If you’re moral, create a version of your religious texts that disaproves of slavery

It was an enormously devisive issue at the time. The Founders didn't "approve" of slavery. They compromised on a roadblock.

 

Tell that to the Founders who actually owned slaves.

 

The 'cultural context' argument is nonsense if you want to also argue that the Bible was inspired by God. God doesn't have a 'cultural context'. If this God cared about slavery He would have prohibited the practice as he did with adultery.
The men who wrote the Bible either condoned or approved of slavery. No amount of double-speak can alter that very obvious fact.

 

The only thing I have seen in this thread is some attribution that Himmler's father had a connection with humanism, not Himmler himself.
I am not an atheist, and I have repeated it almost every time you have made your uninformed accusation, which makes you a chronic bearer of false witness. Since you are a Christian, I simply don't understand why that doesn't concern you.

 

Again, what concerns me is the continual double standards encountered when attempting to have a discussion with atheists ... who cannot even remember what they are saying.

I would assume that such notions are not specific to me ... simply because I am Christian. Go figure.

 

Not in any way responsive to my post. An avoidance of the mistake you made in your post that I directly responded to.
When you are talking to me, you are not attempting to converse with an atheist, so the relevance of your personal accusation escapes me.

 

Well, tat makes it totally relevant to the point that when a poster pointed out Himmler publically acknowledging he was a humanist, you said, "Nu Uh! He's not a humanist because his actions clash with humanism!!!" It doesn't rpevent you from, as we have proven, commonly lumping the worst behaving Christians as the sterotypical Christian even though their behavior clearly conflicts with the doctrine of Christianity.

In short, as many good atheists do, you used one standard for your pet religious beliefs, and applied another to Christians. Happens all the time - but when confronted with it - well, you just forget what you are saying at various times and expect everyone else to as well.

Like I keep telling you, your actions betray your intent, and when you implore such obvious double standards in a public debate ... well, why on earth would not expect to be called on it? Does atheism magically make you immune to hypocrisy? Is that protection doubled if you clearly blindly defend atheists and atheism, routinely employ their propoganda, but then deny being an atheist?

THe use of objective standards would prevent these kinds of discussions. But then, as is often the case with modern atheism and its use of double standards, I highly doubt that the intent is a civil and amicable discussion. Its the use of multiple standing directed at dimishing another human being.

Its no different that atheist screaming about how genocidal CHristians are, but, at the turn of a dime, demand that we treat them like war heros for their prescence in the exact same wars they condemn us for being invovled in? Such antics are not logical, and, IMHO, clearly have a basis in animosity.

 

So... long story short, you're calling him a liar, right?

 

No, I am questioing the intent of someone who starts a discussion about Himmler is not humanist, because of his actions, even though he claimed to be a humanist. He then 'forget' that he made the opposiet claim abot Christians who egegiously violate their doctrine. I think that is a double standard.

You think its dishonest? So be it.

Now, a reminder of what is happening - if I were to call BB a liar, even if is straight up lying, a hoard of angry atheists, no you, would run immediately to mod team and demand action at this personal insult. The mods have seen these antics far too many times, it is directly responsible for the sticky that appeared this AM at the top of the section.

In short, far too many atheists have no honest desire to discuss religion, its all personal. So calling a spade a spade is right out, we must point out the arguementation's flaws and leave the obvious implications of overt hypocrisy to create the impressions that they do - and should.

 

Hmm. He keeps saying he isn't atheist, you keep essentially saying he is. You can't both be telling the truth...

Anyways, moving on. I don't think anyone can follow Christ's teachings perfectly - is there a line beyond which you can say 'this side are the christians, the other side are fakes'? Or is it, as is my view, more of a spectrum, with everyone who TRIES to follow Christ being able to call themselves Christian? Even if they fail horribly at it, and even if their opinion of what Christ taught differs from yours?

I have no real interest in defending secular humanism as I don't consider myself one, and I don't even really know all that much about it. So maybe the same applies to secular humanism. But certainly there are groups where merely attempting to follow their guidelines is not sufficient, so at least on some occasions, a double standard would actually be justified, since they are two different things.

Also, I have to say, I've not read a quote from Himmler saying he is one. I would in fact be somewhat interested to see such a thing, since I was quite sure he was a pagan, pushing 'Volk' religion in a manner quite antithetical to secularism. But I did read through again and such a quote certainly isn't in this thread unless I'm badly mistaken, and a quick google came up blank. Any assistance would be appreciated.

One final note, if that sticky is indeed there because of complaints from atheists, it's backfired quite badly, with a lot of atheists getting into trouble at that time for flaming. But we probably shouldn't discuss that, metaposting is also against the rules

I must admit I have lately noticed a few atheists who make a habit of what I consider tedious, arrogant and one-sided attacks on religion. But in my view it is a small handful of persistent offenders, not the majority of people of that persuasion. But the sample size is too small anyway to make any meaningful analysis one way or the other.

 

Well, I think you have the gist of the Christianity, believe it or not. There is only one Jesus. His role is exemplar and ... critical .. atonement. No one on this planet is perfect. We all fall on a spectrum from good to bad, but, this is the critical part, where we are at on the spectrum is not static. Some of the very good can become very bad, conversely, some of the very bad can become very good.

