The Bible and Christianity were used to justify African slavery
Shall we go to the horses mouth?
George Mc Duffie was the sitting governor of South Carolina when he wrote this message to the state legislature in 1835.
(excerpts)
For the institution of domestic slavery we hold ourselves responsible only to God, and it is utterly incompatible with the dignity and the safety of the State, to permit any foreign authority to question our right to maintain it. It may nevertheless be appropriate, as a voluntary token of our respect for the opinions of our confederate brethren, to present some views to their consideration on this subject, calculated to disallows their minds of false opinions and pernicious prejudices.
No human institution, in my opinion, is more manifestly consistent with the will of God, than domestic slavery, and no one of his ordinances is written in more legible characters than that which consigns the African race to this condition, as more conducive to their own happiness, than any other of which they are susceptible. Whether we consult the sacred Scriptures, or the lights of nature and reason, we shall find these truths as abundantly apparent, as if written with a sunbeam in the heavens. Under both the Jewish and Christian dispensations of our religion, domestic slavery existed with the unequivocal sanction of its prophets, its apostles and finally its great Author. The patriarchs themselves, those chosen instruments of God, were slave-holders. In fact the divine sanction of this institution is so plainly written that "he who runs may read" it, and those over-righteous pretenders and Pharisees, who affect to be scandalized by its existence among us, would do well to inquire how much more nearly they walk in the ways of Godliness, than did Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. That the African negro is destined by Providence to occupy this condition of servile dependence, is not less manifest. It is marked on the face, stamped on the skin, and evinced by the intellectual inferiority and natural improvidence of this race. They have all the qualities that fit them for slaves, and not one of those that would fit them to be freemen. They are utterly unqualified not only for rational freedom, but for self-government of any kind. They are, in all respects, physical, moral, and political, inferior to millions of the human race, who have for consecutive ages, dragged out a wretched existence under a grinding political despotism, and who are doomed to this hopeless condition by the very qualities which unfit them for a better. It is utterly astonishing that any enlightened American, after contemplating all the manifold forms in which even the white race of mankind are doomed to slavery and oppression, should suppose it possible to reclaim the African race from their destiny. The capacity to enjoy freedom is an attribute not to be communicated by human power. It is an endowment of God, and one of the rarest which it has pleased his inscrutable wisdom to bestow upon the nations of the earth. It is conferred as the reward of merit, and only upon those who are qualified to enjoy it. Until the "Ethiopian can change his skin," it will be in vain to attempt, by any human power, to make freemen of those whom God has doomed to be slaves, by all their attributes.
Let not, therefore, the misguided and designing intermeddlers who seek to destroy our peace, imagine that they are serving the cause of God by practically arraigning the decrees of his Providence. Indeed it would scarcely excite surprise, if with the impious audacity of those who projected the tower of Babel, they should attempt to scale the battlements of Heaven, and remonstrate with the God of wisdom for having put the mark of Cain and tile curse of Ham upon the African race, instead of the European.
If the benevolent friends of the black race would compare the condition of that portion of them which we hold in servitude, with that which still remains in Africa totally unblessed by the lights of civilization or Christianity, and groaning under a savage despotism, as utterly destitute of hope as of happiness, they would be able to form some tolerable estimate, of what our blacks have lost by slavery in America, and what they have gained by freedom in Africa. Greatly as their condition has been improved, by their subjection to an enlightened and Christian people, (the only mode under heaven by which it could have been accomplished,) they are yet wholly unprepared for any thing like a rational system of self-government. Emancipation would be a positive curse, depriving them of a guardianship essential to their happiness, and they may well say in the language of the Spanish proverb, "Save us from our friends and we will take care of our enemies." If emancipated, where would they live and what would be their condition? The idea of their remaining among us is utterly visionary. Amalgamation is abhorent to every sentiment of nature; and if they remain as a separate caste, whether endowed with equal privileges or not, they will become our masters or we must resume tile mastery over them. This state of political amalgamation and conflict, which the Abolitionists evidently aim to produce, would be the most horrible condition imaginable, and would furnish Dante or Milton with the type for another chapter illustrating the horrors of the infernal regions. The only disposition, therefore, that could be made of our emancipated slaves would be their transportation to Africa, to exterminate tile natives or be exterminated by them; contingencies, either of which may well serve to illustrate the wisdom, if not the philanthropy of these superserviceable madmen, who in the name of humanity would desolate the fairest region of the earth and destroy the most perfect system of social and political happiness, that ever has existed.
It is perfectly evident that the destiny of the Negro race its, either the worst possible form of political slavery, or else domestic servitude as it exists in the slave-holding States. The advantage of domestic slavery over the most favorable condition of political slavery, does not admit of a question. It is the obvious interest of the master, not less than his duty, to provide comfortable food and clothing for his slaves; and whatever false and exaggerated stories may be propagated by mercenary travellers, who make a trade of exchanging calumny for hospitality, the peasantry and operatives of no country in the world are better provided for, in these respects, than the slaves of our country. In the single empire of Great Britain, the most free and enlightened nation in Europe, there are more wretched paupers and half starving operatives, than there are Negro slaves in the United States. In all respects, the comforts of our slaves are greatly superior to those of the English operatives, or the Irish and continental peasantry, to say nothing of the millions of paupers crowded together in those loathsome receptacles of starving humanity, the public poor-houses. Besides the hardships of incessant toil, too much almost for human nature to endure, and the sufferings of actual want, driving them almost to despair, these miserable creatures are perpetually annoyed by the most distressing cares for the future condition of themselves and their children.
From this excess of labor, this actual want, and these distressing cares, our slaves are entirely exempted. They habitually labor from two to four hours a day less than the operatives in other countries, and it has been truly remarked, by some writer, that a negro cannot be made to injure himself by excessive labor. It may be safely affirmed that they eat as much wholesome and substantial food in one day, as English operatives or Irish peasants eat in two. And as it regards concern for the future, their condition may well be envied even by their masters. There is not upon the face of the earth, any class of people, high or low, so perfectly free from c are and anxiety. They know that their masters will provide for them, under all circumstances, and that in the extremity of old age, instead of being driven to beggary or to seek public charity in a poor-house, they will be comfortably accommodated and kindly treated among their relatives and associates. Cato, the elder, has been regarded as a model of Roman virtue, and yet he is said to have sold his superannuated slaves to avoid the expense of maintaining them. The citizens of this State may not aspire to rival the virtue of the Romans, but it may be safely affirmed, that they would doom to execration the master who should imitate the inhuman example of the Roman paragon. The government of our slaves is strictly patriarchal, and produces those mutual feelings of kindness which result from a constant interchange of good offices, and which can only exist in a system of domestic or patriarchal slavery. They are entirely unknown either in a state of political slavery, or in that form of domestic servitude which exists in all other communities.
In a word, our slaves are cheerful, contented and happy, much beyond tile general condition of the human race, except where those foreign intruders and fatal ministers of mischief, the emancipationists, like their arch-prototype in the Garden of Eden, and actuated by no less envy, have tempted them to aspire above the condition to which they have been assigned in the order of Providence.
Domestic slavery, therefore, instead of being a political evil, is the corner-stone of our republican edifice. No patriot who justly estimates our privileges will tolerate the idea of emancipation, at any period, however remote, or on any conditions of pecuniary advantage, however favorable. 1 would as soon open a negotiation for selling the liberty of the State at once, as for making any stipulations for the ultimate emancipation of our slaves. So deep is my conviction on this subject, that if I were doomed to die immediately after recording these sentiments, I could say in all sincerity and under all the sanctions of Christianity and patriotism, "God forbid that my descendants, in the remotest generations, should live in any other than a community having the institution of domestic slavery, as it existed among the patriarchs of the primitive Church and in all the free states of antiquity."
Article is LOCKED by moderator [smarty_function_ntUser_get_name: user_id or profile_id parameter required]
Who is online
476 visitors
Wow...so just because one is black, one is doomed to slavery....
......I have no words....
I finished my popcorn early!
Dear TG, so we see that graceful and pleasant wings of "high soaring rhetoric" have a biting and twisting serrated blade of an ugly twin, "high diabolic rhetoric"! This governor, this man, saw what came to belong to him and those for whom he served as nothing to be reasoned with or over.
Nevermind, that Christ and Paul who came later had discussed, Christian liberty as a thing to be considered. That, if even a man was to be in chains as part of some government norm—there was no room in the faith or Christian home for "viciousness."
Governor McDuffie strikes me as a propagandist and opportunist, who, because of some "proofs" in the Old Testament, a closed contract for modern believers, USED GOD, to ignore the advancing tide of slave freedom which was spreading from across the seas.
Yes, obviously, McDuffie exploited the Bible to support his slavery agenda. I do not think anyone is confused about that.
[deleted]
I am pretty sure that George McDuffie, the governor of South Carolina, was a Christian in good standing.
How do you explain this?
I am pretty sure that McDuffie was not a good Christian. He was an "Old Testamentarian". Many self-styled Christians today are in fact Old Testamentarians: they ignore Christ's core message of love.
Today's Christians do not model their lives after Christ's teachings, instead they model his teachings after the lives they want to live. Religion, today, is now used to justify their decisions instead guiding them to those decisions.
I note that McDuffie does not actually give a Biblical argument for his views.
Mc Duffie and other intellectual slaveowners had a dilemma. The Enlightenment and the impulses of the recently born United States of America and the French Revolution argued for universal human equality. But the southern slaveowners didnt want to give up their moneymakers, and their way of life, so they needed to devise a rationale that would answer the objections to slavery posed by the Enlightenment events. The rationale became two fold - God approved of slavery, was one, and the other was that Negroes were not fully human and so didnt fall under the maxims about freedom and liberty developed by the Enlightenment thinkers.
The guy was a real piece of work and much of what he writes (such as suggesting Africans were deemed to be slaves by the Bible) is unsupported, but this comment ...
... (unfortunately for history) has legs.
Slavery was in abundance well before the writing of the Bible (both OT and NT) and for centuries thereafter. No way could this practice be 'missed'. Even if the Bible did not contain rules for proper enslavement (although it does), the lack of divine moral guidance (i.e. never condemning as immoral the practice of owning another human being as property) supports the bigot's claim.
To me, I would say that God permitted slavery with certain rules. But I think it is quite fair to note that God shows no indication that He disapproves of owning another human being as property.
As an aside, even in the 10 commandments we see tacit approval of owning people as property:
One clearly can interpret this in various ways (e.g. servant = employee), but given the balance of the OT and the role of women, the prevalence of slavery (servants) and the fact that people are listed along with ox, ass and anything else that is [owned by] your neighbor, it is difficult to NOT interpret this commandment as 'do not covet thy neighbor's property' with human beings listed as examples.
And if this were the only part of the Bible that made such mention, it would be almost meaningless. One could dismiss the property interpretation and offer a gentler meaning such as 'employee' or indentured servant. But, point of fact, the Bible itself drives the 'people as property' interpretation.
Concerning McDuffie's argument, not really. Especially when one takes into account that McDuffie's slavery was unequivocally not sanctioned by the Bible. Southern slave owners neither acquired slaves by Biblical means nor treated them Biblically. Essentially, his argument simply rests on slaves being in the Bible. Had McDuffie actually been concerned with Biblical slavery he would have put to death all slave owners for being in possession of kidnapping victims, all slaves who had been injured or mutilated by slave owners would have been freed, slave owners punished for rape and so on. Instead, southern slave holders seemed to have referenced the Bible for the sole purpose of finding what was prohibited and then doing exactly that.
My comment was about the owning of other people as property. That is most definitely supported by the Bible.
Of course the specifics of USA slave trade and treatment are not in the Bible. But condoning the owning of people as property is: the Bible condones the owning of human beings as property. That was my point.
But let us consider your focus on letter-by-letter following of scripture. If USA slave owners had treated their slaves exactly according to the OT biblical rules, would you consider their owning and treatment of slaves to be moral?
My comment was about McDuffie. Not my fault if yours wasn't.
What I have said isn't a letter-by-letter focus on following the scripture. That's more your department. For instance, your incessant insistence that God says slave owners have His permission to beat their slave owners to within an inch of their lives as long as they don't die. You can only arrive at this by excluding all other relevant concerns and only look at the statement without context.
Would their enslavement of black people been morally okay if they had treated them Biblically? That question can't be asked because their having black people as slaves wouldn't have occurred. Slavery in the south was established through the kidnapping of people. It would not be possible to have slavery according to Biblical rules when it was founded on kidnapping. That is, whatever is in your mind concerning this question, it would probably have few black people as slaves. Most of them would have been whites who sold themselves into something like indentured servitude.
As for the morality of it, you appear to think there is only one kind of slavery. Chattel. That would never be moral in my understanding. Other kinds? Depends on the conditions extant at the time. Further, "owning" concerning Biblical rules doesn't mean to you what it means to me. You appear to mean that they own in such a manner that they could do whatever they wished with their slave. That they were property. That' wasn't true and is largely the point behind the restrictions behind what God said they could and could not do. All an owner was entitled to was their labor and that labor couldn't be abusive. They didn't own the slave as personal property.
Your fault is to ( purposely ) not recognize that McDuffie is the context given I quoted him and my comment was on the quote .
McDuffie uses the Bible to justify owning human beings as property. And, in that, his argument is unfortunately supported. Here is what I wrote on that:
Does the Bible condone the owning of human beings as property? If so, then it is no surprise that the McDuffie's of the world used it to prop up their agendas. If not, then someone needs to somehow explain away the many passages in the Bible which define rules for proper enslavement.
First you note that McDuffie's world did not enslave exactly as stated in the Bible. (As if that was a necessary condition.) So, playing along, I asked you to weigh in on slavery if the USA had directly followed the rules in the Bible. Now you complain that you are not dealing with a letter-by-letter focus on scripture.
The cliche ' you are taking it out of context ' platitude. Well, I quoted the scripture:
The scripture is quite clear. One has to play mental games to not see that God deems the slave to be the property of the master . The passage also does not punish the master unless the slave dies within a few days. So what level of beating does this allow?
The immediate context for this passage is Exodus 21. It is a list of rules that God has made. What context do you include that materially changes the meaning of this passage? Are you going to claim that the master can beat his slave to a pulp but must ensure that the slave does not lose a tooth or an eye in the beating? Explain the context that shows God is not sanctioning brutal treatment of human beings that are owned by other human beings. Do more than simply claim ' out of context '. Your argument in the past was along the lines of: ' well, God would never sanction such activity ' with a suggestion that we just ignore passages like this.
Yeah, here you go dodging the question. Okay Drakk.
Really? Have you read the Bible lately? Here is one of the most gentle passages on slavery in the OT - owning a fellow Hebrew:
Right off the bat, the passage starts off noting that Hebrew slaves are bought and sold . Another 'out of context' situation? 'Sold' does not really mean a sales transaction?
Then we get into the gentle Hebrew part. But then we see that even fellow Hebrews can be made into lifelong slaves. If a Hebrew slave was given a wife by his master, he must leave his wife (and children) at the end of his 6 years. His wife and children remain the property of the master. To stay with his family, the Hebrew man must declare his loyalty to his former master and give up his freedom for life . His master will mark his ear with an awl and the deal is done. A fellow Hebrew!
Note also how this passage makes a distinction between slavery and employment (hired worker).
Got plenty of passages from the Bible. No doubt they are all taken out of context ... the words cannot be read plainly ... nothing is what it seems ... pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
As I mentioned earlier, the Bible (unfortunately for history) made it very easy for slave masters to justify their exploitation.
Uh, no. Not actually. Just in the way you try to portray it in order to support your point. As I said, the only basis that McDuffie has for his position is that slavery was practiced in the Bible. There is certainly no justification for the slavery practiced by him and other slave owners of that period.
No.
Of course you would put it in such terms. As if God wanted there to be slaves. The truth is, all cultures of that time and place not only practiced slavery, they were of such a mind that it was just a part of the natural order. It was a right and proper thing. The idea that slavery was wrong would not have occurred to very many people, if any at all. What God did, in my view, was take one such culture and explain to them that slaves were people, too. That they were not mere property but individuals whom He cared about. So, rather than make rules "for proper enslavement" as you put it, He actually said, to paraphrase, you may have slaves but they have rights and I forbid you go beyond these lines I have drawn.
No, what I stated was that if McDuffie wanted to use the Bible, and God's authority for slavery, then he had already failed miserably and I explained why. What you are actually doing is taking McDuffie's side in this and just claiming that because there were slaves in the Bible then McDuffie was justified in his views on that fact alone.
You prove my point, here. You are insisting that I argue based solely on the contents of this verse and nothing else. Is it not you, then, who is doing the letter by letter analysis?
Complete and utter crap. I never said anything even remotely like what is highlighted in blue. The context I would include is just what you listed. Exodus 21. What is it do you think God is talking about here??? Does it not seem to you that God is talking about personal accountability in how you treat others? Again, it is you who looks at the letter of the law and not what is behind it. What you do is read a passage and in a legalistic manner, say it doesn't say anything about cutting off a toe so that must be okay. What you fail to do is explain how God can say all that he does about being careful in how you treat others except that it's okay to beat a slave within an inch of his life. That doesn't even make sense. Your problem is that you read these things as laws when they're actually examples concerning the law. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth doesn't mean God only cares about eyes and teeth. Go ahead and break his arm, but leave the eyes and teeth alone? Seriously? And if you can comprehend that much, why would you insist that God is telling us that it's okay to nearly beat your slave to death? Oh, yeah. Because you don't read it in context. You only read it letter by letter in isolation.
No, addressing my original point and what this post is about. McDuffie incorrectly uses the Bible as justification for slavery. Your point remains the same as McDuffie's. That because it was allowed in the Bible then he was justified in using it as well.
Interesting that you chose this verse. Tell me. If the owner of the slave really owned the slave and could do whatever he wished with him, how could the slave owner be made to do any of this? And going back to Exodus 21, how is it that the slave owner cannot beat the slave to death, maim him or whatever else he may want to do? That doesn't sound like he really owns the slave, does it? More like he gets the labor from the slave for a period of time and then must compensate him at the end.
No, not out of context. What is actually out of context is your use of the word "slavery". You seem to feel it always means "chattel" slavery, which was not the case. Chattel slaves had no rights or protections.
As I understand it, this was more like changing families than anything else. Somewhat similar to a daughter entering a new family through marriage. But regardless, what do you think happened with such a Hebrew who did such a thing? What is in your imagination? What do you think his "slavery" was like? Do you not recall it says "16 But if he says to you, ‘I will not go out from you,’ because he loves you and your household, since he is well-off with you...". It doesn't say anything about a hostage situation.
Couldn't agree more. Totally reasonable for those nasty slave owners to make up rules that limits the time they could keep slaves, that they had to be reimbursed at the end, limited what they could and couldn't do with slaves and all that. Very clever on their part.
You actually do not see that McDuffie uses the Bible to justify owning human beings as property?? Come on Drakk, why make such a ridiculous claim?
Yes, I see that McDuffie claims that the Bible justifies his views concerning slavery. That doesn't mean that it actually does. You get that, right?
I guess the problem we have here is the use of the word "justify". In order to justify his posiition, McDuffie has to actually make a case other than, "Well, they had them in the Bible."
God get what He wants. God is the designer, omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, etc.
Correct. I have stated this myself. This is why the Bible does not condemn slavery - because the writers of the Bible saw nothing wrong with slavery. They, IMO, had no divine guidance ... they were just men pretending to be God.
What makes you think that I disagree with this?
That, Drakk, is making rules for proper enslavement. You can claim God deemed them 'not mere property' but He is still deeming them property . And this is the treatment for his chosen people. All the enslavement that ensued during and up until present time could have been stopped by God but it was not. The Bible continues today with a message of condoning the owning of human beings as property .
I wish you would read what I write instead of inventing this nonsense. I pointed out that the Bible condones slavery and thus the McDuffies of history could easily exploit the Bible to justify their acts.
What you call 'letter by letter' analysis is reading the words of scripture. If you have a context that varies the meaning then make your case. Simply claiming 'out of context' or 'letter by letter' is not a convincing argument. What you want, IMO, is for people to simply ignore everything in the Bible that you dislike.
