I think, for them, the central question was slavery, and they probably cited the usual “slavery” passages to prove that slavery is okay. (The Bible doesn’t say that American-style slavery is okay, or even racial slavery – but I doubt the KKK was interested in such subtle distinctions.)What were some of the verses of scripture that KKK members used to justify the separation of races and the superiority of a white race? Also how did they reconcile with the fact that Jesus was a Palestinian Jew and also that many prominent Biblical figures weren’t white?
Quick question: Are you implying that there is an acceptable form of slavery?(The Bible doesn’t say that American-style slavery is okay, or even racial slavery – but I doubt the KKK was interested in such subtle distinctions.)
I don’t think there is an acceptable way to buy and sell a man like property. But I think there are acceptable ways to buy and sell his labor, in ways that are in accordance with his dignity, and I think the term slavery has been applied to these ways of dealing in the past. Bondservant comes to mind, and I think that if a man consents to this condition, and is treated well, there’s nothing wrong with calling that condition a form of slavery. Serfdom, chain gangs, and prison laborors are other forms that may be acceptable. We might not call these conditions slavery today, but I think they have been called that in the past.Quick question: Are you implying that there is an acceptable form of slavery?
Not sure, one really can’t reason with madness and evil and hate which is what KKK stands for even if they think they are good Christians. It’s impossible for a normal rational mind to understand any of this and what few verses they pick and twist to justify their warped thinking. Many of these groups have joined together, neo-nazis, skin heads etc.Hitler believed in something called positive Chrisitian movement which is really neither. The burning of the cross has always struck me as so evil.What were some of the verses of scripture that KKK members used to justify the separation of races and the superiority of a white race? Also how did they reconcile with the fact that Jesus was a Palestinian Jew and also that many prominent Biblical figures weren’t white?
That’s not what I got from that. dmar198 was simply pointing that the two concepts of slavery (the Bible’s and America’s) were different.Quick question: Are you implying that there is an acceptable form of slavery?
Isn’t the understood definition of slavery “owning a human”, though? I mean, we could call lots of things slavery that aren’t slavery so that we can say that some slavery is ok. But I think that’s dishonest. A person who consents to their condition is not a slave. There is something wrong with calling that slavery.I don’t think there is an acceptable way to buy and sell a man like property. But I think there are acceptable ways to buy and sell his labor, in ways that are in accordance with his dignity, and I think the term slavery has been applied to these ways of dealing in the past. Bondservant comes to mind, and I think that if a man consents to this condition, and is treated well, there’s nothing wrong with calling that condition a form of slavery. Serfdom, chain gangs, and prison laborors are other forms that may be acceptable. We might not call these conditions slavery today, but I think they have been called that in the past.
Today it is. But I don’t think it always has been defined so clearly. Thomas Aquinas, for example, says that slavery is okay under certain conditions, one of them being that it must be understood that the human persons themselves are not property, their labor is. Under the modern definition, therefore, he wasn’t talking about slavery at all, but at the time, people clearly thought he was.Isn’t the understood definition of slavery “owning a human”, though?