tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post1090085103690635833..comments2024-03-29T20:21:24.821+11:00Comments on The Social Pathologist: Sam Francis: Beautiful Losers.The Social Pathologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12927698533626086780noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-11798913976996044572016-05-31T04:40:28.930+10:002016-05-31T04:40:28.930+10:00Slavery is a biblical law. There are many laws con...Slavery is a biblical law. There are many laws concerning how to deal with slaves. See the laws of slavery in Maimonides. It is a whole book. And the laws of the Bible are forever. There is nothing to indicate that the laws were temporary. The very last of the prophets Malachi ends his prophecy with "Remember the Law of Moses." The whole idea that the Law can be abridged when it says openly that it is forever is ridiculous.Avraham https://www.blogger.com/profile/07822433921393627746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-36889312940301634972016-05-24T05:31:20.554+10:002016-05-24T05:31:20.554+10:00Francis predicted the rise of a Trump-like figure....Francis predicted the rise of a Trump-like figure.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16046202647270439670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-16304764719953209932016-05-21T01:24:34.592+10:002016-05-21T01:24:34.592+10:00That is interesting but I am not entirely convince...That is interesting but I am not entirely convinced.<br /><br />There is such a thing as lack of prudence in one's statements.<br /><br />That is interesting about slavery and Catholicism. As you may know I (Julian O'Dea) am a Catholic. It does infuriate me how quickly modern popes have decided that the death penalty is wrong for example. Or that democracy or feminism are always good things. Historically the Church has not said these things.<br /><br />I actually know a modern Catholic who argues that slavery is acceptable. However my reading of the NT passages is to translate slavery into the modern idiom of employee or maybe domestic servant.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-75768147659586000532016-05-20T22:11:32.690+10:002016-05-20T22:11:32.690+10:00David, I think you're being uncharitable to hi...David, I think you're being uncharitable to him. I can't find the original article online but Francis wasn't defending slavery. Francis was arguing about the intellectual incoherence of apologising for an act which living member had actually committed to individuals who had never been slaves. Bit like you apologising to the Aboriginals for your ancestors coming to Australia.<br /><br />I found this comment from another blogger which I think is helpful.<br /><br /><i>It started with his column for June 27, 1995, entitled “All Those Things to Apologize For”. Written one week after the Southern Baptist Convention issued a grovelling apology for the stance they had taken 150 years previously in the controversy over slavery that divided them from the Northern Baptists, this column pointed out that the Baptists were making a big deal about repenting for something never condemned as a sin by the Bible. “Neither Jesus nor the apostles nor the early church condemned slavery,” he wrote, “despite countless opportunities to do so, and there is no indication that slavery is contrary to Christian ethics or that any serious theologian before modern times ever thought it was”. All of this is true. Unfortunately, it is the kind of truth that people in this era cannot bear to hear.<br /><br />Dr. Francis was not arguing for slavery. He was arguing against what he called a “bastardized version of Christian ethics”, that had appeared in the 18th Century and had so permeated the churches that they “now spend more time preaching against apartheid and colonialism than they do against real sins such as pinching secretaries and pilfering from the office coffee-pool.” He observed, correctly, that to read the abolitionist message into the New Testament and dismiss the passages that tell bond-servants to obey their masters as irrelevant is to undermine the authority of passages that “enjoin other social responsibilities.” These truths were especially embarrassing to the kind of Christians who, on the one hand pride themselves on the Christian roots of abolitionism, while on the other hand trying to defend what remains of traditional authority and order against the modernizing influences of those who see the abolitionist movement as the first stage in their perpetual revolution against the “slavery” of marriage, family, and traditional morality.</i><br /><br />If you're going to use the BIble <i>alone</i> as your primary source of Christian Ethics it pretty hard to argue against the abolition of the institution.<br /><br />As late as 1866 the Catholic Popes were saying that slavery was not against Divine Law. If your're a Catholic traditionalist, emancipation is what is problematic<br /><br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_slavery<br /><br />Just to be clear, I regard Slavery as an abhorrent concept in itself, and am ashamed that it took so long for my own "Divines" to see the evil. But I think it is very uncharitable to assume that Sam Francis was arguing for the legitimacy of second class status for the Negros by pointing out the conceptual mumbo-jumbo of the Southern Baptists.The Social Pathologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12927698533626086780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-68228238427043335592016-05-20T16:23:02.762+10:002016-05-20T16:23:02.762+10:00From his Wikipedia page:
" He argued that if...From his Wikipedia page:<br /><br />" He argued that if the Baptists "dismiss the New Testament passages about slaves obeying their masters as irrelevant," then they might as well join the Bolsheviks."<br /><br />Julian Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-4940224799950909432016-05-20T15:25:40.811+10:002016-05-20T15:25:40.811+10:00David, where did he approve of Slavery?David, where did he approve of Slavery?The Social Pathologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12927698533626086780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29137904.post-30458872959996188862016-05-20T12:39:29.832+10:002016-05-20T12:39:29.832+10:00Sam Francis IIRC lost favour when he defended slav...Sam Francis IIRC lost favour when he defended slavery. Reactionaries - like comedians - have to know the limits.<br /><br />Julian Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com