Okay, I will take you at your word. Let's see what your story is now.
I am waiting for you to provide the contextual explanation which shows the words as written are not as they seem. Is that coming?
You are again trying to make this personal when you should be explaining the context. Waiting for that contextual explanation.
The contextual explanation does not seem forthcoming. You are now asking me to yet again explain a single passage. Why? This is your time to explain the passage in context. Why are you all over the map?
Am I the contextual explanation? Still obsessing on me and not providing any explanation.
Is this your contextual explanation? You just jumped into the New Testament and are now completely outside of the context of human as property?
This is it? This is your grand contextual explanation? So one verse notes that damaging the eye of a slave means the slave must be set free and you, for some odd reason, think that that verse means that no violence shall be done to slaves?? Seems to me you are reading your passage letter by letter and accepting it because it is less harsh than other passages in the list.
Drakk, when 'God' talks about beating a slave with a rod, what do you think that means? Spanking him/her? If that were the case, then do you think it was a common practice for slaves to die within a few days after getting spanked?
Here is what I suggest:
Start with the verses as written and you will have God telling the master that he can beat the crap out of his slaves because they are the master's property. But, God imposes some rules:
Now interpret away. Generalize 2 and 3 to 'do not do any permanent physical harm to the slave'. Combine that into a single rule for properly beating slaves and we have:
Beat the crap out of your slave if you wish because the slave is your property. However, should your beatings result in any permanent physical damage, you must let your slave go free. And if you wind up killing your property as a result of your beatings then you have gone too far and will answer to me.
There is no point.
I get that you claim the Bible does not provide justification for slavery.
I also get that your claim requires you to totally change the meaning of words in scripture.
You know, I do not think the problem is subtle semantics. This is pretty basic stuff. You have a book that many people consider to be divine. That book clearly condones slavery. It was written when owning human beings as property was commonplace but never does God -the supreme entity and arbiter of objective morality- condemn the owning of a human being as property. Instead, God made rules for proper enslavement and even refers to the slaves as property of the master - to be bought and sold and passed as inheritance.
It simply is not credible for you to claim that the Bible does not give support to a slaver claiming slavery is biblically allowed.
I agree. You just presented your best argument and it amounted to nothing but hand-waving. But I see no other way anyone could even attempt to argue that the Bible does not condone slavery except to try to employ smoke and mirrors.
This is not one passage that is 'read out of context'; the topic of slavery occurs often in the Bible (especially the OT) and a net takeaway of ...
God says it is allowable to own another human being as property
... is undeniable.
I think most people would agree that owning other people as property (slaves) is immoral. Since the bible supports such a thing and does not condemn or prohibit it, then one must conclude that if the bible is the literal word of god, then god is ok with slavery and is therefore immoral himself. If the bible is not the literal word of god, then that means the bible was written by ancient men which simply reflected the times they lived in. Either way, god (assuming there is one, which is unlikely) allowed and did not prohibit slavery, which makes god immoral.
And of course we can understand why a religious person presumes that there must be something wrong with your logic. The conclusion is simply unacceptable - it violates the entire belief.
God, as defined by the Bible, condones the immoral act of owning a human being as property. Yet this same God weighs in on minutia such as the rules for making a loan to a poor man. It is thus a strained argument to suggest that God did not weigh in on the immorality of slavery because He did not want to interfere. Further, anyone with biblical knowledge cannot deny that God interfered routinely in the OT world.
This leads to the inevitable conclusion that God considered the owning of human beings as property to be moral.
Now, as you note, if the God character of the Bible is simply nothing more than a character in a book, it stands to reason that God would behave like a more powerful version of the ancient writers. He would then, of course, find nothing odd about human slavery since -after all- that is all these men ever knew. Their history was based on slavery with no suggestion that would ever change.
If the God of the Bible is simply a character in a book, the book itself makes sense - the product of ancient men. It is when one inserts the premise that this character actually exists that the logic breaks down. Now instead of a book that reads like it was written by the human authors, we have the divine word of a perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent supreme entity and arbiter of objective morality failing to instruct His creations on a basic idea of human morality.
Worse still, by condoning slavery generations of people (for thousands of years) could turn to the Bible and argue that God is okay with slavery. The implications of that seem staggering.
Indeed. But then, if one goes by belief, it is often at the expense and/or exclusion of logic.
Indeed. But not when it came to slavery apparently.
Therefore, anyone who adheres to such a god or religious based standards must themselves conclude slavery is moral. They cannot logically declare slavery is immoral without contradicting their own source of belief.
Or it stands to reason a god character would support or prohibit the things the writers themselves had interests in.
So either god overlooked something or made a mistake-both logically impossible for a god with the attributes you describe (and most would probably agree are the qualities of said god), and if said god is the "objective" arbiter of morality, then it stands such a believer must conclude that slavery is moral because god says or thinks it is. It goes without saying there is a problem with that kind of mentality.
Indeed.
Or... you are applying criteria that are anachronistic to the point of intellectual error.
For you to suggest that, you would have to assume Gordy believes the God of the Bible to be real — to be more than merely a character in an ancient book.
Not at all. One can apply anachronistic criteria to fictional personages. That's something that any fan of historical fiction abhors.
No, I am applying logic: either god was ok with slavery or he wasn't. Did god instruct his creations regarding morality or not?
Then my comment correlates well with Gordy's so I will simply defer to it: @2.2.21
I am applying logic:
Either Gordy has stopped beating his wife or he has not.
Which is it, Gordy???
Correction: Gordy is beating his wife or he is not.
The 'stopped' condition adds a spurious dimension to a binary condition. It thus does not match the question Gordy posed.
That's not my point. Gordy poses a question that is not intrinsically valid. He asks a question that ignores the context.
The context imposes an answer something like, "Of course He was OK with it," but then Gory goes on with
... as though that question naturally followed the other, and as though "morality" is intemporal.
There's too much 21st Century in that post...
The context is the justification for slavery and moral implications. We know slavery existed in biblical times and biblical writers addressed the condition of slavery. Some people think the bible is the literal word of god. As I said, if the bible is the literal word of god, then god is ok with slavery and is therefore immoral himself. If the bible is just stories written by ancient men (who obviously were ok with slavery), the it stands to reason god overlooked that particular issue and did not make corrections (showing a degree of fallibility not normally ascribed to god) or was otherwise ok with biblical contents, including slavery.
If god is the objective arbiter of morality, then morality cannot change. Therefore, according to god and/or the bible, slavery is moral.
Untrue because this isn't the only conclusion that can be drawn. It is also possible that God is not okay with slavery but had a perfectly moral reason for not prohibiting it, putting restrictions on it instead.
May I suggest "explanation", rather than "justification"? I agree with the rest of that paragraph.
The logic of that sentence is irrefutable, on the reasonable condition that God doesn't change opinions too often.
Much more critical is the explicit condition "If god is the objective arbiter of morality". Today we know the universe contains trillions of stars. If even a small percentage have sophisticated life, then it's pretty hard to imagine a God defining morality for all of them...
More importantly, theologically, would be the elimination of Free Will.
By never telling His people that He was not okay with slavery, slavery continued sans divine guidance for thousands of years hence. Imagine the impact on history if the Bible included God's position that slavery is not okay even though it was tolerated.
Why is that hard to imagine? If one can imagine a supreme entity who created the (more like quintillions of) stars it seems easy to imagine the entity having a universal objective morality that applies to all lifeforms. And if the entity wanted to customize a relative morality for each type of lifeform then why is that a problem?
Free will cannot exist if it is possible to know the future. That is, if the future is determined then free will is at best an illusion.
Sort of like how "God" permits murder in his name during the last 10,000 years of recorded human wars?
Sort of like the same reasons "God" permits certain species, like lions to kill off all the male lions of the previous dominant male.......
They don't enslave them, they kill them.
Like "God" allows Orcas to kill the calves of Sperm whales or blue whales for sport? Then for weeks the whales weep & mourn.
It's very difficult for me to revere life as something that "God" deemed a precious gift to humanity alone
when we are surrounded by countless forms of life and shit on them every day, for dominance, greed, profit, food,etc.
People like chicken, they like chicken eggs, they prefer infertile chicken eggs, so what happens to all of the
male baby chicks and eggs identified as male by a quick blood/DNA test at a chicken egg plant that only needs female chicken eggs/egg layers?
Well that just depends on how cruel "God's people" are to "God's" other creations....
https://youtu.be/kbNriWcc9CA?list=PLtc3iQTP5EZ8aCW1DoNj36M6dxgc2QWGk ( CAUTION - VERY GRAPHIC, or not )
no big deal right?
"God" loves all of "God's creatures........just some more equally than others, right?
/S
In a way, he (Moses who actually wrote the law though claimed he was inspired by God) did tell his people he was not okay with slavery, at least not for them.
“‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves. 40 They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you; they are to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves." - Leviticus 25:39-42
By noting a difference between what was acceptable to do to a foreigner but banning treating their own people the same, they reveal that they themselves knew it to be an abhorrent practice they wouldn't wish upon themselves. Quite the exception to the golden rule.
Let's say there are ten billion intelligent species. What kind of God would even want to meddle with them all?
Good point. But I presumed that ancient men understood that being a slave was not a good thing. I see a difference between recognizing enslavement as an undesirable state and recognizing that it is immoral to enslave someone.
(I think we've been here before.)
If we imagine that 'the future" is in fact infinitely bifurcating events, then an omniscient God could know all of them.
That said, I can see no reason for God to want to know the future.
I was addressing the capability of such a powerful entity. The motivations of such an entity are above my pay grade.
Knowing what might happen (i.e. all possible paths in the tree of choices) is entirely different from knowing what will happen.
All His contours are above my pay grade.
Okay, so... what I said was not true and Gordy's statement is the only conclusion than can be drawn? Not sure how what you've said here addresses that.
I did not rebut your point @2.2.27:
Rather than rebut, I responded with the consequences of your speculation with this @2.2.29:
So you responded with a non-sequitur? Worse, how do you know what the consequences were of God not telling His people directly that He wasn't okay with slavery? How do you know what would have happened if He had? Are you some sort of Hari Seldon?
Why do you insist on interpreting everything I write in the most negative possible fashion?
I do not know for certain Drakk. Reread what I wrote:
The first sentence is fact: The Bible does NOT instruct future generations to NOT engage in slavery much less note that it is immoral. And the Bible has continued with that message for thousands of years.
My second sentence starts with 'imagine'. In my opinion, had the Bible proclaimed slavery immoral that would have taken away the biblical excuse for slave traders. But I did not state anything specific other than imply the proclamation would likely have been net positive.
Maybe spend less time trying to find a gotcha and more time actually reading what I write? Then maybe I would not have to write and then re-write, ... on every single post.
So what would you imagine? What if the Bible had actually condemned as immoral the practice of owning human beings as property? No opinion whatsoever?
You mean why am I pointing out that you quoted me and then said something that had nothing to do with what the quote was addressing?
No, it's your opinion. You are stating that because God did not denounce slavery, the history of slavery turned out the way it did. That is speculation, not fact. God also said not to worship idols and Israel's history was crammed with it.
Then how did Christianity come to believe it is immoral (within your idea of slavery)? How is it that Christianity spearheaded the abolition of slavery?
Well, since there is no Biblical basis for slave traders, not sure how you came to have this opinion, but whatever.
That's the way you see it. It is not an established fact.
What evidence can you provide that would suggest such an outcome?
My opinion is that it wouldn't have made much of a difference, if any. God has said from the beginning, "love your neighbor as yourself". That right there is a statement against slavery, since who would want to be a slave themselves? Yet throughout history, mankind has failed spectacularly at this command. What reason is there to believe we'd treat stated disapproval of slavery by God any differently?
In my opinion, your zeal in judging God blinds you to the boots on the ground reality in which we live. You ignore the technological, cultural, economic and moral state of the people God was dealing with at the time. Instead, just like you do with verses in the Bible, you just pare all that away and just look at the narrowest, most isolated issue you can come up with and judge God on that. Worse, you assume that your views and goals concerning humanity somehow are superior to an all knowing God, giving you the basis to judge Him when in reality, your ideas and His aren't the same concerning mankind.
Lastly, God didn't institute slavery. We did. God gave us the world to rule over. In doing that we created slavery. What God did was tolerate it but gave His people, the Israelites, limits on what they could do with slaves. In my opinion, one possible reason for God not specifically disallowing it is that if we came to the conclusion that slavery was wrong on our own, we would understand why better than if He'd simply issued a decree against it. In fact, since it is man's nature to want what we can't have, such a declaration may have actually made it worse.
And in the end it seems to me that is exactly what happened. Christianity spearheaded the fight against slavery. The older Christianity became, the more Christendom began to see just who people are and what we mean to God and that slavery was not what we were made for.
If you still cannot figure out the relevance then it is on you. There is only so much explaining I am willing to do.
I just broke this down for you and you still get it wrong. I understand you are trying to defend what is largely indefensible and that must be frustrating. But intellectual dishonesty is not the way to go. As proof, let's compare what I wrote to what you wrote:
Breaking down the first sentence (which I claim is a fact):
Fact . God never told His people that slavery was immoral, to not engage in the practice. If that is not fact then show me where God denounced the owning of human beings as property.
Fact . Slavery did continue for thousands of years sans divine guidance . If that is not fact then show me the divine guidance against slavery.
Now we move to the second sentence where I clearly stated this is opinion and speculation:
Having establishing the first sentence as pure fact (as I had stated) we have in the second sentence an invitation for you to speculate . In my last post I let you know that I obviously am of the opinion that the results would have been better if God had condemned as immoral the practice of owning people. I clearly stated this is my opinion. But this sentence was asking you to imagine what might have been the effect.
Not going to break this down again. If you refuse to acknowledge what I wrote at this point then my conclusion is that you are doing so intentionally.
Where does the Bible condemn the owning of a human being as property? Show me.
On your tangent to Christianity, my opinion is that humanity evolved. People evolved to understand the immorality of slavery. As with other things Christianity evolved to accept this immorality. But my comments have not been about Christianity, they have been about the Bible. The Christianity angle would be a different discussion for me. So back to the Bible.
Yes, Drakk, whatever. I am tired of explaining the obvious.
My second sentence is an opinion. My first sentence was the fact. I phrased my second sentence with 'Imagine ... ' so that is would be clear to most anyone that I am not stating a fact. See?
That said, it surprises me that you cannot imagine how God condemning the owning of a human being as property would diminish using the Bible as an excuse for slavery. But I have witnessed stranger stubborn refusals of commonsense.
Well there you go. You seem to think that people will only use 'love thy neighbor' passages. But that is not how people with an agenda operate. (Damn, Drakk, this is high school level knowledge now.) People with an agenda will flat out lie (and much worse) to advance their cause. If the Bible is sitting right there condoning slavery and never condemning it, how easy is it for people to use the Bible to advance their agenda FOR slavery?
Ignoring the predictable personal crap.
I have made it quite clear why people of that time saw nothing wrong with slavery. As for God, well if there were a God I think your tacit argument that God had no choice but to not condemn slavery is lukewarm at best. This is God, Drakk. Is God the grandest possible entity, the creator of everything, omnipotent, omniscient, etc.? If so, then 'God has limitations' is a lame argument.
A god's morality should be absolute, and not dependent on how humanity was at the time. So yes, I can judge that god .. and find him less moral than I am. I am superior to the god of the bible in terms of my morality and ethics. If he is a fictional character invented by the people of their time .. then nope, I'm no better or worse than he is. I'm also a product of the morality of my time.
You ignore the technological, cultural, economic and moral state of the people God was dealing with at the time.
Yet he could tell them not to mix fibers in their clothes, and not to eat animals with cloven hooves, while directly commanding them to rape and enslave the virgin girls of their enemy's tribes?
You're claiming that God's morality is subjective. Great point.
I accept your surrender.
LOL. Challenge accepted. Let's see who's intellectually dishonest.
Note that you have to separate these parts of the sentence in order to actually be factual? But what happens when you combine them into the original sentence? You are saying that because God did not speak specifically against slavery, slavery continued for thousands of years. Now, it may be your opinion that this is true. After all, it's God's fault for everything, right? But it's not a fact. Because someone can say slavery continued for thousands of years simply because people suck. That slavery was our fault. That is much closer to being a fact than what you presented. Evidence? Because people who never heard of the Biblical God practiced slavery, too. So, saying it's God's fault for not saying anything is an opinion, not fact. And saying it's God's fault is exactly what you are saying here.
Try again?
Sure, TiG, sure. That's just what you meant. Sure. Um, nope. You were obviously stating that things would have been better because you think people would have just said, okay, and not had slavery. You were presenting it as an obvious result of what you think a truly moral God would have done. You're now backpedaling to save your argument.
As you well know, it doesn't specifically condemn it in the manner of a commandment. But I will give you some verses that answers my own question. You know, the one you avoided by asking this one?
Which means that while the person may be a slave in the human system, God doesn't see them as slaves of other human beings.
Self explanatory.
Who's going to take a family member as a slave?
How can it be right to take someone who bears the image of God Himself and make her a slave?
Oh, I'm sure it would have diminished using the Bible as an excuse. That isn't the same as diminishing slavery. They still would have had it. They would just use some other pretext.
Wow, dude! You literally made my argument for me : ) Did you ignore the part where I said...
Kinda sounds like what you just said, doesn't it?
Not surprising. You aren't here to discuss so you won't listen to someone telling you why you are going wrong.
You still don't get it. It isn't God's limitations that are being spoken of here. It's ours. A perfect God is dealing with a totally corrupted creation. Man. God has no problem with doing the right thing, the right way for the right reasons all the time. It is man who has the problem. You seem to think that all God has to do is pump out commands and proclamations and that's somehow going to fix everything. Not by a long shot. We are corrupted. We cannot do the things God commands us to do on our own. He can issue every decree you think He should and it won't make a difference because the limiting factor is us!
Did the God of the Bible condemn the owning of human beings as property? The answer is no.
Is it moral to own a human being as property? The answer is no. (If you disagree then I will submit that your position is despicable.)
My net point is that if the Bible does not condemn the owning of human beings as property (among many other failures) then the Bible is a horrible source for morality. That is my opinion.
Your opinion, apparently, is that the Bible is THE perfect source for objective morality and if it looks like it has failed then that is either 'taking it out of context' or 'we are too stupid to understand it'.
My opinion is that the above ⇑ is extreme rationalization of a belief and that those who continue to promote the Bible as objective morality do a disservice to the naive people of the world who continue to buy this nonsense.
And those who actually defend as moral the practice of owning human beings as property or killing men who have engaged in homosexual acts or murdering, raping and enslaving others or engaging in human sacrifice or ... needs to break free of whatever has ensnared their minds and start thinking a bit more critically.
God specifically commanded his people to enslave others, to murder everyone who wasn't a virgin girl (imagine how his people tested the girls for virginity) and to enslave and rape all the virgin girls. It's not merely about God's not condemning the practice .. he specifically commanded it. That's how the people who invented this god thought, so of course their god reflects the values and morals of their time. Our tribe - good. Your tribe - bad. So anything we do is justified and moral, and our god says so.
That doesn't speak to a real god - it speaks to a god invented by humans who were trying to justify their atrocities and pretend they were more moral than their enemies.
I do not believe I am reading this crap.
You get this:
Read the ' sans divine guidance ' part. Use your brain. This is not difficult to understand if you truly want to understand what I wrote. If not, then play the intellectually dishonest game with yourself now.
It does not ever condemn it in any form.
Where does this state that the owning of a human being as property is immoral?
Where does this state that the owning of a human being as property is immoral? Also, why are slave-traders included? Because it refers to those who steal slaves. Thieves of human property. You were not aware of that?
Where does this state that the owning of a human being as property is immoral?
Where does this state that the owning of a human being as property is immoral?
You are not going to pull this one out of a hat Drakk. Admit that per the Bible, slavery is okay. God condones slavery. Thus all those who read the Bible for divine justification to enslave have easy pickings because look at the crap you have delivered as your best rebuttal.
