A thread on recent interactions with neo-confederates.

Let's start with the two big reasons I have a problem with that position: love for God and neighbor.

First, love for God. It is being claimed that slavery is the same kind of institution as marriage.

This then leads to the claim that we should no more abolish slavery because some masters were abusive than we should abolish marriage because a lot of people get divorced.

This misrepresents God, who instituted marriage as part of the very good creation before sin and judgment.

Notice that there is no slavery in Genesis 1–2. The statements about slavery in the Mosaic law are placing limits on an existing human evil. Fellow-Israelites are more "indentured servants" than slaves, to be released every 7 years.

Israel was to put the inhabitants of Canaan under the ban, and when the conquered far-off peoples, those peoples could be enslaved. That enslavement, it seems, is part of God's judgment upon their idolatry, but the judgment is placed within limits.

Again, there is no slavery in Genesis 1–2. You won't find it in Revelation 21–22 either. God did not create the world for slavers.

So I think that claiming that the pro-slavery position is the biblical position is bad interpretation and bad theology.

It's bad interpretation because it doesn't do good canonical biblical theology and compare the creation and new-creation with the old covenant law and then set that in relationship with the new covenant developments. More could be said.

It's bad theology because, in my opinion, to suggest that slavery is analogous to marriage--a creation ordinance for the good of all people in all places at all times--is to slander the character of God.

Second, I have a problem with the pro-confederate position because of love for neighbor, particularly love for brothers and sisters in Christ of African-American descent.

I think that the biblical and theological arguments that the pro-slavery position is fail (and it's not because I'm a liberal), and conservative, Bible believing arguments against the pro-slavery position have been around for a long time.

Some social media shark will no doubt jump on this, but it's hard for me to imagine a brother or sister in Christ of African-American descent feeling loved by those who are pro-slavery and pro-confederate.

If I put myself in their shoes and imagine how I would react to someone who thought that the world would be a better place if they lived in a society in which everyone of my descent were enslaved, everyone of my skin color is a slave, I don't think I would appreciate that much.

And having said all this, I want to comment on the claims that I've made ad hominem attacks.

I asked an individual if he had written a particular document, but I used the word "thesis" instead of calling it a "Final Project," and he had changed the subtitle.

So he said that he had never written a "thesis" and claimed that he didn't remember the title.

I then received a photograph of him presenting on the same topic, with the same title, in 2019.

Then I learned that he put the "Final Project" on Amazon under a pseudonym.

At that point, I concluded that I was not dealing with someone who gives straight answers. This, however, is the first time I have stated that judgment on twitter.

What I have done is simply point to his conduct, pointing out the titles of things he has written.

If you perceive that someone revealing what you have written and done is an ad hominem attack, maybe you should reconsider your views and your conduct.

If you can't trust someone to give you direct answers when you ask direct questions, you aren't going to agree to a debate with that person.

It's also natural to question whether you can trust how someone who doesn't give straight answers will deal with evidence.

Can you trust someone who acts that way to be objective with the evidence?

Can you trust such a person to be sincerely seeking the truth?

Character matters. Some ideas, some behaviors, some interpretations, some theological conclusions, are disqualifying.