating children, beating elderly female slaves without punishment, supporting a god who would let the family of his greatest supporter be killed to WIN A BET, etc..?

The game, which has the support of the Archbishop of Canterbury and Pope Francis, was organised to raise money for a joint Catholic and Anglican campaign against modern - day slavery and human trafficking.

The Bible is silent on slavery, for or against, but it addresses the way parties should act if they be on either side, master or slave.

You seem to prefer the conclusion that Christianity is inherently against slavery.

What good are morals if the one giving them supports morals that most people consider to be awful like slavery and discrimination against women, gays and the handicapped, as well as beating children and slaves without punishment in some cases?

God's «morals» come in handy for Christian h0mophobes looking for an EXCUSE for their prejudice, but are ignored when any discussions come up that are embarrassing like support for slavery and discrimination against the handicapped.

The notorious Dred Scott decision (1837) asserted that because slaves were their masters» property Congress could not ban slavery anywhere in the United States — a holding that ignored the Framers» compromise of tolerating slavery temporarily but allowing eventual measures against it.

In other words, this text is not about how to go to heaven when you die, but rather about how to go from slavery to death in this world as we war against others (Eph 2:1 - 3), to unity and peace with others as we live in the family of God (Eph 2:11 - 22).

[Perhaps the strongest argument against Piper's hermeneutical approach to the New Testament household codes is the fact that the very same hermeneutic has been applied to these passages to justify slavery.

The Church is against murder, sexism, slavery and the like, because the Church is faithful to Christ and His teachings.

In Jesus» culture, (and indeed in many cultures today), the fatherless were especially vulnerable to poverty, exploitation, and injustice, often left without an advocate in the courts or a protector to guard them against hunger, slavery and trafficking.

The Civil War as Theological Crisis by Mark Noll: This book is a stunning eye - opener that details the religious - based arguments for and against slavery in the buildup to the U.S. Civil War.

They pointed out that slavery was practiced by the people of Israel and regulated by God, and that Jesus never said a word against slaveholding.

Where did the morals come from that tell so many Christians that the Bible is WRONG to support slavery and discrimination against women and the handicapped?

You are the first person I know who says slavery and mindless discriminations against women, gays, and the handicapped is PERFECT.

How are you going to explain to him why you didn't support slavery like he does or discrimination against women like he does or discrimination against the handicapped like he did or (hopefully) not beating your children with rods like he insists on?

This was followed by five subsequent phases of development in a regular pattern of succession: (1) the organization of home and foreign mission societies to channel new leadership into church planting or into the field; (2) the production and distribution of Christian literature; (3) the renewal and extension of Christian educational institutions; (4) attempts at «the reformation of manners» — i.e., the reassertion of Christian moral standards in a decadent society; and (5) the great humanitarian crusades against social evils like slavery, war and intemperance.

On this occasion, Douglass was asking «the people of Britain» to join the struggle against American slavery.

I suppose people who owned slaves felt pretty discriminated against as the social tide change and America progressed and realized the evil that was slavery.

He argued against the evils of slavery with eloquence, but his policy agenda was modest and aimed at the swing voters of the Midwest.

For the British, it was the actual experience of slavery in some of its most brutal forms in the West Indies that precipitated thinking hard about slavery, which then precipitated biblical and theological arguments against it, which then led to political action.»

It's actually against slavery!»

A few misleading accusations against the Bible» on slavery or women's rights, for example» are enough to cause modern conservatives to abandon Biblical arguments altogether.

«There is never any doubt in the Bible that we are to treat others properly and New World form of slavery where the person was the property of another was against the law of God.»

ouch that is some narcissistic view of yourself to call the people that successfully landed on the moon, fought against the Nazi regime and started the abolishment of slavery gullible

Of course, John and Abigail Adams and Samuel Adams were devout Christians (unlike Jefferson who was a deist), and they were strongly against slavery.

CARE Northern Ireland Policy Officer Mark Baillie said: «This is a landmark moment in the fight against modern day slavery.

To seek, therefore, to abolish slavery would be to rebel against the will of God.

They are therefore a powerful tool in the fight against modern slavery.»

Incidents of people being forced to work against their will under the threat of punishment, human trafficking, child slavery, and forced or early marriage are all considered forms of modern slavery, according to the Anti-Slavery International.

This, of course, is where the notion of group identity enters into the reparations argument, since the crime of slavery — by the logic of modern reparations — was committed, not against individuals, but against a group (African - Americans) and therefore reparations can be paid to a group (African - American descendants).

On March 26, a group of New York — based lawyers headed by Edward D. Fagan, who spearheaded successful suits on behalf of Holocaust survivors against European firms that collaborated with the Nazis in using concentration camp inmates as laborers, filed suit in U.S. District Court in Brooklyn against FleetBoston Financial, the insurance giant Aetna, and railroad conglomerate CSX Corporation, on the grounds that these corporations are the successors of companies that profited from slavery before the Civil War.