Do you have someone else writing your posts for you Drakk? I ask because at times I am engaging with the Drakk I knew and other times I do not even recognize the person going by the name of Drakkonis. Dude? Let's look at my question, your entire answer and my response, ' dude' :
So now take your last sentence (I will bring it down for you to see) and then take my last sentence (which I will also bring down for you):
You asked for a reason and, sure enough, I included the reason in my answer. In case you cannot see this, the reason to believe that stated disapproval of slavery by God might make a difference is because those over history who have used the Bible to justify slavery would no longer have their divine justification. Also, and this is something for you to ponder, imagine the impact on all those who were not even slavers? If the Bible condemned slavery do you not think the Bible-loving common folk would maybe raise an eyebrow at the enslavement of people? This really is obvious stuff.
And, of course, you are yet again wrong and you are wrong because you either fail to read what I write, ignore critical parts of what I write or just flat out invent your own meaning and run with it.
( And if you do have others writing posts for you, I suggest you fire your latest 'dude' helper for being intellectually sloppy. )
I can't believe I'm bothering with this crap.
Exactly my position. I write a response and then spend 2-3 comments afterwards breaking down the plain English with specific, annotated quotes and even then you still refuse to comprehend my meaning.
I prove you wrong every time you play this pointless game and yet sure enough the game creeps back in. Makes no sense. Would you not prefer to engage honestly? Why play pointless semantic games when you know I am going to call you on them?
I should be surprised that you haven't addressed my comments about how God specifically commanded people to rape and enslave others, but I'm not.
If god allows slavery, even with specific conditions, then that infers god is ok with slavery, at least to a degree. If god is the objective arbiter of morality (as some believe), then god either views slavery as moral or immoral. There can be no gray area. There can be no moral justification for slavery. So either god does not view slavery as immoral, or the bible/god views on slavery merely reflect the views of biblical writers and the times they lived in.
Well, the only logical conclusion.
Slavery continued for centuries after the fact.
Logically, there would probably have been less instances of slavery.
Until god took issue with it. That even made it onto god's top 10 list. But slavery didn't? Interesting.
Fascinating is it not? The God of the Bible never condemns the widely practiced owning of people as property. Yet Drakk argues that maybe God considers slavery immoral but had reasons to not declare it as such. The direct and obvious explanation for why God did not condemn owning people as property is because the God character of the Bible is nothing but the fictional invention of men who held slavery as perfectly moral. But that is categorically rejected in favor of a possibility that makes no sense. God makes rules against having sex with the family goat (penalty of death) yet for some mysterious reason never can bring Himself to provide divine moral instruction on the owning of people as property.
Some will conceive extraordinary scenarios to cling to the notion that the Bible is divine.
No, it doesn't. Such a view is superficial. It doesn't take into account that God can be totally against one human owning another (in the manner you guys are speaking of) but allow us to practice what we ourselves instituted because it serves some purpose of His.
True enough.
Or God has a valid, moral reason for not commanding us to stop it in the manner you guys are demanding.
Further, you guys throw around the word "slavery" as if there is only one kind. The chattel slavery of the American south. God has actually spoken specifically against that kind of slavery. All one has to do is look at the protections God gave for the slave to see that. The one that most specifically shows this is the one who kidnaps or holds a person who was kidnapped was to be put to death. That right there shows God's attitude toward what the south did and how the Bible can't be used to justify it.
No, the only one you can come up with.
Are you suggesting that this would have been different had God said what you wanted Him to say? Do you realize Israel was a tiny little country in a world that practiced slavery? Do you think the rest of the world would have said "Darn! The God of Israel said no slavery so I guess you're all free to go"?
Okay, present the logic. I would advise you to take a good look at history first, though.
Until God took issue with it? It was one of the very first things He told the Israelites when He brought them out of Egypt! Israel's history was shot through with them turning from God and worshipping idols. There was no until. If this is so, what makes you think they would have done slavery different even if God had prohibited it?
Why are you not surprised? That is, why do you think I do not reply to you anymore, Katrix?
That is precisely why most of the time I spell it out with: 'owning a human being as property' and focus on the morality of that rather than the treatment of slaves (as in human beings who are owned as property). By not spelling it out and constantly reinforce that this is a moral question, there is an opportunity for one to play word games and deflect the focus of the debate.
The Bible does not condemn the owning of human beings as property yet it was one of the most widespread practices of the time. It was not overlooked or minimized as irrelevant given there are rules for proper enslavement. If the Bible is simply the work of ancient men, the lack of condemnation is obvious - these men considered it normal to own human beings as property. If the Bible, however, is the divine word of a perfect, omniscient God, - the arbiter of objective morality - the failure in perpetuity to condemn the owning of human beings as property is inexplicable. Explanations such as 'maybe God had a good reason to never condemn such an immoral practice' seem just a tad feeble.
and this explanation would inevitably lead to -- "God works in mysterious ways" -- so no one would ever really know.
So god is a hypocrite. Or just plain selfish. He doesn't like slavery but allows it if it suits him. What a despicable act.
So by that reasoning, god is therefore immoral for allowing slavery.
Either slavery is moral or immoral? There is no in between. make up your mind. If god allows it, then god is complicit in it.
We're specifically talking about the owning of a human being as property. That has been made clear.
What a disgusting rationalization. A slave is still a slave and a piece of property to be owned by another, regardless of any "protections." And a slave can be beaten by their owner with no repercussions, as long as the slave doesn't die within a certain time period. How is beating the crap out of somebody a "protection?"
It's the only one period!
God supposedly made rules and commandments for everyone to follow, regardless of where it originated. And many people the world over follow those rules even today. Yet he says nothing about prohibiting slavery. Why would slavery be any different?
See previous statement. Also, no one can use a biblical justification of slavery. Without that kind of justification and support, it's reasonable slavery may have been less prevalent. I'm not saying it would have disappeared outright or completely.
Funny how it doesn't even make an appearance on the 10 Commandments, nor is it prohibited outright in the bible.
Worshipping idols is not the same as owning slaves.
Maybe because you can't actually answer Katrix's questions or offer a logical rebuttal?
It is a non-answer. It basically explains away an argument by tacitly admitting the apologist finds the logic sound but somehow knows it is nonetheless wrong for reasons s/he cannot explain (but God knows).
For emphasis: The 10 Commandments (simply stated)
One can make a good case for why these are in the top 10:
But then look at the commandments that were deemed more important than:
"You shall not own human beings as property"
And the 10 th commandment even mentions coveting another man's human property.
No place to squeeze in: " You shall not own human beings as property" ?
Maybe it was in the 11-15 section of the Commandments? Curse you clumsy Moses,
Know that bit well.
The Southern Baptists were pretty much the same over a hundred years later.
Kavika, these men were good Christians. They say God wanted the Africans to be slaves because it was their natural role, ordained by Providence.
Christians also believed that the Native Americans were designed by God to be exploited and wiped out.
What kind of God are we dealing with here?
Or did these men misinterpret the Bible?
But then, dont fundamentalist Christians say we should take everything in the Bible as the literal word and instruction of God?
It's known as the ''Doctrine of Discovery'' which later became ''Manifest Destiny''.....
Indian religions were outlawed by the US Government....Yes the so called Christians.
John, these men were not good Christians. The anti-slavery movement, also grounded in Christianity, was well underway in McDuffie's day.
When the Bible was written, slavery was the norm. Already in McDuffie's time, that was no longer true, and the end of the institution was writ large.
You are taking the example of evil men, who styled themselves "Christians", to tar all who use that title with the same brush. Mr X was a Zoroastrian. He killed his wife. All Zoroastrians murder their wives.
What I think I am doing is pointing out that the Bible and religion can be used according to the eye of the beholder. No sane person would believe that God ordained slavery, yet the "scriptural " rationale for slavery and racism was used in the early to mid 1800's.
Although no one uses the text of the Bible to defend slavery any more, some do use it to promote causes and beliefs today that Jesus would probably not agree with.
I made the same point.
Several hundred times, it seems.........
Must be the 'time warp continuum'...
Thing is, there are people who still use the Bible to justify bad behavior (e.g. bigotry). And then there are people who are so determined to defend the Bible as divine that they will actually try to argue that slavery is not necessarily immoral.
John... You called McDuffie a "good Christian".
Jim Jones was a good christian too. At least there were those who thought so.
The term 'good christian' reeks of the same turpitude as 'good muslim'. Or 'good anything' actually.
Slavery is the same thing it always was. And.....it still exists in the 21st Century....raw and exposed.....and even more subtle---gentrified.
Tony Alamo thought he was a good Christian. Warren Jeffs thinks he's a good Christian. I bet even David Dukes thinks he's a good Christian.
And we all know Pat Robertson thinks he's the best Christian
Totally off topic, but you need to read a book called Unmentionable. Everyone needs to read this book. It's about how women dealt with their stuff back in the 1800s .. gross but hilarious, and well researched.
I always did wonder how people peed in hoop skirts.
Given the amount of slavery (among other things) that are not condemned by the God of the Bible and given the fact that slavery is effectively condoned by God since He made rules for proper enslavement, it would seem impossible for future Bible-reading religious people to NOT justify slavery with the Bible. The economic benefit of owning other human beings as property was substantial motivation. And if God says it is okay, well, there you go.
Kinda anachronistic, no?
Slavery was the way of the world when the Bible was written.
Sometimes, you're as inerrantist as the worst of the fundies.
You do not realize that my point is about those who use the Bible to justify their actions???
That is correct. That is why the writers of the Bible saw nothing at all wrong writing their God character as one who condones the practice. It probably never occurred to them that the owning of another human being as property is immoral since slavery was around well before they were born with no hint that it would ever disappear. Further, even if some more enlightened writers realized the immorality, it is not as though they would have the option to go against the backbone of the economic system.
To wit, countless billions of people who have had access to the Bible over time have had a ready-made excuse for slavery. Nowhere does the God they turn to for moral guidance condemn as immoral the practice of owning another human being as property.
'God is okay with slavery' so 'Slavery is okay' in their minds.
I trust you see that. My point.
I've known you long enough to understand that perfectly.
I was underscoring the fact that you didn't actually say that. A reader who doesn't know you so well might take your words at face value.
But ...
That sounds kinda like "it's the Bible's fault."
It's tricky. The Bible certainly does not directly condemn slavery. It reflects the values of the times when it was written. I'm not sure that people back then could have understood, so many ideas about the nature of humanity are more recent.
The Bible provides the excuse, and in rather stark terms when it comes to slavery. Human desire to read what one seeks completes the picture. If someone really wants to find justification for slavery in the Bible, it is quite easy to achieve this goal.
In fact, it is difficult to do the opposite - to argue that the Bible (and thus God) finds immoral the practice of owning another human being as property.
Absolutely. If one views the Bible as merely the work of ancient men, the contents (and errors) are quite logically understood. It is when one tries to interpret the Bible as the divine word of a perfect God that severe logical problems arise.
I agree. How can one whose entire history is replete with slavery think that slavery is immoral? It does not surprise me in the least that the Bible condones slavery. It would be impressive (and would serve as weak evidence for a higher being) if the Bible actually did condemn as immoral the practice of owning another human being as property. That would be something one would not expect of the ancient authors.
But, in the end, the Bible reads as though it was written (and rewritten and edited and rewritten ...) by ancient men sans divine guidance.
I take it the God of the bible isn't powerful enough to overcome the uncivilized nature of the times to do what is right so he just went with it and condoned slavery instead? It was just too hard not to own people so heck, what was he supposed to do, I mean, he's not perfect, right? Or is it that humans have just socially evolved past the morality of an ancient God but because people don't want to give up on their belief they don't claim their God has morally evolved as they have, but that God was perfect all along and we finally learned to see it. And they can all logically conclude that when the ancient God made rules for slavery and told his people they could take slaves from other nations and own them and their children and their children's children in perpetuity, what he really meant was that slavery is bad and all humans should be treated equally regardless of their skin color... I guess you have to just read between the lines, you know, in that empty space where anyone can speculate and imagine whatever they want to for no other reason than because they want to.
Which "God of the Bible"? There are several.
And I think you're being anachronistic, and therefore incoherent. If you mean "the God of the period of the Bible", then He had no reason to interfere with slavery, which was a constant, all across the world.
If you mean an intemporal God of the whole universe... then He simply doesn't interfere in the world, because to do so would mean we do not have Free Will.
This subject deserves more thought than you have given it.
I took his meaning to be the 'true' God character as defined in the Bible. In the OT, the God character is Yahweh. In the NT, the predominant God character is Jesus.
Seems clear to me given the context of his post.
He was supposedly hand writing laws for his chosen people, I think that's some serious interference already. He commands the males to chop the tips of their foreskin off to be his people, but he doesn't do away with owning humans as animals?
"If you mean an intemporal God of the whole universe... then He simply doesn't interfere in the world, because to do so would mean we do not have Free Will."
Well then by definition that God can't be any of the Gods presented in the bible who supposedly did or do interfere, and yes, that does mean those who believe in that kind of thing believe they have no free will.
"This subject deserves more thought than you have given it."
I've spent the better part of the last half century thinking about it, but yes, my earlier comment was flippant, though meant only as something that might shock a sheep into thinking outside their paddock.
"Which "God of the Bible"? There are several."
While I completely understand what you mean, most bible believers I've spoken too believe there to be only one "true God" as it were, and they believe that God to be the God that inspired the many disparate books of the bible from dozens of different writers to be written, then agreed upon by a religious and political council in Rome some 3000 to 300 years after their supposed events within took place. That is the God to which I refer.
Other than it being immoral.
Your argument might make a little sense if the God of the Bible had not authored all sorts of rules dealing with minutia. God apparently had sufficient reason to make 613 rules among which is disallowing charging the poor interest on loans (Exodus 22:25) yet giving divine direction that owning another person as property is immoral does not make the cut.
Further, if God is going to make rules for enslavement (e.g. Exodus 21) it is difficult to accept the notion that He is not interfering with the practice of slavery.
The above is based on the premise that the God of the Bible is real and that the Bible is accurate. With that premise in place, it is easy to show how the Bible is replete with contradictions (and that the premise is wrong).
However, if we discard that premise and instead make no assumptions other than what we know to be factual - the Bible was written, re-written, edited by ancient men over thousands of years - its resulting content (errors and all) makes perfect sense. Sans divine assumptions it is obvious why ancient men did not devise a God who would deem the backbone of their economy (owning human beings as property) immoral.
According to whom? You?
You're taking both sides of the argument, here. You are claiming divine authorship for the Bible, while disagreeing with it. Which is it?
Gosh! Do you mean to say that a text written two or three millennia ago has a simplistic understanding of God?
The problem is that the most vociferous Bible believers actually know very little about the Bible. They sometimes know texts by heart... often in King James English... but are rarely able to situate those texts in context.
Our universe is described by science. Science is vast and complicated. It's so much easier to learn a few random bits from an ancient book.
According to current Western thinking. Why would a God from thousands of years ago agree with us?
You've got it upside down. Minutia was what God did. That's who He was. That's why the serious stuff needed specific treatment, inscribed in stone and so on.
We must try to put ourselves in that world before science. There was no "scientific causation". Events were either random or caused by someone / something... spirits and gods.
Why is it surprising that that God make finicky little rules?
You know of course that when an atheist speaks of the God of the Bible, s/he is speaking of a character in a book. No assumption that this character actually exists. So it is not that one presumes ancient men had a simplistic understanding of God, but that they had a simplistic idea for their God character. They did not think it through sufficiently to avoid creating a self-refuting character.
That seems to be the case (in my experiences).
Do you really think laziness is the key impetus for holding religious beliefs superior to well established science? I think it is more that the religious beliefs are very comforting and that one will resist losing that comfort by accepting facts to the contrary. Consider the YECs and their literal interpretation of the Bible. If they cannot literally interpret the Bible their entire religious belief system falls apart. No surprise they are such a strong force in the 'evolution is nonsense' campaign.
There is no reason why any god would agree with any human being. Also, you need to be clear. Are you talking about a character in a book or are you talking about an actual god - one that actually exists? Makes a massive difference.
As I have noted, it does not surprise me a bit. The God of the Bible is almost certainly a character created by ancient men and thus is imbued with their mores and values.
The idiots! We know all the answers, after only a few more millennia.
oh, wait... we still don't...
Dunno. I find them rigid, fearful of reality. That must be uncomfortable.
Good point. Here, I'm talking about a character in a book, described from numerous points of view by numerous different authors, and therefore appearing quite different in different parts of the Book.
We have learned a few things Bob. For example, we understand that the moon is not a light source and that the lights in the skies are actually planets (non-blinking), stars and entire galaxies. We also have learned a few things about logic. For example, an omniscient entity cannot (by definition) be surprised. And, of course, per this topic our morality has evolved. Most modern cultures do consider the owning of human beings as property to be immoral.
Good. That is what I mean by the God of the Bible too.
Those who deem the Bible to be the divine word of God, however, take on a seemingly impossible task of trying to make unified sense of this collection of schtuff so as to hold to the idea that this came from a perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, etc. entity who created everything and is thus the arbiter of objective morality.
Tough gig. I appreciate the effort and understand the utter frustration of the challenge.
Exactly.
Expecting the authors of the Bible to know stuff that wasn't known until much later is... anachronistic.
This is true of "theological stuff" just as it is true of "scientific stuff".
And utterly pointless. Even counterproductive, from their point of view. I read a lot of religion blogs, and I don't know how many participants describe their leaving the fold when the cognitive dissonance became unbearable.
OTOH, if we read the Bible as a collection of works concerning God as He was understood when they were written, it's fascinating.
Nobody expects the authors to know that. The fact that they do not know suggests that they had no divine (or at least advanced) information. Stated differently, if the authors had known such things, that would have been evidence that the Bible is more than simply the work of ancient men with pens.
Agreed.
I am not surprised.
There are some folks in this thread who seem to think that they should have know that slavery is immoral.
Many believers and the book they put their faith in. Of course not.
"And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God." Exodus 31:13
"You're taking both sides of the argument, here. You are claiming divine authorship for the Bible, while disagreeing with it. Which is it?"
I'm not taking both sides of the argument, as I intentionally said "supposedly hand writing laws".
Supposed: adjective - generally assumed or believed to be the case, but not necessarily so.
"You are claiming divine authorship for the Bible, while disagreeing with it."
No, I'm claiming those who used the bible to excuse slavery claimed it of divine origin.
"Which is it?"
I do not believe it is of divine origin. I believe it to be the collective works of many wise or influential men for their times who were likely inspired by real events they interpreted to be signs, portents and prophecies. Those works were then selectively chosen and compiled under the direction of a Roman Emperor into the book we call the bible. That book was then used for both good and ill for the next 1700 years, but its primary function was that of controlling the uneducated masses throughout Europe and the Mediterranean. It was the perfect carrot and stick. Scriptures and prophecies taken out of context seemed to be the voice of God telling these unlettered peasants that they had two options, heaven or eternal torment.
"The problem is that the most vociferous Bible believers actually know very little about the Bible. They sometimes know texts by heart... often in King James English... but are rarely able to situate those texts in context. "
That's true enough. Most Christians I've spoken to have very little actual bible knowledge and can't defend most of the doctrines they claim to believe in.
"Our universe is described by science. Science is vast and complicated. It's so much easier to learn a few random bits from an ancient book."
I have to assume that was meant sarcastically. And yes, while it would be much easier to answer every question on science and biology tests with "God did it", obviously truth is worth taking the time to unravel the vast and complicated universe without just jumping to conclusions for conveniences sake.
There are also those who tacitly defend the morality of slavery by defending god's lack of prohibition against slavery.
The bible also describes abortion and does not prohibit that either.
I have not noticed anyone blaming the ancient biblical authors for being men of their times.
But if the Bible is the divine word of a perfect God it does stand to reason that these men would have been informed by same that slavery is immoral.
Apparently we pretty much agree on the origins of the book.
OTOH, the book is not responsible for whatever men have done with it. It would have to have supernatural powers...
Churches are power structures, and power tends to corrupt... but a book is a book.
Not at all. Learning a few verses by heart, in support of a simple story, is a lot easier than learning a significant amount about a dozen different sciences.
In fact, most people don't learn much about anything. The fundies just accept whatever their preacher says, and the rest accept whatever Bill Nye (or whoever) says. The difference is in the "trusted source".
If Bill Nye makes a claim regarding science it can be easily verified and, for the most part, researched to whatever level of detail one wishes. Further, we can see the results of science all around us - science works. If Ken Ham makes a claim such as the Ark carried two dinosaurs and all species of dinosaurs came from those two, then there is no way to verify that claim. There is no falsifiability in religious claims. It is truly a dead end where one either trusts a source (e.g. the Bible) or one is without recourse. This, of course, is why faith is touted to be a virtue.
Equating science to religion on the aspect of trusted sources does not survive the first level of scrutiny.
In a way, religions are the stock brokers of invisible commodities, the parishioners are the investors and the book and/or interpreted doctrine is the supposed spiritual asset that is accruing value and will supposedly someday payout big-time rewards. The religions must keep selling their brand to keep the value of their stock up. It's why virtually every religion save a handful tell you the only way to salvation is through buying their religious doctrine and investing your money, time and energy in it. So yes, the book is not to be blamed for the humans who capitalized on it and used it to get what they wanted, be it money, fame or power, but it is also the only supposed connection to the reward they promised. It's also why reading the bible was banned for centuries on pain of death. They needed to control the knowledge, made you come to them to get a little taste of what they sold to the people as Gods own words.
"The fundies just accept whatever their preacher says, and the rest accept whatever Bill Nye (or whoever) says. The difference is in the "trusted source".
A persons knowledge and education are only as good as their source. Narrow minds contain shallow waters.
"I have no special talent. I am only passionately curious." - Albert Einstein
Religion tends to punish both the passionate and the curious.
Dear Lord, I hope not! That was despicable enough a century ago. The idea that anyone would reproduce it today is nauseating.
I note that you used a very big "if"...
Some people (not you) tend to presume a particular interpretation regardless of what I write. I doubt even measures like that will make a difference but at least I am experimenting.
The problem is that what the preacher says can also be verified, by asking the bishop.
Like it or not, most people use their trusted sources in the same manner: unquestioningly. If necessary, they have backstops.
Let's not forget that one of America's most trusted sources is Fox News.
Not really. In the real world, that verification would be reference to another trusted source. Getting to experimental proof would be anything but easy.
Those of us who "believe in science" are convinced that, with enough effort, we could get to the experimental proof for... everything. In the real world, we never will make that effort, because we are absolutely confident in our trusted sources.
Kinda like...
May I suggest a find/replace? Replace "religion" with "church". In that case, I agree.
What a human being says is not important. What is important is what the human being can evidence (or prove).
In science, for example, it matters not what the most brilliant scientist says. His/her theory will be scrutinized for flaws and until it passes the scrutiny it will not mean anything. And the scrutiny continues indefinitely.
There is no equivalent in religion.
But it is there Bob and it most definitely can be accessed. Further, the science is demonstrated. One need not even go to raw experiment data to see that evolution, for example, is indeed the method for speciation (see: anti-virus research). One can find countless examples of how relativity is used in modern technology such as GPS. Science is reified in the world in which we live and if anyone doubts it (such as flat earthers) there are many layers of scientific explanations as one moves down to the raw data (i.e. nautical maps, satellite images).
And that is the real shame part, because as far as I can tell the unnamed 'it' in your partial sentence is a false confidence delivered in a system that ensnares minds.
There is no identity. There is certainly equivalence.
The vast majority have their trusted sources, and look no further.
While you (and I) are convinced we could dig down to physical evidence, the fact is that we never have and never will. We function with our trusted sources in exactly the same manner as a fundie.
I trust Scientific American...
Not really. You know how GPS is affected by relativistic effects because you have read about it in a trusted source. You have no first-hand evidence.
We could not function if we had to learn everything for ourselves. Very young, we learn to trust our parents. We go to school where we encounter other sources.
Meanwhile, some kids go to fundie religious schools...
True. One could trace GPS engineering down to the field equations for time dilation, experiments which verify same via jets and incredibly precise clocks. One could inspect countless applications of the technology and cross-reference to produce what should be a rock solid convincing correlation that shows the time dilation effect. And if that is not enough one could continue to minutia levels of detail. One could also research all the mathematics and physics underlying relativity and basically confirm the field equations themselves are valid.
But there is indeed a point where one must stop. So yes, even though we routinely witness science working in engineered products, we ultimately we have to trust that the tools used by the lowest level scientists actually worked, that their methods were valid, that fundamental physics is correct, etc. So if you wish to disregard the mountains of evidence at each level of abstraction and stick with the fact that ultimately we rely upon the veracity of human beings I grant you your point.
Now, drag yourself out of the absurd and compare science and religion. In science/engineering one can do personal research down to a very low level of detail and continue to amass increasingly detailed empirical data. If you have a problem with trust at the detailed levels you could achieve then you would have to believe science is engaging in some mass conspiracy. In religion, all you have is human declarations. Your research takes you from one opinion to another and never do you have empirical data or even a falsifiable hypothesis to test.
No comparison.
Certainly. But it never happens. We trust our trusted sources.
I'm not assimilating science and religion. I agree with you completely about that fundamental differences.
I'm assimilating people's behavior. You, personally, think about thinking. Most people do not. Most people trust their trusted sources, and that's the end of it.
In this as in so many things, the choice of trusted sources is probably more tribal than considered, for most people.
Or defend/rationalize it too.
But the principle I noted remains true.
In science, the view of the scientist is irrelevant. What matters is what the scientist can evidence (or, perhaps, prove) not what the scientist declares.
In religion, the view of the authority is all that matters. Necessarily so since nothing can be evidenced.
As I said, science and religion are very different... but the behavior of their faithful is quite similar.
And yet, some pro-lifers use the bible as justification to prohibit abortion rights. It bogles the mind the level of mental gymnastics some people will do to rationalize their position or beliefs.
Is this a new type of prosperity gospel?
Maybe an old type. “Send me a slave and God will bestow blessings upon you.”
I am going to let you all have this all to yourselves. I was going in, but nope. Enjoy!
A wise choice given your position on the subject of biblical slavery.
A wise choice indeed. "Poof" Oh look! The biggest bag of popcorn ever just appeared out of thin air next to me. I will watch through this safety glass door on my side.
Hopefully nobody throws a shoe thru the safety glass.
Using the Bible to justify anything is insane. Lionizing the most prolific mass murderer ever conceived is insane.
Men have always invented their gods to mirror the times in which they live. So it's not surprising that the biblical god condones slavery, child abuse, etc. That's what the men who created the character knew as regular life.
Some people used the story of Ham to claim that black people were cursed and therefore deserved to be enslaved.
Of course, anyone with a clue knows that people migrated from Africa to the Middle East, not the other way around, but then ... that's what happens when you take a book of myths seriously.
The Bible and Christianity were "Also" used to Condemn Slavery. If there's one thing we can be sure of in this world it is that people will twist things to support their agenda, it doesn't matter if it's the Bible or the Constitution or the words of a respected person or whatever, people will nitpick what they can use to support their cause or condemn another's cause while ignoring anything that doesn't. It isn't much different than the Headline Propaganda used by the Media today, you make a bold statement in the Headline (which is all most people will ever read) but the facts of the story really doesn't support the Headline but that doesn't matter because the Sheeple are controlled by a never ending stream of false or half true Headlines.
The Abolitionist Movement was for the most part made up of Church and Religious Groups (guess what Religion). The Abolitionist Movement became increasingly prominent in Northern Churches beginning in the 1830s. Guess what Lincoln didn't free the Slaves two million White Christian Union Soldiers did.
The Bible never condemns the practice of owning a human being as property. That fact is not twisting anything. It is a fact.
Another fact is that at many points in the Bible Yahweh makes rules for proper enslavement. No twisting, you can read the words yourself such as:
No doubt, however, that people operating as true Christians (love thy neighbor) would take that essential message attributed to Jesus and use it to combat slavery. So I very much agree that essential Christian beliefs of love are entirely at odds with slavery. But I disagree with ignoring the balance of the Bible (see above). Also, note that even in the kinder, gentler NT even Jesus never condemned as immoral the practice of owning another human being as property and that practice was replete in his period.
Finally, note that this absence of divine moral guidance in the Bible continues even to modern times. Imagine the effect on the history of enslavement if the Bible actually did condemn the practice of slavery as immoral. But, demonstrably, it did the opposite.
Does it say anything about any particular race being more worthy of enslavement ? The article says "The Bible and Christianity were used to justify African slavery". It doesn't bother to mention that many cultures practiced slavery including the very tribes that the African Slaves were from including the tribes that were selling most of the African slaves to the slave traders who shipped them to America. If we're going to talk about the morality of slavery and assign blame then we should consider that the African Slaves that were brought to America didn't believe slavery was wrong either because they were from a slave holding culture. At least we did away with slavery while slavery is still practiced in parts of Africa and the Middle East. But these are the types of facts that must be ignored when someone is trying to demonize The White Christian Devil as if they are the root of all evil and the world would have been perfect in every way if only they hadn't screwed it up. The fact is slavery was fairly wide spread and generally accepted back then in most parts of the world by religious and non-religious peoples, you'd have to search pretty hard to find a culture that didn't practice some form of slavery at some point in history. So if we're going to assign blame we should blame all of Mankind for Slavery.
It does say in that if the slave dies as a direct result of the beating the owner would surely be punished, now as for the second part the owner, in order to avoid the punishment, would damn well make sure the slave survives, there also needs to be a time limit, the slave while still injured, could go back to work and get kicked in the head by a donkey.
If we were in Brazil then we could talk about slavery in Brazil. We are in the US (the great majority of us) so we talk about slavery in the US.
George McDuffie was the governor of South Carolina when he wrote the material quoted in the seed. He was presumably well aware that the credo of the United States is "all men are created equal".
Using the Bible as a rationale was his way of getting around that statement in the Declaration of Independence.
No, I think Mc Duffie pulled that out of thin air.
True. Lots of people throughout history practiced slavery. That is a bad thing, right? Even if slaves themselves originally had slaves, slavery is still a bad thing. I presume you agree with that so it is not clear why you made this point.
Sure. Include everyone who participated in slavery. Indeed, the ones who actually acted to enslave others are the ones to blame. The Bible is simply a book that unfortunately gave these slavers (faux) divine justification for their deeds.
Yes, societal evolution. It is a good thing that human beings, for the most part, broke free of the mores and values of the ancient authors of the Bible. I presume you agree with that too - that holding the Bible as the source for divine moral guidance is demonstrably a mistake.
Maybe. Is that how you interpret my observation that the God of the Bible never condemned as immoral the practice of owning human beings as property?? If so, that is waaaaay off base.
Indeed, I made that very point. It makes perfect sense that ancient men would not condemn slavery as immoral since that is all they ever knew and it was the basis for their economy. However, it makes no sense that God (the arbiter of objective morality) would not inform His creatures that slavery is immoral. The Bible reads as though it was written by ancient men sans divine guidance based on a perfect understanding of morality.
If you wish, but as you noted we have evolved to the point where most of mankind deems slavery to be immoral. So blaming past slavers makes good sense and praising those who have grown to understand the gross immorality of slavery makes sense to me.
You are correct, it certainly does say that. Per the God of the Bible, if you beat the shit out of your slave you better ensure that he (or she) does not die within a few days because then you are in trouble. However, if the slave survives the beating, God says all is cool because, after all, the slave is your property. You see that in the scripture, right?
Here is the key point of that passage:
God, here, is declaring that a human being is the property of another. What do you have to say about God clearly recognizing a human being as another's property and, due to that, okaying a qualified beating of the slave. The arbiter of objective morality never even hints that it is immoral to own a human being as property. That is a bit troublesome, eh? Is that a good moral lesson for people to follow? Is God wrong or, as some have actually tried to argue, does this mean that the owning of another person as property is not necessarily immoral?
Only if you believe that everything written in the Bible was written by God which I don't. Most Christians understand that the Bible includes many laws of Man written by Man three thousand years ago and they don't follow those laws. Christians have evolved. When was the last Christian Stoning you heard about. Todays Christians may speak about their Values and promote Bible based Morality but they leave final Judgement up to God. The Bible as a Moral Guide is still better than most of what's out there and certainly better than nothing.
If one omits a passage attributed to God by the Bible then sure, one can read the Bible any way one wishes. But then one should ask why any part of the Bible would be considered the word of God. In other words, if one rejects some 'God said this' parts of the Bible but accepts other 'God said this' parts, then the believer is pretty much admitting that the Bible is not divine. Either that or the believer presumes special knowledge to filter out the parts that incorrectly speak for God.
But cherry-picking does not help when it comes to omission. The Bible never condemns as immoral the owing of a human being as property. Even when that practice was replete ... no way to overlook it.
I agree. Most modern Christians largely overlook the OT entirely. So when they see passages that ostensibly contain quotes from God, they dismiss them as ancient men pretending to speak for God. I applaud that kind of reasoning.
But that does not change the point I made. The Bible is an easy excuse for those who seek to justify slavery. Do you disagree?
Absolutely. I emphatically make the very same point. But, again, that does not change the Bible.
Have you read the OT recently? (The general NT meme of Jesus, however, is a good moral guide.) I would strongly dissuade people from relying upon the Bible itself for moral guidance.
Most people who rely on the Bible for moral guidance go to Church for interpretation. As far as the Bible being an excuse for slavery man has never needed an excuse most slave holders never read a Bible and most people who have read the Bible have never had a slave.
Also most of the rules and laws in the Bible don't say "God said" it's usually religious leaders who say everything is from God or God approved or he wouldn't have allowed it to be included in the Bible.
Indeed. And this usually means that they are in fact going to the preacher for moral guidance.
Not really the point. I was referring to the points where the Bible states 'God says'. Case in point, Exodus 20 (the 10 commandments) and Exodus 21 (from which we find some of the rules for proper enslavement).
Do you recognize that the OT condones slavery? Do you recognize that the Bible never condemns the owning of human beings as property?
1. Who among this assemblage is prepared to state that an infinite God should and could operate on a finite creature's morality scale?
2. Some are absolutely saying (in a cloud of words) the Jewish G-d does not exist, because for said G-d to exist, G-d would be immoral—on account of not denouncing slavery in Ancient Israel.
3. Are these individuals prepared to explicitly state:
John, I hope you don't mind, I finished by everlasting bag of popcorn after many amazing handfuls. I ask permission to kindly join the discussion! I have some 'fat' to try and cut through!
Does God, per the Bible, consider it moral for one person to own another as property?
As I suspected: The Rook falls silent.
The topic is the (faux) justification of slavery by the Bible (and Christianity). You want to debate whether or not we can determine if God is moral? Write an article. The only aspect of your post that seems (in my opinion) relevant to the topic (partially) is this:
My answer is that anyone who owns another human being as property is engaging in an immoral act.
Do you think it is moral for a human being to own another as property?
-similarly-
A question you ignored while complaining that I ignored your off topic (in my opinion) comment.
To answer your question, I would have to say yes.
Consider the alternative, slaves were more than likely spoils of war and the Hebrews were already well known for slaughtering their enemies completely, so if you ended up a slave you were lucky indeed, you were alive, working, fed, clothed, and sheltered. Slaves also gave the Jewish people prosperity and security to insure the people who held God's word a path into the future.
It seems that way to me too. If God, per the Bible, considered slavery to be immoral then condoning it is a contradiction and never condemning it is inexplicable given God made all sorts of rules for far lesser things.
I agree that at the time, slavery was critical to an economy and being a slave (regardless of the immorality) was not the worst fate of a human being. But, unfortunately, since the Bible never offers any moral guidance against slavery, the McDuffies of history were able to exploit the Bible to justify their immoral acts. Long after societies had largely evolved out of iron age practices, the Bible remained unchanged and remained (by many) to be the divine word of a perfect God. McDuffie is but one who took advantage of that.
This article is 'littered' with your "assurances" the (faux) God of the Jews does not exist. It sits in the background of most of the comments you have 'uttered' on this thread.
So, your answer is, "Yes" "anyone" including Ancient Jews who definitely owned slaves were immoral. Step up and hit it out of the park already.
I think it is not right for a human to own another person as property; but that is my local morality. I do not go around in any shape or fashion faux arguing with the Creator about matters too big for my breaches. Lest I find myself buck naked in chains reflecting on the meaning of karma!
But you continue to go right ahead doing that, you hear?
Great insight. I could not have stated it better. In the Jewish "economy" enslavement of pagans were to consider them under a curse of sorts (from God). In fact, the whole enterprise of biblical slavery could be in some ways a curse (judgement; poverty; et ceteras).
Wrong. You need to stop putting words in people's mouths. This is what I wrote:
Read carefully. I should not have to break this down for you.
Then you (now) disagree with the God of the Bible. To your credit! Stick with that.
It seems to me that what may have been considered moral thousands of years ago is not necessarily considered moral today, but what right have we to apply present-day standards to and judge those who preceded us by thousands of years? When I was in Spain more than half a century ago would I have been right to disparage the Spanish Catholics because of the Inquisition, to berate those sitting next to me sipping wine at an outdoor cafe in Madrid of being of a faith that was complicit?
Maybe you meant that to the other commenter?
I am not pulling rules out from the Old Testament (Torah) to denounce Israel and Christians with. I am not calling Ancient Israel an immoral slave owning people. I am not implicitly or explicitly stating God is immoral for allowing slavery in Ancient Israel while calling out other pagan (Canaanite) activities as rationale and "abomination" for why those people should be taken off of their lands.
Time to stop dancing around the 'eight-hundred pounds gorilla' in the discussion. Talk plain, I say.
The Jewish people/nation owned pagan slaves in Ancient Israel—no one else. So, how about some plain talk.
You have my answer on your question. I reserve the right to keep it in its proper context @8.2.19.
Yeah, I may have meant that for another poster, not you. Sorry, my mistake.
Pretty sure nobody knows what point you are trying to make. I surely do not.
That comment may have been misdirected, and should be aimed only at those who disparage what happened thousands of years ago (exmple; the killing of Jesus), but lets just apply present day morals to present day situations, like these:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/02/07/slavery-is-still-alive-in-mauritania-can-a-new-court-ruling-help-change-that/?utm_term=.a08732e6e00f
And that is precisely why I answered CB's question the way I did. Note how he (purposely) worded his question:
He is asking if I consider ancient people categorically immoral because they owned slaves. That of course is a bullshit question. Might as well ask if the people were immoral because they killed others, screwed goats, etc.
My answers was:
In other words, I am stating that the practice of owning another human being as property is an immoral act. That does not mean the owner is categorically immoral or that the whole of ancient society is categorically immoral.
And that is a weak bullshit answer. You can not separate the practice of owning slaves from the people and their (faux, you say) God you are connecting them too. Moreover, you have implied numerous times on this thread that Ancient Israel has no existing G-d to write about in the Old Testament, but, and I paraphrase, the ancient people are just ancient men who wrote rules of slavery to suit themselves.
Right. I don't have to wonder. Ancient Israel did a great many things, including mass genocides under the direction of G-d. In modern times I can not approve of that. But, I'd be a fool to pass judgement on the Creator I serve. You on the otherhand, do not serve any such deity, so you are free to offer what you do.
And, on the otherhand, ancient Israelites never used chemical spreading weapons, nuclear blast weapons, or man-made carcinogens, and any host of life-taking materials and devices either.
Sucks when your little ploy falls flat on its face, eh?
I wonder if your little taunt will get deleted? That's all.
Pretty sure you do, but definitely sure you will not admit it. What throws you, the words, "pagan slaves"?
You consider the owning of slaves to be immoral and you claim that if people engage in immoral acts then the people as a whole are categorically immoral.
Using your position with your reasoning, you consider ancient people who own slaves to be immoral as a people. Do you still like your flawed reasoning?
No, I really do not know what you are trying to say. Try to rephrase in clear English.
I will not even dignify that any further.
IMPASSE.
“‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves. 40 They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you; they are to work for you until the Year of Jubilee.
42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves.
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."
Leviticus 25:39-46
I think that's a clear "YES" answer to your question.
That question pertains to the morality of ownership. If the morality of ownership cannot be applied universally to all things in creation, then isn't that a matter of law rather than a matter of morality? Humans can treat each other immorally without ownership; suggesting that the question of ownership is not a question about morality.
The Bible indicates that owning something is acceptable. The Bible does not indicate that humans are greater than any other part of creation, humans are not an exception. I do not believe the Bible addresses ownership as a question of morality.
The American Civil War made the idea of freedom an objective moral principle; taking a person's freedom is immoral. What does the Bible say about the morality of freedom?
Well I am focused on one particular type of ownership - the ownership of a human being. To me the morality of owning a human being is profoundly different from the morality (so to speak) of owning a goat, owning a cart or owning clothing.
To wit, the morality of ownership itself is too abstract for my interest.
Ownership is a contract. A contract (even one of ownership) is neither moral or immoral. My point is that a contract does not excuse or release an individual from moral obligations toward other humans. Any sort of contract does not allow an individual to mistreat, cheat, mislead, or otherwise abuse other humans.
An employment contract is a form of ownership. Just because an employer owns a contract does not allow that employer to mistreat or cheat employees. The contract does not release the employer from moral obligations toward employees. The contract is neither moral or immoral; using a contract to justify mistreatment is immoral.
Changing a slave into an employee only changes the type of contract but does not in any way alter the moral obligations of the individual who owns the contract.
A free individual has ownership of themselves; does that make a person a slave to themselves? Is self ownership moral? So, the pertinent question is not about the morality/immorality of owning a human being. The question is really about morality/immorality concerning freedom. Was the American Civil War fought so that slaves could own themselves or so slaves would have freedom?
An immediate example to disprove that: slaves acquired as spoils of war are not in a contractual relationship unless you go to the extreme and say that they do have a choice: live as a slave or die.
You realize that you are trying to argue that it is right to own another human being as property. Seems to be an act of futility.
Let us not incrementally step from the subject. Ownership of a human being as property means total control over the individual. The right to use the individual as you see fit (within certain rules of society) including the right to sell the individual, buy new individuals and pass individuals on to one's heirs as part of an inheritance. It is difficult for me to take seriously any attempt to suggest that the owning of a human being as property is moral. Further, I would not recommend publicly arguing (directly or tacitly) that slavery is moral.
The best I can tell the ancient Israelites thought being slaves sucked...
That being enslaved was a bad bad thing but enslaving others was cool.
The only slavery I know of that exists today is what I linked about Mauritania, and also ISIS enslaving Yazidi and other girls and women who are not Muslim, saying that the Q'oran approves of it. There were lots of things that were common thousands of years ago but I thought that the topic of this article was about a situation more current than that.
A Chinese sex slave ring was just busted in Florida a week ago...
Really? In Florida? You mean that America STILL has slavery?
The Bible and Christianity were used to justify African slavery
Were?
Some still utilize the bible today to justify their nonsense, ie: Can you say Ray Moore?
The Bible and Christianity were used to justify African slavery? Yeah? It seems that science, secular philosophy, democratic government, and economic principles were also used to justify the institution of slavery. The institution of slavery was older than Christianity. In fact, the institution of slavery was older than recorded human history since the first recorded history includes descriptions of slavery.
People don't seem to understand why the American Civil War was such an important turning point in human history. And the importance of that pivotal moment in human history is being lost because the profoundly ignorant think they are owed something of insignificant value.
Plenty of other countries had outlawed slavery before our Civil War happened.
plenty of other countries continued to allow slavery long after our Civil War ended including the areas in West Africa where most American Slaves came from.
But this discussion concerns America
The point is....the Southern Baptist Convention used the Bible to justify slavery. I believe that is one of the reasons why they formed their own convention
Just what I thought:
The Southern Baptist Convention did not disavow slavery until 1995...
Not so sure about Christianity (seems entirely wrong to blame the tenets of Christianity for slavery), but there is no doubt that the Bible (which condones slavery and never, ever condemns as immoral the practice of owning another human being as property) was used to justify slavery.
Mc Duffie specifically invoked Christianity as a sanctioning authority for slavery
Under both the Jewish and Christian dispensations of our religion, domestic slavery existed with the unequivocal sanction of its prophets, its apostles and finally its great Author.
Because someone used Christianity as a rationale doesnt mean Christian principles are guilty, it means the slaveholder thought mentioning Christianity would justify him.
Seems to be a weak argument by McDuffie. Especially since (as I noted) the tenets of Christianity if anything are at odds with slavery — 'love thy neighbor'. Too bad Jesus never condemned slavery as immoral — look at all the faux justification that could have been prevented. Instead Bible followers are left with the mores and values of bronze and iron age men -stated clearly in OT scripture as rules from God- who probably never even considered the idea that owning another person as property is immoral.
Marriage was consistent with the idea of slavery. The relationship between parents and children were and still are consistent with the idea of slavery. Benevolence isn't intended for those of greater status and means; the tenets of Christianity promotes the idea of benevolence and charity by the master toward the slave.
The United States did not simply outlaw slavery. The American people confronted slavery on the field of battle and defeated slavery. Americans sacrificed themselves for the ideal of freedom. The American Civil War transformed slavery into an objective moral wrong and elevated freedom to an objective truth as a principle of morality/ethics. That had never happened before in human history. That's why the American Civil War is a pivotal moment that should not be written out of history.
Who wants to write the Civil War out of history?
Let's not go overboard. The US was very late among Western nations, in doing away with slavery. Great Britain did this in 1805, and began hunting slave-ships in 1835.
Late? I think not. Colonies began outlawing slavery before there was a United States. The United States outlawed slavery in half the country before the Constitution was ratified. The United States outlawed the African slave trade in 1808, less than two decades after the Constitution was ratified.
The United States is a young nation compared to Great Britain. It did not take centuries for the United States to begin outlawing slavery, unlike Europe. What was Europe's excuse?
Some colonies...
Slavery was not abolished in the whole country until 1865.
Before the American Revolution, American history and British history were the same.
'It seems that science, secular philosophy, democratic government, and economic principles were also used to justify the institution of slavery.'
What the what?
Here is a quote about this material that may add some context to the messgae
So, what was used to justify slavery by the Ancient Greeks, Ancient Romans, Ancient Arabs, and modern Arabs?
Racism, hate, demonizing those of other races and faiths, but the reality is, they didn't need to "justify" it back when everyone was doing it. But a thousand plus years later after people considered themselves "civilized" and went through a period of enlightenment and slavery was mostly abandoned by people and cultures. The few left that kept slavery then had to "justify" it and they often did so using the bible to claim their right to continue such a horrid practice and to continue their racism, hatred and the demonizing of other races and faiths.
So, please explain serfs, then.
Do you really want a dissertation on serfdom?
Suffice it to say, while serfdom was a form of debt bondage and a serfs debt could be sold and traded which effectively meant the serfs were sold and traded, it was a bare step up from full bondage where serfs often lived on and worked their Lords lands in exchange for a roof and a small farm to grow their own food. It was also in decline in many places starting in the 12th century and became even more rare after the Renaissance, though admittedly it did persist until the 19th century.
Does any of that change a word I said above? Nope. Slavery was in decline for centuries before the Southern preachers were trying to justify owning slaves using the bible. Austria banned serfdom in 1781 and it was abolished in Russia in the 1860's just before our own civil war and abolishment of slavery.
And, with those answers you should have seen WHY I asked the original question. Serfdom was a form of slavery that was justified by a landowner "protecting" his serfs and therefore being their "lord". The Bible was being used as a justification just as landowners in the Dark Ages justified having serfs to work their lands. The Romans justified owning slaves as prisoners of war for the most part and criminals for the rest. Just as African slaves in the Americas were justified as originally being prisoners of war sold to slavers by rival tribes and then sold again since they were already slaves and sold to begin with. In fact the only justification for slavery is really the typical excuses of bad behavior, anything and everything is used as long as it seems logical.
It seems that you're defending the use of the bible as a defense of slavery by saying "Yeah, well other things were used to defend slavery too". I've never denied that "other things" have been used, but that doesn't change the fact that one of those "things" was the bible and it's apparent condoning of slavery.
So far the excuses I've heard have been "ancient times were different", "everybody was doing it", and "there were many reasons used to defend slavery". None of those excuses change the fact stated in the headline, "The bible and Christianity were used to justify slavery".
Now, you can do all the mental gymnastics you want in order to defend something you've already made up your mind to trust and believe, that's up to you. But claiming there is any valid excuse for owning humans as well as their children and children's children as the laws in the bible allow is just morally reprehensible from a humanist standpoint at any time in any place.
And, you aren't getting the point. EVIL people will use whatever justification is needed to commit evil deeds and use things like The Bible, religion, and whatever else to justify those deeds. Right now, the Democrats are justifying their lack of defending the United States' Southwestern border through the excuse of "It is evil to stop people from coming to the United States." and "There is no crisis according to the 2017 numbers." Frankly, by refusing to do anything about our immigration system and fund the border, I believe they are committing Treason and should be arrested for doing so. The reason I say Treason for this is that they swear "to uphold and defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic"; but they are refusing to carry out one of their primary duties in the Constitution which is to protect and defend the United States, its states, and territory. Hell, one such statement about defending the states has its own section:
By allowing thousands of immigrants to cross the border without any real punishment or even trying to slow them down, the Congress is condoning an invasion of the country and since many of these immigrants are members of MS-13 and other violent gangs from Central America, the Congress are promoting domestic Violence instead of protecting the states as is part of their duties.
First, this isn't the case of people using something innocuous to commit evil deeds with. It's not as neutral as a gun. It condones slavery, which is why it was used to defend it. If it didn't condone slavery, I find it unlikely it would be used to justify slavery.
Second, what the hell does any of the rest of your post about immigration and rant about Democrats have to do with this seed?
[deleted] Did you actually READ AND THINK about what I was saying? The overall point is that EVIL people will use and say whatever to hide their evil acts. Not following your oath of office is an evil act and using excuses about why you are not following your oath of office is a means of hiding your evil acts. It was all about reinforcing my point about slavers using anything to justify slavery. You do realize that about half of the Bible was written and the entire thing compiled during Roman times when slavery was rampant, correct? And, did you bother reading Exodus at all? Where it essentially spells out the evils of slavery as the Jews were slaves of the Egyptians at the time despite having gone there at the invitation of the Pharaoh through Joseph?
Modern Muslims can use the OT and the Qur'an as justification.
Pre-OT civilizations no doubt justified slavery as 'good for the economy' (in different words of course). They used slaves because slavery enabled them to accomplish things that would otherwise not be possible. Basically the same justification one would use for invading and conquering others.
Why did you ask that question?
I'll reply to you after Dismayed Patriot answers my latest request. And, you partially came up with the answer to your question in your reply, TiG.
TiG,
Read my 12.1.3 comment and you'll see the answer as to why I asked the question.
Economic prosperity (or lack thereof) was the case in South Carolina and Georgia for wanting commercial slavery to enter those colonies—and it did so.
Another issue present for Ancient Israelites, different from specifically western modern times, when you defeated or vanquished an enemy in Old Testament times if you did not exterminate the enemy it would find its way back to its lands taken from it. And the processes of war would repeat!
Thus, a vanquished people, kept under controlled circumstances of permanent slavery, were rendered nationally ineffectual.
Slavery was indeed beneficial to the masters. No question about it. And the motivations differ across time and location. The commonality, however, is the owning of another human being as property and the moral question thereon.
Whose morals are at issue here? God's//"ancient men"//modern man's?
Moreover, do take stock of what level we're playing on when/if you reply. We seem to be wavering between God/ OT Bible / Modern forms of slavery ("Mcduffie" style). These things did/do not behave the same and some separation is desperately called for!
Explain the difference then!
The God character of the Bible.
I have been talking about the God character of the Bible all along. Never wavered a bit.
Well Tig, you are not the only one some of us are addressing back and forth. But let's let that pass. . . .
The article is premised on OT, modern commercial slavery, modern morality and mores, and rank racial bigotry in the mix. God being relevant to the Old Testament soley out of the list.
Thank you for setting, or resetting the stage. I will respond to you shorty.
So I weighed in on me. Seems like a correct response to your post. Why do you object?
What was George McDuffie's primary source for justification?
So what is it you do again for these discussions?
Okay, my comment was not a set up to ask a new question. (I needed away for a fine dinner!) Okay. . . .
What was George McDuffie's primary source for justification (of slavery in South Carolina)?
Dual purposes: An abuse of the OT God's name; and, as governor of South Carolina he had an utter need for economically cheap labor in South Carolina for the state's wealthy planters.
He engages logically, factually and honestly.
You posed a source question and provided purposes as the answer.
You have declared God is almost certainly a character in a book. How do you figure a fictional character needs a logical explanation for its statements and actions?
In addition, if God is to use your words, 'almost certainly a character in a book,' why do you have expectation you can reason with this book?
Your questions presume a need that I have never stated and pose a nonsensical notion of reasoning with a book.
I will answer the first one. The second makes no sense.
The character itself does not need anything. But if one is evaluating a claim that this character is real without a shred of evidence then all one has is the description of the character itself. One could use that description and see if it logically holds water. If the character (as defined) is inconsistent (i.e. contradictions are found) then the claim that the character is real (as defined) is found to be false.
Your biased answer is noted. Now, Gordy?
It is my answer after delving into the article above. There is not one thing driving this man, he gets a great many conclusions wrong here, because he wants to keep his slaves. So, he is willing to pull 'points' for his speech from numerous quarters.
How do you plan to prove God (the biblical character to you) is immoral? You have stated it is most likely (or words to that effect) a Jewish character: What makes those people wrong for writing their national fiction as they wish it?
Is a member or group in of a society is obeying and honoring the laws of society is that person an immoral person?
How is an immoral law determined? By whom?
If humanity is free to think as it wills, then is it logically consistent that people can band together consensually to think anythng they wish and do it.
And that is just for starters. . . .
Good night.
If God is real, with the traditional attributes of omnipotence, ... then we can expect Him to be coherent. So... finding incoherence in the Bible is a Big Problem for inerrantists.
Even as readers of fiction, we expect an author to make her personages behave coherently. Not necessarily reasonably nor intelligently. Coherently.
So incoherence in the Bible is important, whether one is a believer or not.
I guess you haven't been paying attention to my posts.
No doubt true. But you questioned his primary source not his SOLE motivation. Primary = main. Source = source of the justification.
Sure. Like any other human being he used several sources of information. Where is this celebration of the obvious going?
Not planning to prove it. That is not even my point. My point is that the Bible defined a self-refuting main character. This is just another example of that. The arbiter of objective morality who is demonstrably interfering in the lives of His creations, making all sorts of nit-picking rules, directing them into battle, hardening hearts, killing the en masse, etc. never condemned as immoral the extremely common practice of owing others as property.
Was it because God was not capable of that feat as an omnipotent entity? Could not figure out how to do it as an omniscient entity?
I would argue that the God character of the Bible thought slavery was a good and proper practice. The reason is because the character was invented and defined by bronze and iron age men who had never seen anything other than slavery in their lives (and in their history). To them slavery was simply the normal way of life. So of course the God they invented would not declare the basis of their economy to be immoral. The notion of immorality likely never even entered the minds of the biblical authors.
So let's assume that the God character of the Bible considers owning human beings as property to be an acceptable, morally right practice. Do you consider the God character of the Bible moral in His support for owning human beings as property?
( I predict that you will dodge the question. )
I have not suggested the Jewish people are wrong (as in immoral). Ancient people were products of their time. In their relative morality I suspect most of them behaved in a moral fashion.
By definition of relative morality, if a member of a group abides by that group's relative morality they are behaving in a moral fashion.
Each group (where group definitions vary) could (and often does) have its own relative morality. This relative moral code is typically drawn from what the group has grown to understand to be 'proper behavior'. No doubt it is assembled by one or a few members and presented to the group (either as edict or for approval). The morality of Islam, for example, starts with the Qur'an (ostensibly the dictates of a single prophet) but then it varies per group as other 'wise' holy men offer their interpretations.
Objective morality, in contrast to relative morality, would necessarily come from THE supreme entity. If no supreme entity exists, then there is no objective morality and all of morality is simply relative. If one does exist but never communicates objective morality in a verifiable, coherent form then it does not matter if objective morality exists because nobody knows what it is.
First, let's establish once and for all, for atheists, God is a character in a book. Thus, all "if God. . . " are off. The law of non-contradiction steps in.
Next, for atheists, the Jewish leaders wrote a set of books (and postures the set of books as "sacred") for Jews.
Next, for atheists, the Jewish leaders set up national rules for pagan slaves and Jewish slaves.
So any coherence in the OT, for atheists, is a luxury, because the main thrust of the set of books is one long-running lie: That is, "God SAYS."
For atheists, the Torah/OT is a set of incredulous, unreliable, irresponsible, immoral, prevaricating, inconsistent, . . . books of limited real value. Bob, what do you do when you find such books? You put it down and walk away. That is what you would do.
Correct. Relative morality. So ancient people could hold by a set of rules (one of which is: 'it is okay to own another human being as property') and be perfectly moral according to their norms and values.
See, Cal, if you argue in terms of the ancient writers of the Bible (and not in terms of a real God) then it is extremely easy to see why the Bible never condemns the owning of human beings as property. What else would you expect of these ancient authors? And when we see errors / contradictions in the Bible and in the definition of its God character we attribute that to human error and the process by which the Bible came to be (over thousands of years of writing, re-writing, editing, loss of content, natural language translation, etc.).
The problem comes when someone breaks free of the prose and deems the character of the Bible to be real. As soon as one does that, by the very definition of the character, logic comes into play. No longer can human error explain away the contradictions - the definition of the character must now stand on its own. And this character, as defined, does not survive the scrutiny of logic. It is a self-refuting character and thus does not exist (as defined).
In other words, a god may indeed exist, but it is not the God as defined by the Bible because that god is a contradiction.
No, the biblical God is a character in a book. That does not mean there is no god.
What is the point of all this other than to note that atheists do not hold the Bible divine (true!) and to declare out of thin air that atheists cannot and do not appreciate other qualities of ancient works like the Bible (false!)? Presumption is a crappy source of knowledge.
That is what I wrote. I do not need a lesson in what I mean to get across. I know what I meant to write. Though, if you look again you will not see I am/was trying to get the bottom and separate the issues intertwined in the article.
But this is belaboring the point. This off-shoot discussion is what I hate most and wish to do less. We should not be here to parse mere words, for word sake! It is simply time-consuming and sapping.Give me the sake respect in these exchanges that you extend your fellows, and I will try my hardest to do the same with you.
I do not care about this line of exchange.
This is about getting clarity. You posed -directly to me- a question and answer that made no sense. I explained to you why it made no sense. You question McDuffie's source but then answer in terms of his purposes. Proof:
If you want to avoid people noting a problem with a post directed to them that makes your point unintelligible then use language that makes sense.
Well, man is the steward of the planet, has material mind, hands and feet, and is desperately in need of purpose. So, why can't humanity do something constructive besides lay around and get diseased and fat. (For which, it would need (demand?) a cure?)
Let's clear the air. The "ancients" lived in cities, had governments, administrations (officers), constructed dwelling, buildings, had cleansing rituals, invented "modern" weapons, and were sophisticated travelers, wrote laws, held professional positions from which some of our careers derive today . . . . They were not uneducated and unsophisticated.
In the Bible there are whole sections on what to consider moral and immoral (dos and don't) and the adjoining penalty when performed. Yes, morality was a big deal to a new burgeoning nation: Ancient Israel.
Your annoying habit of attempting to 'steer' me is nauseating. I could be rather enjoying our discussion, but then you TAG some personal paranoid remark upfront-inbetween-or at last to it and it ruins the tone and tenor of the exchange.
I have told you "for days" across several at-length discussion my moral conviction and view of God. WHAT THE HEAVEN DO YOU KEEP ASKING ME ABOUT FOR READ THE THREAD IT IS UP THERE ALREADY.
(I won't question your motivation for constantly asking the question anew.) My answer is the same—always.
I do not get out ahead of my skis, trying to "out-moral" my Creator. That would be personally foolish and logically inconsistent. For one thing (and you hate when I try to reason with you), I, nor you, get to see this world as God does. Meaning God is Alpha and Omega to the Believer, being nothing to the unbeliever.
Thus, God has seen slavery come into th world-serve its purposes- go out of the world- and, if need be, return at some later future. Logically, it is futile for a finite being (humanity) to sit in judgement of an infinite being (God).
How in any way does that answer the questions you quoted:
I noted that the ancients likely never even considered that slavery is immoral. Noting that they had their own relative morality is again stating the obvious (and not only is that uncontested, it has already been stipulated at least by me). So, again, what does your 'answer' have to do with my question?
What are you talking about? Which question, specifically, have I asked that is 'up there already'? One cannot address vague complaints.
Were we not talking about ancients? I am reading plenty of complaints but do not see the source of the complaint. Where have I (or anyone for that matter) challenged you to out-moral your Creator?
'The lord works in mysterious ways.' In other words, do not question that which does not make logical sense in the Bible. Do not use your reasoning faculties. If a proposed God definition appears to be a contradiction, do not question the veracity of the Bible. Presume the Bible divine and just follow what other human beings tell you.
I consider that to be very poor advice. As such, I will continue to challenge anyone who encourages people to put their critical thinking on hold.
The Jewish people in Ancient Israel owned pagan slaves. In your opinion, were the Jews right or wrong for owning slaves?
If you suspect that Ancient Jews behaved morally in owning other people, then how is they or their "God character" being implicated as immoral?
In my opinion per my relative morality anyone who owns a human being as property is acting immoral. Clearly, by most modern standards, their acts were immoral. But, as I noted, to the ancients whose relative morality held that slavery is entirely normal and proper, they would not be immoral. The ancient authors of the Bible were men of their time and most likely saw nothing immoral about owning other people.
This has already been established several times.
The God character is defined as the creator of everything and knower of all. The God character is not defined as just another Hebrew, but rather that which would be the arbiter of objective morality. The God character would not, accordingly, be subject to the mores and values of ancient people. The God character, as defined, would set the rules for objective morality. But the God character never did reveal this objective morality by informing His creations that owning another person as property is immoral.
Thus either the God character held that slavery was moral or, as you hypothesize, He just did not want to tell them. He was happy to give 613 rules (in the OT) with various levels of specificity - many highly detailed - and would readily interfere with the lives of the people. But for some unknown reason God chose to not instruct His people that owning another person as property is morally wrong. ( mysterious ways )
And God has never weighed in on this. So for thousands of years we have God condoning slavery and bigots like McDuffie exploting this fact to claim that God is okay with slavery. If only God, while writing the rule against screwing the family goat, had mentioned the immorality of owning people too.
In this case, why do you repeatedly and forcefully make comments like this:
Care to clean up your answer again?
You do not recognize any "supreme entity existing" (without evidence) so let us dismiss that portion in your delivery.
Ancient Jews setup its group morality laws to include pagan and native slavery systems? As you state,
Then can you explain why you write this,
This is a logical contradiction, for both sentences can not be true in Ancient Israel.
I have to clean up your understanding. My answer remains quite clear as written.
What part of this confuses you?
Learn to read all of what people write without cavalierly dismissing parts. Usually a comment needs all of its parts to be properly understood.
I am amazed that I have to explain this to you ... again even.
⇑ This means that under the relative morality of a group , if a person abides by the rules of the morality they are by definition moral within that relative morality. For example, under certain relative moralities of Islam it is perfectly moral to kill a daughter who has dishonored her family. See?
⇑ This means that under my relative morality , anyone who owns another human being as property is engaging in an immoral act .
So now super, super simple:
The ancient Hebrews no doubt believed slavery was moral per their mores and values.
Per my mores and values (when someone asks me my opinion) the owning of human beings as property is immoral.
So by my mores and values the ancient Hebrew acts of slavery were immoral acts. By their relative morality, their acts of slavery were perfectly normal and accepted.
I am confident any number of people here could explain this to you (and you could explain it to yourself) if you still do not 'get' it. I, however, am done restating the obvious so move to something else.
That is, if God wants a thing to be logical - is God authorized to make it so?
Are you "wavering" now?
I have no idea what confuses you here.
No evidence thus far.
Nothing that counts as bona fide evidence.
No. I do not claim omniscience.
Hell of a lot more than conventions. They are mathematically proven constructs in a formal system.
If by 'God' you mean the grandest possible entity then clearly no.
You are totally confused about logic then - in addition to demonstrably ( purposely ?) not understanding atheism.
God (as in supreme entity) could do whatever God wishes.
I wonder if you will now deliver an actual point. I am guessing it is a variant of: ' the Lord works in mysterious ways ... so just because none of this schtuff makes any logical sense does not mean the Christian God does not exist '.
Maybe something like this where one circumnavigates the intellect in order to ' understand '?:
Read it. Moving on. Nothing of value for me there.
What means this? I have no idea how I got between you and your God-slave-morality 'concern.'
That is what you wrote to me; but then you turn around and go back over the same material.
Earlier on you wrote this,
Tig, which is it:
Law of non-contradiction: This can not be all three.
Is this God-character silent about the immorality of slavery in Ancient Israel; but 'vocal' about rules of proper slavery in Ancient Israel, making a clear choice or not?!
What does a "modern perspective" have to do with this? We who are living have plenty we can research and mull over in explanation of how we arrived at a modern perspective of slavery. This discussion is about the OT "God-character" as you call God, and Ancient Jewish morality/immorality for owning slaves.
Besides:
I am not confused by you.
Where did you get your three options?
Anyway, as I have noted (what, a dozen times already? more?) the Bible condones the owning of human beings as property. How you could be confused about that is truly inexplicable.
I think you need to read what I write. My answers are quite clear. You are asking simple questions for which you should already know the answer.
Good. You should not be because I find nothing at all confusing in my answers.
Why you are demonstrably confused (or pretending to be confused) is something you need to figure out.
If I took you seriously (and I no longer do) I would be offended by this derogatory sweeping generalization.
Something else for you to look up since you clearly do not understand the application of the concept. For example a statement such as ...
... is not an appeal to popularity. It is expressing the idea (I think it is also a fact) that most of us understand that slavery is immoral. Give this stuff a little thought before you let your fingers touch the keyboard.
It is clear that you can never be wrong; ad nauseam. All to happy to move on (for all the good it does). (To "pull a Tig," I expect you to respond to this comment.)
Don't worry about it. Move on.
Ad nauseam. When one is reduced to silliness one is losing the argument I have often heard. Moreover, insults (and silly emoticons) are not arguments. *Yawn.
And yet, the law of logic are subject to change (though rare). And God (real as you would stipulate) certainly has not revealed God's logic to humanity. Consider humanity on a "need to know" basis with the supreme entity at this time.
That does not surprise me. ⇗
That statement is reeking of religious bigotry.
All his posts are thinly disguised attempts to "prove" that atheists are immoral. Rather funny since he's the one who condones slavery, and we don't.
I don't see that in katrix's post. Do you? What I see is her accurate assessment of the situation - a theist wants to believe that the Bible is a good moral guide, so he defends the immoral within it, while simultaneously hinting that those who don't follow the Bible are immoral themselves.
From your comments, Tig. You should recognize your own writings. That's all.
Your insults mean nothing to me, Tig. Seriously. As a philosophical naturalist your moral system is simply what you say it is anyway.
There is no global moral system in your philosophical-naturalistic worldview. And, it begs the question that you are here day in and out seeking to persuade believers and unbelievers who will listen that logically they should live their moral life according to Tig.
Feel free to quote me all you wish, I am content with what I write.
What you should not do, however, is spin my words into distorted interpretations. Pretending my words mean what you wish is intellectually dishonest.
To wit, if you cannot come up with an effective rebuttal, choose to not respond rather than try to spin my words into something you can rebut. I doubt you are fooling anyone.
At some point in time are you planning to make a point on the topic or are you going to continue to simply sprinkle personal meta throughout?
Your quotes speak for themselves. Cope with the intellectual complexity of communicating with others. Doubt? I do not take your doubts seriously.
Care to get back on the topic of slavery? I am fired up and ready to go! (Smile!)
"Most of us" means "my group of assembled confederates" because you clearly do not mean those who disagree with your collective's so-called, "moral" stance. Which can be all over the map, literally. Some of your collective call that, "free-thinking / free-thinkers."
You are asking me to hop on your bandwagon: Excuse me, I will not be jumping on that! Thank you, but no.
You just now wrote this:
Immediately followed by yet another personal meta, rather than topical, comment. Maybe ask a moderator to explain to you the distinction between a topical comment and a personal comment.
The following quote ...
... is referring to living human beings worldwide. It is rare (as a percentage of the population) to find a person living today who actually thinks owning another person as property is or might be moral.
So you are not among those who hold that owning another person as property is immoral?? Slavery is NOT immoral??
Why should it surprise you? I see no reason for you to be surprised!
I think most people would be surprised by someone who rejects the position that owning another person as property is immoral.
Do you agreed to global moral absolutism? No, you do not.
Do you agree that evolution is undirected (random)? Yes, you do.
Therefore, you agree that morality is what you SAY it is for you.
Afterall, there is no Being or afterlife to be responsible to.
I reject your 'charge' of religious bigotry. Be the free-thinking, critical-thinker you claim to be for consistency sake. That is, the law of contradiction prevents your being a moral absolutist and a moral relativist at the same time.
And neither do you. If you did, you'd condone slavery (and genocide, rape, stoning of homosexual men, and any number of other atrocities).
But at the same time, you defend a source of morality with which you yourself disagree. On which, BTW, would condemn you to death.
You can reject my "charge" of religious bigotry, but statements that imply that atheists are immoral are examples of religious bigotry. If you don't like that assessment of your comments, don't make comments that display religious bigotry.
Amen, sister,amen.
Are you a moral absolutist, then? Or is your morality personal (What you SAY it is)?
As to your straw-man, let's knock it down. I am not interested in yours or any other atheist views of right and wrong, in and of themselves. I am simply and continuously going to point out that moral relativism is a local phenomenon when, and if, it occurs.
For instance, for outlaws and other wild people living on the fringes by their own 'code' - they choose to live amoral existences that are neither global absolute or group relative, moralities. Such people use the morality of the moment and it is inconsistent.
Now then, the 'criminal code,' a law unto itself, is moral (right) for those in this group.
[deleted]
Whatever Tig. When will you get it? You should not be able to bash religions and adherents of religion without exposing your worldview, beliefs, and otherwise points of view for inspection as a possible suitable alternative to that which you wish to erase.
Also, for the record, changing a belief system of another personal takes more than cold hard facts! People are devoted to their ideas—like you are!
No bandwagon for me. Drive on, driver!
Ancient Israel followed the laws on its books. One can not be wrong if one is following the law, can one?
Laws do not equate to morality. One can absolutely be wrong from a moral perspective, if one is following the law.
Here you go again, justifying atrocities that your god character condoned, commanded, and committed.
Perhaps your obsession with labeling others is due to your trying to find a label for yourself. I can't find any other reason for it, other than one which speaks very poorly about your character.
You've told us before, openly, that you are gay but you are fighting it because of your religion. I think you're confused, you've been brainwashed into thinking you're evil when you know you haven't ever done anything to deserve that label, and so you're envious and threatened by those of us who don't have that abuse and fear instilled in us, and are comfortable with our being good people. I will tell you this: You are NOT evil. If this God you love created you, then he created your sexuality as well. What God has done is good . Think more about Jesus, who is the gateway to God. Jesus preached love and tolerance and acceptance. Forget about Paul, who warped Jesus' message.
Please talk to Enoch in Chaplains Corner, as TiG suggested. I don't pray, but I just asked my mom to pray for you and help you find self-love, and steer you away from your path of loathing. She's my go-to when someone needs a prayer. I'll have to remind her every day, since she now has dementia, but she just prayed with me .. and I'll ask her aides to keep this going when they pray with her. She told me to tell you that God is with you, and that He loves you.
If one operates at a high enough level of abstraction (e.g. arguments in terms of labels/stereotypes) one has plenty of wiggle room. Similarly, if one is vague or equivocates on the meaning of words, one engineers wiggle room.
Hypothetically, this is what some might do when they realize they have a weak argument but are duty bound to make the defense nonetheless.
I think such a method fails miserably (because people are not fooled so easily) but that is my personal explanation for the reason.
Yep. I was trying to give the benefit of the doubt, because it must be such a miserable way to live. Some people really do manage to fool themselves when they make useless arguments .. they're really not trying to convince others as much as themselves.
I have an acquaintance like that, who will tell me he quit smoking as he lights a cigarette. Or tell me he doesn't eat donuts either, if I turn down a donut he offers me, and say I don't eat them. He must know full well that he isn't fooling me (or not?), but he seems to actually convince himself.
I think the "agnostic atheist" term has led to some serious mental trauma and obsessions with labels.
Imagine holding an untenable (irrational) position of certainty: e.g. 'the God of the Bible exists (100% certainty; truth) and is the only true God' while debating individuals who hold the position of: 'well I am not convinced that any god exists'.
Of course the theist will want to cast the atheist into an irrational box too so as to level the playing field.
And if the atheist is too smart to allow such an obvious ploy (and I am convinced most atheists are sufficiently smart) then the theist might become frustrated.
Your opinion is noted. An opinion was not what the question requested, nevertheless. They were called morality laws. Thus, these laws equates to do this and not that and you are, "OKAY!" (under authority of the state).
Atheism is not a belief systom, nor religion - albeit the First Amendment protects an atheists lack of belief, I am failing to see how 'religious bigotry' applies, let alone reek of it... the largest atheist organization is the Freedom 'from' Religion Foundation.
Cal is implying that atheists are immoral, simply because they're atheists. Oh, he won't say it outright, but he's made such implications often enough that those of us who converse with him frequently know what he's about.
That's religious bigotry - bigotry based on religion, or the lack thereof. It is bigotry to say or imply that those who do not follow one's own religion are therefore immoral.
Would you understand if she labeled it irreligious bigotry? Certainly you understand the concept of a religious person making bigoted remarks against those who are not religious.
Thank you. "Irreligious bigotry" works, too.
CMF, I guess I assumed that everybody would see "anyone who doesn't follow my religion is immoral" is religiously-based bigotry. My bad.
And the Freedom From Religion Foundation frequently does good work, IMO. It fights to prevent religious bigots from using government institutions to force their beliefs on others, such as through "Bible literacy" classes in public schools. A goal in keeping with the First Amendment.
Thanks Sandy, I can see how bigotry may be applied to said circumstances … I did not interpret CB's comment as such, yet I am not overly familiar with said members belief system … to me immorality is in the mind of the 'beholder' so to speak. I grew up going to church '3 times a week' and twice on Sunday's - Pastor Foss did not feel he had the 'right' to judge another's morality .. his lessons remain with me, as I choose a path of spirituality.
So many strong words are tossed around .. I desired to understand your reasoning behind the use of religious bigotry .. thank you once again for your response ….
Think Sandy and I got it handled TiG …. I understand a great deal TiG … yet when I have questions, I ask - Shirley ... you can understand that...?
Thank you. Cal and I (along with TiG, Gordy, and katrix), frequently discuss religion and morality. Any time the morality of the Bible is questioned, Cal responds by attacking atheists as immoral. If that doesn't work, he tries to squelch conversation by telling us that atheists have no right to discuss religious morals.
We all know the script by now.
I just needed clarification - I appreciate the civility a great deal, one of the reasons I have been a 'drop out' is the lack of civility to sincere questions - so many seem to view questioning others as an attack …… thank you once again...
Did you just invoke my lifestyle for your own purposes? You have some gall to give me advice katrix. I will accept prayer, because I am a prayer warrior too. Now, I will pray for you, for you need it even though you don't believe God exist at all in any shape, form, or fashion.
Tell your mother God loves her for her prayers for others and I wish her all the best in this life and beyond. Moreover, I pray for your understanding of those who are not like you, even as I pray for myself.
As for our mutual friend Enoch, I adore this man and his mind is a pleasure to be in touch with over the great distances. I do talk to Enoch as often as we can. Funny, my homosexual nature never comes up as a 'talking point' with in. How interesting is that?!
Yeah, no "self-loathing' materialists 'wiggling around' here on Newstalkers. Please proceed. . . .
Try to get your mind out of broad brush personal attacks and maybe address one of dozens of questions posed to you that you have ignored. That is, try engaging in debate on the subject matter instead of tossing poo. Leaving is a good option too if you cannot muster rebuttals on the content.
Simplistic nonsense. If only complex issues could be so simple. The problem here is not one of intellect, it is a nonacceptance of spirit.
But, steady on!
If anyone here is making simplistic arguments, it's you. You're the one insisting that atheists, because they don't believe in God (your god, of course, not any of the multitude of others), must have a moral compass based on survival of the fittest.
I'm an agnostic atheist. That is only one aspect of the person that I am. I am also a mother, daughter, sister, friend, health care provider, community member, and employer. All of those roles influence my perception of morality, and are influenced by it. I have family to provide for, friends to support. I'm part of a community that both requires my input in the form of taxes and labor, and provides me with services such as education, emergency services, infrastructure, and social interaction. My relationship with my patients is fiduciary - I am ethically required to act in their best interests, sometimes at the expense of my own interests.
You would reduce all of that to "she doesn't believe in God (and only the Abrahamic God), so she must just think anything goes".
And you call my comments simplistic. Look to your own.
The immorality of owning another person as property is pretty straightforward. Those who cannot clearly state that such an act is immoral need to shop around for a better source for moral guidance. Maybe update from circa 6th century BCE sources to something maybe in the 21st century?
That's because he never is wrong! Ad nauseum. Now you're getting it.
You do realize you're rationalizing slavery, right? It appears you've decided the bible to be infallible thus the slavery in the bible must be defensible instead of reprehensible. It comes down to this. Did everyone in ancient biblical history own slaves? If not, was it only because they couldn't afford them? Or were there some people who just didn't feel right about it even though it was an accepted practice? Or was there no sense of moral wrong by owning humans back then which is why you seem adamant about defending it?
it is amazing to me the mental gymnastics involved to rationalize slavery just due to a religious belief in a mystical unproven entity. Basically - some of these posters could rationalize murder of their own family as a great and moral thing if their religious belief dictated it. It's amazing how religion can twist some people into accepting immoral acts as completely moral and great to do to another human being.
All three Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Islam and Christianity all look to Abraham as a forefather and prime example of loyalty and devotion, a friend of God. That's the guy who heard whispers in his head telling him to take his son to the top of a nearby mountain, build an alter and sacrifice him to the God of the bible. Sure, his hand is stayed and an animal takes his sons place, but that's not really the point is it. The God of the bible demanded that kind of devotion, to be willing to murder your own child with a knife if it told you to. I'm not sure the religious telling me they're not hearing any voices yet so I shouldn't worry is all that comforting.
No, he's rationalizing survival of the fittest, winner take all,
evolution.
One could also argue that they defeated their own "victories" by breeding with the captives.
Such is the pace of evolution
.
Two steps forward, one step back.
What part of my stated quote seems inaccurate to you, please share.
Next, it does not follow from my quote that I am "defending" slavery. Slavery existed as in institution in Ancient Israel; my feelings about that are irrelevant and superfluous.
It is not significant to me for this discussion to attempt to answer your questions—please supply your own answers if you wish, nevertheless.
Lastly, slavery as an institution began in 300 BC and continued in the west until 1880 in Brazil according to History World- Slavery Timeline. One should ask did all those generations of slave owning nations feel they were acting immoral?
One could also argue that kidnapping and/or raping women from enemy tribes helped ensure genetic diversity back when tribes were smaller. Otherwise small tribes would be at risk for inbreeding. So ... not good for the women, but perhaps good for humanity at the time?
300 BC? It began far earlier than that. More like 3500 B.C. It seems that once we evolved from our hunter gatherer stage to civilization, we began enslaving others fairly quickly.
They probably all thought they were moral per their own relative morality. What difference does that make?
and all they had to do to legitimize it, was get someone to write it in a book.
????????????????????
the current Hebrew year is 5779 and slavery predated that.
"in Old Testament times if you did not exterminate the enemy it would find its way back to its lands taken from it. And the processes of war would repeat!"
Genocide and enslaving other nations was fairly common, but not the rule even long before ancient Israel as an invading army came in to the land of Canaan.
"it does not follow from my quote that I am "defending" slavery. Slavery existed as in institution in Ancient Israel;"
I did not say you were necessarily "defending" slavery, but you were rationalizing it by claiming they had to "exterminate the enemy" and keep them under control with "permanent slavery" as if they had no choice. You always have a choice as to whether you will accept ownership of another human or not.
" my feelings about that are irrelevant and superfluous."
Your feeling are what you are expressing, if they are so "irrelevant and superfluous", why share them?
"Lastly, slavery as an institution began in 300 BC and continued in the west until 1880 in Brazil according to History World- Slavery Timeline"
Slavery appears in the Mesopotamian Code of Hammurabi (c. 1860 BC), which refers to it as an established institution and was known in ancient civilizations such as Sumer as far back as 3500bc. Slavery was almost unheard of in hunter/gatherer societies so likely did not become used on a large scale until after the invention of agriculture around 11,000 years ago. And the fact is, slavery is still alive and well today, though not currently condoned by any formal governments. But none of that changes the fact that the bible was used to justify slavery as the seed points out.
"One should ask did all those generations of slave owning nations feel they were acting immoral?"
I think the reality was that most people felt it was immoral for themselves and those who looked like them, but accepted the many justification when it came to other races and faiths.
As the Vice President of the confederacy Alexander Stephens pointed out, even our founders felt it "was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away". Stephens also stated that advances in science proved that enslavement of African Americans by white men was justified, and that it coincided with the Bible's teachings.
So this whole eluded to justification that they just didn't know any better or didn't think of it as bad or immoral when it was being justified with the bible is completely bogus.
I left off a zero. This should have read early as 3000 BC - ish . Thank you for the catch,
DEPARTMENT OF OOPS!
"Slavery as an institution began in". . . 3000 BC-ish. (Thanks to katrix for catching my mistake.)
Because it matters if the peoples of these slave owning nations viewed themselves as intentionally breaking the law of their lands and getting away with it!
And so what is there for me to rationalize? It is right there in the pages of the Bible, you were in church leadership so you should be able to find where Israel was told to destroy its enemies Joshua, or they would corrupt Israel from the inside (Judges) through the ways and activities these Canaanite peoples would bring in—including while serving in Israel's lands as slaves.
It is the ways, means, and understanding of war. Stop arguing just to express bias. Admit to understanding.
Again arguing just for the heaven of it.
The rest of your comment is biased and unworthy of time expenditure. For atheists, this matter really does not rise to the level of confrontation or argumentation, because as you should know atheist morality, where it is present, exist locally. What ancient Israel or modern Israel-any other places outside of a specific sphere of influence does is really none of any one set of atheist's moral business.
You have a genuine concern that ancient people in a time where slavery was replete (worldwide Cal) and where people knew nothing different than the practice of slavery (from birth), viewed themselves as breaking the laws of the land - laws that explicitly allowed slavery??
That is like us thinking that charging interest on a loan is getting away with breaking the law of the land. Or that sales tax is illegal. Or, in more human terms, it is like us thinking it illegal to put people in prison for their crimes.
Well, obviously, the best way to prevent a people from embracing immorality is for them to do something immoral (slavery or genocide).
According to whom?
Where it is present? Atheists trend less moral than theists?? More immoral atheists than theists?? That is some venomous stereotyping Cal.
An atheist is an individual who is not convinced a god exists. That position does not determine morality (other than the source of same for those who must be told what is moral).
My position is that the morality of an individual is not a function of religious beliefs. Theists are no less moral than atheists and vice-versa.
Agreed.
I would only say differently that an atheist does not care if a god exists or not. It is immaterial to an atheist.
I can appreciate that. However, to me if a god exists I am extremely interested in learning more about said god.
Would that be before or after you decide if He exists?
Before. It is impossible to be convinced a god exists if one does not learn about the hypothesized god.
However, it is possible to believe in a god without knowing much at all about the god or the religion. Faith.
I have doubts that people who don't believe in God can truly understand faith.
And I sincerely doubt that many atheists ever become believers.
That is one reason I never try to convince anyone to believe in God if they choose not to already.
Kind of pointless to me, because you either believe or you don't. Either is okay with me.
Actually I am going to qualify that.
My intention was that a person who happens to believe in a god is, by default, no more and no less moral than a person who does not. People are people.
That established, a person can be influenced by some nasty moral lessons and, in so doing, take a moral nosedive.
Be careful about what you believe and be very careful about accepting as true that which another human being merely proclaims as truth.
Pretty sure most atheists in the USA were brought up as theists. And I am extremely confident that most atheists in the USA live among a super majority of theists. It is not as though atheists are isolated in any way, shape of form. So, ...
Me too. But Cal seems to think it happens more often than one would expect so maybe see if you can get him to provide actual information to you. For example, quite a few inmates seem to find Jesus in prison. People find Jesus after trauma. Etc.
Wise choice. I think it is not possible to force someone to believe or not believe. It is a very personal process. What can be done, however, is engage in the dialectic and bring forth arguments and facts for both sides to consider.
Or me bothering to assent to answer your 'tacked on' questions for effect?! And, your nagging and 'pulling emoticons' all over the place when "what difference does that make?" is being left on the 'production' table as fodder? Only to have your invariable 'come-back' when it would have been better to leave the fodder out? What a piece of work. /s
This is my point. There were cultures that existed that did not employ permanent slavery. Yet the God of the ancient Hebrews supposedly told his followers to murder men, women and children when taking land from those people who already live there and to take permanent slaves from the ones they don't kill, to own in perpetuity including all their descendants. So saying I should just accept it because it's in the bible frankly makes no sense. Nothing you've said refutes the what this seed claims, the bible has been used to justify slavery. You seem desperate to absolve it of any responsibility, as if it can do no wrong, and any wrong done with it was just done by bad people. And while I agree they, the people who misuse it are bad, but the fact is if it didn't condone slavery it would never be used to justify it.
"The rest of your comment is biased and unworthy of time expenditure."
My pointing out that slavery was around thousands of years longer than you claimed wasn't "biased", its just a fact. The quotes from the Vice President of the confederacy isn't any of my bias, it's a quote.
"What ancient Israel or modern Israel-any other places outside of a specific sphere of influence does is really none of any one set of atheist's moral business."
Does it really matter what country people might be in if you heard they were cannibals? If the bible had laws like it does for owning slaves, but for cannibalism, like how they weren't allowed to eat Israelite's, but people of the nation were considered delicacies, would you still be saying "Well that was the times they lives in, the book that condones cannibalism is fine, it has great wisdom and the God of the bible really doesn't like cannibalism, except when he does...".
Are atheists not allowed to have opinions about others who apparently want to justify slavery? Is slavery a religious tradition thus atheists can't talk about it? And I'm not worried about what ancient Israel "does", they did it a long time ago, all anyone here is doing is pointing out that yes, the bible has been used to justify slavery.
Speaking of relative morality - these days, we arrest or commit whackjobs like that. Back then, they believed these people were talking to gods. Some people these days still glorify their behavior ... very sad.
According to Atheist-naturalist moral relativism. If you say (and you do) there is no global moral absolutism, then you can not decide morals for other groups of people-outside your own local group. To each its own.
You know damn well for all the multiple discussions we have traveled down that I am speaking of your philosophical-naturalistic state of existence. Atheist is an over-arching term which is inclusive of all atheists and their other worldviews. Don't try to compartmentalize this to a single thread.
I am not going to waste my time defining and redefining the words, atheism and atheist. You should know what your worldview is—trust me I certainly do. (You seem to want to be a know-it-all on all things God-related.)
As to philosophical-naturalism, moral positions are what each individual says they are individually or collectively. Even when choosing morally nonexistent.
Obviously, you agree that morality is relative. Above, you state that
How do you come to this conclusion, if not by way of relative morality? If yours were an objective morality, it would come from your supreme entity, and he apparently sees slavery as hunky dory. You disagree with that as a result of your own moral relativism.
That's a nice change.
Veiled insults?
First, best to NOT always try to make things personal. Engage in debate on the content, and avoid making another member the topic.
Second, labeling people so as to stereotype is a slimy practice.
The thing is, humans are a group on this planet, whether we like to break up into smaller groups or not. I believe all of our morality is truly humanist in origin. It's just fine to own pets or kill and eat a goat, yet from the vast majority of humans viewpoint, regardless of where they are on the planet, it would be morally reprehensible to do any of those things to a human. Now, there have been times when humans have demonized their fellow man so much they reduce them to the level of animals or below thus justifying their enslavement or even cannibalism. But that is not the norm because most humans share that humanist morality and almost instinctively abhor slavery and cannibalism.
We already make illegal most things that harm humans, and reward those who benefit humans. The one thing truly relative about our morality is our humanity.
Hi Texan! There are quite a few atheists who become believers; just look in the churches and you will find astronauts, lawyers, doctors, scientists, astro-physicists, journalists, detectives, judges. A virtual 'host' of professionals whose jobs it is to get "just the facts." (Smile.)
Of course, atheists will point to the people who leave their respective denominations and belief system too. As Apostle John I believe wrote, 'signifying they were never truly in the faith' to start with. But, who can say?
Many of us can say. It's not a matter of never having been truly in the faith - unless "being truly in the faith" means being so thoroughly indoctrinated and brainwashed that no facts can make it inside one's brain. For literalists, at least, faith relies upon willful ignorance. For some non-literalists, it's possible to keep one's faith as science and facts are learned throughout life ... the God of the Gaps. For others, faith dwindles as we learn, and as we study the bible and see how ridiculous and impossible it is, and how evil the god character is described as being. We learn that that cute song we sang in Sunday School about "the animals, they came on, they came on by twosies twosies, elephants and kangaroosies roosies children of the Lord" conveniently left out the floating, bloated bodies of all the innocent people and animals God murdered, for one thing.
I admire your tenacity in speaking with the fine atheists here. Truly remarkable you manage to keep your patience and wits about you.
I gave it up as a completely lost cause, because no matter how nice they seem and how pretty the arguments, it always boils down to "Prove it" in the end.
( for emphasis )
On the other hand, you don't have the habit of going around claiming that atheists are immoral and inferior, as CB does in every article.
Pray tell, "preacher." Do you remember what the Bible says is the reason God ("the character" —you would say) removed these people from their lands and gave it to the Israelites? Please share.
What the heaven are you writing about me for?
First, I am not "desperate" for that would mean I have something to gain from this. I do not win or lose over something which happened in the Old Testament bible period. You should know, I am a child of God not under law but under grace. I can speak truth to power about the Old Testament and the New Testament periods! My salvation is secure for God is not petty or apologetic about the acts/activities/allowances which God plans and gives to humanity.
So why should I be either? I shall not be!
Please do not try to put me into a word box to help you shelf it away.
Got anything of substance to offer on DP's post? Something more than the single sentence you chose to present as the entire comment?
You surgically focused on what I highlighted in green to portray the post as all about you and ignored the actual content.
Cut to the end: Do you accept global moral absolutism? Yes or no?
I am looking back into a period in time when people were given physical laws to live by in lieu of faith. I repeat, Ancient Israel were not a people living by faith they lived under the presence of God in the midst of their generations.
I can opine all I want about their times, turn up my nose and spout "no way," which by the way I do in modern times too. So much for perceived perceptions of what's better.
Stopping here. Need coffee!
So you take the stand that God justifiably ordered murder, rape and the taking of slaves?
Please tell us what reason you would consider to be sufficient.
To keep them from corrupting the Israelites. God didn't want them to be a negative influence on the Israelites, since he so desperately needed someone to worship him and cater to his ego.
Although this is not the topic: by way of example.
There is an inconsistent in your critical thinking, which allows you to name-call Abraham a, 'whackjob,' when you are a firm supporter of abortion as a woman's right to choose.
To be clear, I agree with a woman's right to choose, though it makes me very sad in each case of its 'sacrificial' use. As for Abraham,
—he did not follow through with his sacrifice. Perhaps the voice in his head (as DP suggested) 'self-corrected'? So, where is Abraham's moral act you are decrying?
In the case of abortion, well, there is commitment on a daily basis.
You don't think it's immoral to purposely almost slaughter your awake and aware child, so long as you don't go through with it?
Wow.
Well, if that's not immoral enough for you, he also married his half-sister, had sex with her maid (who had no choice in the matter), then banished said maid and his own son to wander in the desert, which was a likely death sentence at the time.
Seems like a great guy, though. Truly /s
Someone who hears voices and thinks they're some god telling him to do something - no matter what it is - is definitely a delusional whackjob. This has nothing to do with abortion. Today, we treat people with this type of delusion for mental illness (or jail them if their voices tell them to murder someone and they follow through).
Do you mean the message given the soldiers of Israel from Moses and then later Joshua as they invaded the lands killing and enslaving the inhabitants? That of demonizing them, claiming they were detestable to the God of the Hebrews, thus deserving of death? The rationalization virtually every culture does of those they envy and want their stuff? Claiming they are somehow less than human because they serve other Gods like Baal? The Hebrew God tells his people in one of the commandments not to covet their neighbors ass, yet shortly thereafter gives them the go-ahead to invade a country and steal all their livestock after murdering them. Just more hypocrisy and defense of the indefensible. You're asking everyone, including non-believers to accept that the murder and invasion was "okay" because the God of the Hebrews said it was okay. Are you not able to see the inherent problems with that?
No. I believe in human moral relativism. In general, humans consider actions and outcomes that benefit humans as "good", and actions and outcomes that harm humans as "bad".
"I am looking back into a period in time when people were given physical laws to live by in lieu of faith."
Are people today physically different from those in ancient Israel? Besides the height difference I mean.
"I repeat, Ancient Israel were not a people living by faith they lived under the presence of God in the midst of their generations."
To claim people of that era didn't have faith is simply ridiculous. Deuteronomy 32:20 states "And he said, I will hide my face from them, I will see what their end shall be: for they are a very froward generation, children in whom is no faith" implying that Moses was already worried about the next generation of Israelite's not having "faith".
"I can opine all I want about their times, turn up my nose and spout "no way," which by the way I do in modern times too. So much for perceived perceptions of what's better."
You can if you wish. What it comes down to is you rely on your faith in the God of the bible to right all the time, so you continually look for ways it can be interpreted to support your beliefs. When shown things that contradict a previous held belief, you retreat into excuses of "things were different" or imply that with the approval of the God of the universe, anything is acceptable, slavery, incest, murdering women and children to secure land and resources, anything is justified if you are backed by the creator of everything. The only problem is convincing everyone else that you're right and all other Gods are imaginary and your Gods followers who committed what might seem to be war crimes and atrocities can't be blamed because as the creator of the universe, your God is the law, it doesn't have to obey them.
Should Richard Reid, the convicted "shoe bomber", be viewed as a hero like Abraham who followed the instructions he thought was coming from God to make a shoe bomb and get on a plane and sacrifice hundreds of innocent lives? The bomb didn't go off so no one was killed, maybe it was because "God stayed his hand"? Should we look at him as an example of true faith to emulate?
Funny, Tig voted that up.
Well Sandy, there is a significant difference between understanding absolute morality (What God SAYS OUGHT) and its power over humanity, and relative morality (WHAT I SAY I WISH) which has minimal power and influence worldwide.
Here is a for instance: God judges nations and sentences them to death; personally, I do not want to physically die. But, what does that mean in the larger scheme of life? God and I do not have to be in 'lock-step' for me to accept my role in the larger plan for humanity.
Minimal influence, eh? So it's common worldwide to own slaves whom you can beat and rape, have multiple wives and concubines, commit genocide and get away with justifying it via religion, and outlaw the planting of fields with more than one crop? Tattoos are commonly illegal? Poly/cotton blends, also commonly illegal? We sentence to death those who work on the Sabbath? Or those who worship other gods?
You have a very strange idea of what "minimal" means. If relative morality had "minimal" influence, we would almost all be living under some religion's idea of absolute morality. But we're not, for which we should all be grateful, including those of religiously marginalized populations, such as LGBT people.
Do you claim to know God's absolute morality? Can others tap into this absolute morality: the absolute source of right vs. wrong?
Almost cringing, but I expect if you actually answer the question you will say that the Bible is where God articulated His absolute morality.
Do you accept that there is a supernatural order? NO, emphatically. Are you a naturalist? Yes! You are a philosophical-naturalist.
If you are not you can easily clarify by designating your worldview/s. Good heavens, do a protracted writing on it if you so desire.
The Bible, with all its glowing positive attributes and negative warts, is on full display for you to lash out gainst. Intellectual honesty states that you be fair-minded to share your worldview for consideration - if you wish to pull-down another worldview. In other words, give people a worldview to put in place of the worldview you wish to take away.
Stop hiding the obvious (in plain sight)!
Lastly, labels? You mean like the branding you and other atheists here strike out against believers with: "Sky fairy," "delusional," "Flying spaghetti monster," "Bearded guy in the sky," and other assorted expressions. Those "slimy" labels?
Chill
Emotive posts (especially those that have no clear focus or point) reflect poorly on the author.
Calm down, collect your thoughts and attempt to make a thoughtful point (or offer a sound argument).
Think about it. In an undirected world of nature (survival of the fittest) there are no rules which need to be followed in humanity. Rules are imposed on nature. Ehere do these rights and wrongs you profess to derive? Undirected (random) nature? Survival of the fittest? No possible. Either of these would cut the legs out from under compassion for others without a second thought!
World religions preceded the enlightenment by hundreds of years with spiritual, supernatural, propositions on charity and peace. . . . Now, which do you think started the topic of compassion in this world first: people of faith or scientists?
Five votes up for 'labeling' believers! Let's see now:
Define, "others." The Christian faith looks good from where I stand in it. Moreover, God can change hearts and minds at-will by pouring out more of Spirit. Were it true that faith in God atrophied down to what God fondly called a remnant , God can not help but still produce! By the way you see it in nature too!
Utterly do the fires burn away! Yet, the ground can not help itself but to bring forth !
Empathy and then man's laws came about from our common human experience and evolved similarly regardless of place, culture or religion. Murder and theft, kidnapping or assault, lying and cheating, rape and being enslaved are universally recogznized as being bad. Nobody wants to suffer those things. We all hurt and we all suffer loss. So, your argument is lame and completely free from grace. How dare you accuse others of intellectual dishonesty? You do not even belong to a church. You do not tithe. Who died and gave you the authority to speak for all Christendom? Jesus? I do not think so...
Who has called believers "evil gods"?
Oh, wait, that's not a label regarding believers. It's an assessment of the god in which they believe. So, no label regarding a real person at all, then, right?
maybe a good idea would be to ask "why" the comment was made and why those people voted up that particular comment - the answers may surprise you (or not). I would venture a guess that the comment was possibly voted up by particular members because they have witnessed and seen such labels exhibited by the religious in various situations (either in real life or on NT)
or you could just assume you know the answers like many people do in these situations
A proselytizing non sequitor.
Well, let our fine atheists prove their consistency by 'cleaning up their own backyards' of: thousands of nuclear weapons, hidden exposures of people to radiation, dangerous nerve gases, CFCs (which affect the atmospheric ozone layer), chemical carcinogens in the air, land, and water, mad scientists, scientist who inject dangerous diseases and drugs into people without their knowledge; and critical thinking yet corrupt scientists who sell themselves to governmental high bidders - just to name a few technological perils. that exist in these modern times.
Owning other people as property in a past age; simply pales in comparison.
Nuclear weapons, radiation poisoning, nerve gases, etc. are the result of people not being convinced a god exists? Is there a contest for the most irrational post at play here?
Owning people as property is NOT a behavior on which to engage in moral relativism. Unless one seeks to make the most despicable comment of the day.
It is a worthy endeavor to disabuse people of the idea that the Bible is something to be followed. The Bible is a horrible exemplar for morality. Any moral guide that condones the owning of human beings as property, murder and rape for revenge, human sacrifice, murder of homosexuals, etc. should be questioned as such. But religions can ensnare minds to the point where believers not only fail to recognize the Bible for what it is, but actually defend its immoral teachings!
wait.. are you seriously suggesting that all those examples were done in the name of Atheism ? how many wars were waged in the name of religion ? how many were waged in the name of Atheism ? (i'll give you a hint... you'll be hard pressed to find anyone killed in the name of "unconvinced that God exists")
And, that has what to do with the bible being used to justify slavery?
Also, since most claim belief you can't blame atheists for societal ills.
Are only atheists responsible for wars and pollution? Get a f'ing grip...
and we see wonderful examples of this displayed by religious posters on many articles on NT
Are you seriously laying the blame for these things at the feet of atheists?
And you reject my contention that your comments display religious bigotry?
We all physically die. Plants and animals. I'd say you worship an evil god, and make justifications for what you think it does to you, because you think you are unworthy. Many religious sects are based on convincing their followers that they are unworthy; it's how they suck you in. If being abused by something you worship is what you want, then .. that's up to you. I feel sad that you don't worship the loving God that so many Christians accept, but ... I'm not sure whether I can mention the aspects of your personality that you shared on NV, so I will leave it at that.
Maybe you aren't able to behave without belief in a god and absolute rules. We've already discussed in this article how there are no absolute rules of morality, and how your god displays the worst and pettiest of human traits, and displays no objective morality at all.
From a cultural perspective, most humans know now that slavery, genocide, rape and child abuse are wrong. Many still don't think those things are wrong. But the god you worship was just fine with all those atrocities, and clearly had no clear morality. Its morality evolved as humanity did. That's not a god at all, if its morality has so clearly changed along with human viewpoints. Or as you would say, worldviews.
Ten negative votes for once again twisting what people say, and pulling a few words out of context rather than addressing the actual points that were made. Are you even capable of having an actual discussion? I could play the same game with what you've said about atheists, and then you'd accuse me (rightly so) of being full of shit. I'd report you, except this is rather amusing.
I have no problem with most believers, of whatever faith. My mom was a deacon and I make sure she has someone bring her communion once a month, now that she can't get to church herself. I talk to her priest every month, and I love him. You're the one trying to justify your fear and hatred of anyone who doesn't share your exact version of Christianity ... my Mom's loving God is not the god you worship. Thank goodness.
Your focus on worldviews is rather obsessive and strange. It's been clearly explained to you that whether or not one believes in any deity is only one part of their worldview. You're the one trying to compartmentalize. Atheist is a broad term which simply says someone is not convinced any gods exist. Yet you keep trying to redefine that term, and throw in some other philosophical terms which have nothing to do with whether or not a person believes in gods. If you want to talk about philosophy, then do it, but a person's worldview .. unless they're a literalist .. has very little to do with any gods.
Your statement is less than truthful. Atheists are not immoral or inferior. But atheists do step out of their regular materialistic worldview (undirected and randomness in the universe; survival of the fittest) in order to opine on-consistent states of rights and wrongs-in a world where materialists otherwise SAY such should not exist.
Do naturalists SAY man Is just a higher ape or not? Do naturalists SAY there is (possibly) no God or afterlife? Yes, they do! We can simply do what we want to other people, can't we?
Here ↑ you might as well making a sweeping generalization about people with red hair.
The only credible thing you can say about ALL atheists is that ALL atheists are not convinced a god exists. Other than that (or equivalent), a universally quantified statement about atheists is almost certainly going to be bullshit (or a product of naïvety).
What is your FUCKING problem dude?
No man or "god" will prevent animals from acting out emotionally or irrationally when they are cranked up on religion, politics or drugs.
Confucius says
Hold it! Wait a minute. This is what I get ticketed for and you get to complain and ease by with cries of 'personal foul'?!
This is what the commenter wrote that 'spoke' to me:
If it bothers you personally, then why not ask that commenter why it was there to begin with? Indeed, it must have been "surgical" inset into the comment for me to come across. My suggestion; counsel the commenter not to "divine" my motives for speaking up for the Old Testament era activities, if, that is, he wishes it not to overwhelm the "message."
Better still, commenter, do a rewrite without the 'dig'- if you want. Maybe, it is "substantial" and I will see that once the large shadow casted on it has moved on.
Perhaps a zealot thinks they can do what they want to other people, since they believe their god condones enslaving and raping virgin girls after murdering everyone else in their tribe, as one example. Or having their disobedient children stoned to death. If you need a belief in a god to prevent you from doing what you want to another person, you have a major problem.
Stop projecting your immorality onto atheists. Maybe if you lost your faith, you'd feel free to give into whatever baser instincts you may have .. so you can't possibly fathom why atheists aren't running amok, murdering and raping everyone, giving in to the animal inside us all. I'm far more moral than someone who needs a belief in a god to keep themselves from committing atrocities. But I don't believe that .. I'm starting to see the bigger picture. You are questioning your own faith, and wondering how you can be moral if you don't believe in a god. A literalist's faith is so very fragile.
How the hell would I know what naturalists say? You keep trying to label people. It's an obsession with you.
He is talking about the 'argument' (loosely speaking) that you 'make'. He is not talking about you personally. Good grief man, learn the difference between making a critical assessment of an argument and making a personal derogatory comment.
Try this awkward but precise English that excludes the more flowing use of 'you':
Your argument seems to desperately attempt to absolve it of any responsibility, as if it can do no wrong, and any wrong done with it was just done by bad people.
See? Quit complaining and make a thoughtful comment on the topic (or somewhere close).
Best way to operate is to not make obnoxious comments but rather argue your position the best you can. Or, if your position is too weak to survive scrutiny, go to another article and discuss puppies.
You mean the "real" God? The one you wrote this about @14.1.21?
So I have a question for you:
If the Supreme entity objectively declares a thing lawful can it be a human crime such as murder, rape, and immoral ownership of a person? I have often heard it stated that, in order to have establish an offense one has to first establish a rule or stated law against an activity or activities, no?
Where in the books of the Old Testament do you find a writers' listing of rules, laws, offenses, incriminating the real God for god's objective declarations?
Do you actually think that when I use the term 'God' that I am referring to that which I consider to be real? If so, try to remember this. I use the term 'God' when speaking with Christians to avoid awkward English. I also use pronouns such as 'His' to basically speak in their language.
How this has escaped you is actually beyond funny (if it were even remotely true).
The arbiter of objective morality could deem the rape and murder of a 4 year old girl abducted while playing in the front yard of her home (true event) as moral. If so, that act would be objectively moral. (But for most rational human beings, it would NOT be moral per their relative morality.)
Gonna resurrect your argument that owning a human being as property might be moral?
( I would advise against that. )
How the heaven am I supposed to understand the use of terms in your "hypothetical scenarios" if they have no foundation in this thread? Once and for all: are neither of these quotes useful in a hypothetical from you?
Your last paragraph is noted as a personal opinion only.
It seems you've gone full circle logic now. You realize that when the Israelite's were being given these laws governing how they should treat their slaves, not only had several other civilizations and societies that were far from the "world of nature" "no rules" claim you make, but the Israelite's had lived in one of the biggest cities on the planet at the time before the exodus. And "no rules" directly contradicts the fact that it's the very rules in the bible that have been used to justify slavery.
"which do you think started the topic of compassion in this world first: people of faith or scientists?"
Without a doubt, scientists. How compassionate would it be to leave the world believing illness and disease are caused by "sin" and not those imaginary "germs" science discovered? How compassionate is it to merely pray for someone to get well instead of actually trying your hardest to figure out how to help them yourself? I live better than most Kings and Emperors did just a few generations ago, all thanks to science. Science sees a need and does it hardest to fill it, religion tells you to either stop needing so much or pray harder.
There's nothing hypothetical about those who have used the bible to justify slavery. What's hypothetical are the excuses some keep using to excuse the scriptures that others have used to justify slavery. First of which is the hypothetical that the Hebrew God exists and is the creator of the universe. You are proposing that if that God exists then he/it is a law unto itself and thus we cannot hold it to any human morality standard, which would be true if your hypothetical is true. And even though your argument hinges on the hypothetical being true, you seem to refuse to accept the possibility it's not.
From a rational perspective, our relative morality can only be based on what we can see, touch and feel. It's why all the laws and rules governing our lives are relative to humans. If an action or outcome benefits humans, then it is considered a "good" thing, if it harms humans it's a "bad" thing. By introducing the hypothetical of "God" you then break the relative morality by claiming some other entity has a right to rule over humans and deem what is best for us, even if it's wiping us off the face of the planet. So maybe, if you refrained from continually presenting your hypothetical scenarios in defense of slavery and chose to discuss the facts like the most everyone else is we just might find we agree on some things.
You know this, but, ancient Caananites were polytheists. Some Caananite tribes were probably held temporarily in bondage at different times in Egypt though never their entire nation as Cannanite society continued during those times. Archeology confirms this despite many long held oral traditions. In fact, The Ten Commandments were pretty much all directly lifted from long established Egyptian civil and religious strictures against stealing, killing, lying, cheating etc and demanding that people respect the gods, honor holy days and respect their parents and religious and civil authorities etc etc. Hebrew scripture did not really become written law till the Jews returned from their bondage in Babylon about 2,600 years ago. Similar laws were already long common among ancient civilizations at least 5,000 years ago all the way to China and back. The concept of monotheism first developed in Egypt under the pharoah Akhenaten about 3,500 years ago. The real King David was likely more a warrier village chieftain, a mere backwater tribal leader of one of the many Cannanite tribes, and Mose is more of a myth amalgamated from ancient Jewish oral tradions of multiple ancient law givers.
If you cannot hold on to the simple concept that by 'God' I am consistently referring to what I consider to be nothing more than a character in a book, then I am afraid you are out of luck. I cannot explain this any better than what I have already repeatedly stated.
Also, take note, in a discussion on the 'Game of Thrones' story-line, I would likely refer to Queen Cersei. I would be referring to a fictional character. I might use the phrase Cersei in GoT or Cersei or the Queen of Westeros or something else. I might talk of different approaches Cersei could have taken, her evil motives, etc. But in the end, Cersei is simply a character of fiction.
If someone were to ask me how he is supposed to follow my posts if I keep referring to Cersei directly instead of always qualifying the reference as 'Queen Cersei character in the Game of Thrones' I think I would tell him to maybe find a different discussion because if that alone confuses him there is almost no chance to follow the broader discussion.
Are you being serious? Me unworthy?! You know something about me personally on NewsVine you wish to care, go for it.
I have shared more aspects of myself on Newstalkers than I ever shared personally on NewsVine. However, if you plan to throw us some trivial time-'plaining nonsense - spare me the waste of an energy-sapping 'debate.'
Incidentally, how grand of you to tell me about "the loving God that so many Christians accept" naturalist. Evil god? Do you have any idea what the concept of having an "evil god" could mean to 'day to day' life in this universe? On humanities worse days, I'd imagine we have not experienced the depths of wreckage which pure evil can muster up! Slavery would impale by comparison, in my opinion.
Which of the "loving gods" other than humanity as 'creator' do you bow down to? Huh? I will— just leave it at that!
Why do you think that you are in any position to tell atheists what their "worldview" is? You have created a straw man, and are making bigoted statements based on the straw man that you have created.
... endlessly ...
I have to wonder if Cal ever took a literature class in school. If so, was it necessary to specify that Atticus Finch or Elizabeth Bennett was just a fictional character every single time they were discussed either orally or in written essays? If that distinction was not made every singe time they were mentioned, was it assumed that To Kill a Mockingbird and Pride and Prejudice had suddenly been reclassified as nonfiction?
Well, the enlightenment was borne in a world which was already established with religious and spiritual concepts of goodness and grace. This is undeniable. Some atheists here has conceded this fact already.
What I read in this comment is an unrelenting prejudicial arbitrariness by someone who needs to impugn God in order to bring the spiritual order under a humanist order. Someone who seems to imagine a fictional spiritualized character and moral reprobate was put in place by Ancient Israel in order to self-delude its people into the ways of moral turpitude in order for these burgeoning wilderness dwellers to take away and hold Canaanite lands.
Yes, all of that is implied in this comment about a fictional, non existing, evil, sub-par, god character created in a fantastical set of books written by early Jews. Funny, how this can hide in plain sight and pretend no offense, no foul expression, against the Jewish people. The nuances are 'crying out' here, nevertheless.
But, you are a naturalist, and you do not accept that any supernatural order can exist. Of course! This is all an incredibly long and impactful lie which has engulfed the dominate nations of the world. It is a grand mystery that anyone can believe these ancient Israelites saw, experienced, the half of it! Bah, myth!
Except history is discovering places in the Bible to be right where the Bible say they are over time.
So now your argument for the God of the bible existing and not being evil is that things could be much much worse? That we should be thankful for the condoned slavery because your God could have just flayed us all alive if he chose to?
You realize any atheist talking about your "evil God" is not actually saying they believe in your God and think your God evil. They are saying if "A" is true, that the God of the bible does exist and is all powerful as its followers claim, then "B" must also be true, that from a human perspective that God might be viewed as evil having allowed such pain and suffering to occur to humans when it could have prevented it. Atheists aren't saying God is evil, they are saying they see no evidence of said God, but if it exists as believers claim, then it would necessarily be responsible for the state of humanity. And some might interpret what has befallen humans, all the suffering and death, all the injustice and inhumanity, as being Gods responsibility if it exists.
Those who do not believe in God's existence have no need to impugn God.
We impugn those who we believe created God, and those who, in recent history, have used the inventions of the creators of God to justify continued immorality.
You would report me for what you wrote? If that gets me a ticket, well howy doody! I would get a ticket for quoting you. Pulling your words out of context? What possible context could that be where such words could be come off better? Go ahead, elaborate.
So now not believing in the ancient God of the Hebrews is anti-Semitic? WTF?
"history is discovering places in the Bible to be right where the Bible say they are over time."
I have never once denied that the people who wrote the bible existed and lived in those ancient times and places so of course the locations described would likely be found if they hadn't already been known. We know Egypt existed, does that mean their God Ra did as well? Is that proof that their religious beliefs were accurate because Egyptian hieroglyphs describe places in ancient Egypt as well as their interactions with their deities?
I've always been amused by those who get excited about a location described in the bible being found, as if they didn't think ancient writers would be describing real places, and then attribute that as evidence the God of the bible is real. It would be like reading the Martian Chronicles which describes a crater filled valley, then when photos of Mars come back and shows a crater filled valley, you believe that somehow proves John Carter really went there and married a Martian Princess.
No, Cal, the God of the Bible was not invented to make people immoral. It was invented to control them.
Religions have evolved to be masters at ensnaring minds. Note, for example, the depths of blatant nonsense in your posts alone. If there was a decent argument for the existence of the biblical God you would have made it because you are clearly intelligent enough to do so. Instead your posts are founded on vague language, rambling word salads, abstract labels and employ tactics such as always asking questions while never giving a direct answer coupled with pretending to be obtuse.
How can one not laugh at this? So if we discover a place that matches a biblical description what does that mean other than the Bible contains a fact? There are facts in the Bible Cal. Along with poetry, parables, etc. What is lacking is evidence for the claims of divinity. Given thousands of years of believers desperately trying to shore up the Bible (and some resorting to laughable tactics) it is likely that there never will be evidence of divinity. Couple that with the flat out contradictions in the main character and it is easy to dismiss the Bible as a work of ancient history, philosophy, poetry and fiction that is no more divine than the Iliad and the Odyssey.
That is BS. Atheist are naturalist, naturalist are materialist which when combined in science displays as methodological naturalism (use of only material statements to explain the universe) or philosophical-naturalism (to talk of no god or supernatural entities in this universe), and
—there are a host of other "isms" in the atheism pantheon as in the religion pantheon. Simply saying, "uh-uh!" won't cut it here.
That someone is ignorant of the range of worldview and sub-sections in their chosen worldview is not the problem of this thread. One can get informed through study.
That someone simply wants to redirect the focus off of their worldview in order to deride other worldviews and points of view is deceptive, manipulative, and lacks the intellectual honor critical-thinking requires of its users.
Are you in a position to tell me what the focus of my worldview is? Do you honestly expect me to allow you to define my worldview without objecting when you stray into falsehoods?
I don't believe in the existence of your (or any) god. That is not the entirety, or even the "focus", of my worldview.
My worldview values intellectual honesty.
[Removed]
BS. Most atheists here are atheists with a (secret) materialistic worldview (atheist-naturalism is a synonym). So go ahead and hide in plain sight if it makes you feel better about the illusion. Such people only fool those who refuse to investigate.
Nope, if you do not know why write?
So, you don't care to share with us a reason you would find sufficient for enslaving a people? Or for committing genocide and rape against a people?
You don't find it appalling, as I do, that anyone would consider any reason to be sufficient?
Leviticus 18:
24 “‘Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26 But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the foreigners residing among you must not do any of these detestable things, 27 for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. 28 And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.
29 “‘Everyone who does any of these detestable things—such persons must be cut off from their people. 30 Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the Lord your God.’”
A. Katrix, a fictional character has no "ego" you should overspend time discussing, so . . . .
You left out quite a bit of that chapter:
Somebody forgot to mention that to Abraham.
Somebody forgot to mention that to Jacob with regard to Leah and Rachel.
So, how were the Hebrews better than the Canaanites, when they owed their lineage to these defiled practices?
Labeling people so as to stereotype is a despicable practice. This article has nothing to do with atheism yet your comments again are incessantly trying to redefine atheism in a pejorative fashion. Pedestrian, antagonistic tactics like these accomplish nothing other than diminish the credibility of the attacker.
You did not consider the questions:
Do naturalists SAY man Is just a higher ape or not? Do naturalists SAY there is (possibly) no God or afterlife? Yes, they do! We can simply do what we want to other people, can't we?
Your base instincts are influenced by all that which has come before, starting from the morality rules and laws of world religions. You do not like considering it but you can not change the facts on the timeline. Religion was around a long before the Enlightenment.
Again you engage in stereotyping. You deem katrix a naturalist and then leverage that stereotype into a tacit declaration that katrix is immoral - "We can simply do what we want to other people, can't we?"
Quite possibly she will take that as an insult. A personal attack. And nothing whatsoever to do with the topic.
And, what materialistic moral code did Abraham break. Please elaborate? What code do you give yourself that Abraham would have been obliged to honor. Do be specific, please.
You're ok with incest, rape, and infanticide? I'm not. I would hope most people aren't, but apparently, I'm wrong about that.
To what source should people turn to determine if slavery is moral?
I would deem it extremely immoral if some outoftowner and his rowdy clan forcefully claimed and demanded that my ancestral homeland was now their own based upon some cock-n-bull made up story that their invisible tribal god had somehow "given" my tribe's homeland to him and his tribe forevermore, no matter what, even unto thousands of years later. And, I would further deem it very very immoral if that same interloper and his no good tribe of land grabbers had then proceeded to slaughter and to enslave my own righteous tribe of gods fearing local landowners while falsely claiming that all that we had owned for generations generations was now to be theirs forever and evermore based upon the most specious of lameness bullshit claims as Abraham did to Caanan...
Furthermore, I would not give one damn if you did bury your ancient deadass mama in a lousy cave on my back forty /s...
Seems to me, Abraham is still really responsible for some really bad shit...
So, you get me?
Wow, a sweeping generalization with a hint of paranoia too.
Good night, team!
Really a H.L. Mencken quote?
He has numerous quotes .
He has some doosies…
I think there is more of a list.
Clearly the Bible is a horrid source for moral guidance.
To what source should people turn for moral guidance? Where, for example, do people go to determine that the owning of a human being as property is immoral?
Article being closed for lack of seeders moderation