This is a concept that I find I disgree quite frequently with as many atheists like to compare 'going to hell' with rape, murder, etc. The problem is, and the role that Jesus fills is one of forgivness (which is not the same as relief from consequence). For example if you are caught lying, no one considers it appropriate that we jail you for the rest of your life. you will however, even if forgiven, have to re-earn your bosses trust - and that can take some time. What about a rapist though? Why is his sin, so egregious, beyond redemption? What happens if a man commits rape, and, after being incarcerated, realizes that what he is done was terribly wrong? What if he does everything in his power to apologize, to make amends, adopts a life that combats rape even after he is freed fom jail, begins out reach programs for abused women, etc. All in an effort to earn atonement, redemption.

A Christian, Christ specifically, will look at genuine repentence and forgive - and that is not always an easy thing to do. Yet this act of forgiveness is the thing that most atheists seem absolutely distraught about in our faith. It's also the thing that is most understood, as if all you have to do is say, "gee, I am sorry," and yor sin is washed away. That is not hwo it works, it requires a contrite spirit, genuine remorse, humbleness, and a desire to right your wrongs to the maximum extent possible. But a callous word often does damage that can never be repaired - only forgiven. Something like rape? Even that can be forgiven, IF the sinner has humbled himself and genuinely repents of his sin.

But it comes down to a simple question, who among us on this planet does not need forgiveness?

None of us are Christ, but the example Christ gives us is ... quite important. At the time it was brought to earth, it was nothing short of radical.

 

Now, let's see if we can address what happened above.

A notice to the thin skinned atheists out there - which is not all of you - that when your antics are the deliberate misunderstanding, misquotation, and smearing of our religious texts to make slavery a commandment of God and imply that all Christians are slave owners ... such antics are illogical, irrational and desreve to be dismissed in the strongest terms possible. For example, if in a debate, upon being rebutted, you simply change goal posts, in order to continually apply 'slaver' status, people are going to question the intent of the changed goal post, and ask the question - make the statement - that the intention is clearly simply to call Christians slavers and dismiss the changed goal post or ever changing set of standards in referrence to calling Christians slavers, flame bait.

If your arguement is considered by another to be flame bait, and said analysis is aimed at your arguementation, at the fact that you avoid rebuttals and entire sections of rebuttals that are directed at your arguement, while continuing to demand that Christians admit that we beat our slaves ... take you to Alabama and sodomize you into conversion ... whatever, you may not like that analysis of your arguement - but its not a personal insult.

In short, if you are running around implying that people who clearly do not own slaves are slavers, who are not rapists are raping people, who are not killing people are murderers, if you are ignoring context entirely in Biblical quotation, if you assume a situation given, quite obviously in a specific instance, is obviously a general commandment binding for all time ... and do so while ignoring the historical record ... in order to call the faith resposible for the genesis of the abolition movement nothing but a collection of slavers ... your intent deserves to be questioned.

Such arguements are not logical in the slightest, their intent is not respectful debate, it is a deliberate smear of another faith. And when you stick to it and are left with:

News flash for atheists! In civil discussion, it is generally considered quite rude to repeatedly accuse someone, abased solely on their faith, of being a slaver, or other criminal activity. I am not sure exactly what antics are supposed to accomplish, but if its anything other than falme bait - I'll be dambed.

Its a debate forum - you are going to be rebutted. If you come unprepared to debate, you are not going to leave either happy or satisfied. If you are not levaing happy or satisfied, it mught be because your arguement is weak rather than because you were insulted. If your arguement is weak - you may want to do something about that.

 

I doubt that Christianity had anything to do with the abolition of slavery. If it had then countless Christians wouldn't have continued to support slavery until 1888. The abolition movement was started by about a dozen English people who just happened to have been nominal Christians. It wasn't started by the pope, cardinals, or assorted preachers.

 

But I don't think this poster can cite anyones post where someone has called him a rapist or slaver. I have never seen one. This is the real flamebait that is going on. The argument is simply that the bible doesn't directly condemn these activities. The rest of his post is simply a strawman he has set up so he can knock it down and feel like he has won.
It is the same thing he constantly does with his careless use of the term "atheist". He really doesn't know what it means, but applies it to anyone that doesn't agree with HIM.
His arguments are inaccurate and undisciplined and based in a personal anger that anyone would challenge his chosen scriptures and the way he interprets them.
They are not to be taken seriously.

 

In the U.S., the abolition of slavery had a great deal to do with Christianity. It was essentially a Christian movement, and Lincoln encouraged that perception in his speeches to the country.
What I think is interesting about this is that those Christians took that stand IN SPITE of their being no condemnation of the practice in scripture. They saw their duty as higher than being bound to just the words written in the bible.
More Christians today should be like them.

 

Well, maybe you shoudl check your history - you know, make a case based on evidence?

I am a Christians, but am not a Pope a Cardinal, or an assorted preacher. And yes, there are a great many preachers involved in the abolition process. And the point is that it is our values, Christian values that drove us to make that case that all men are indeed equal before God.

But, I tell you what, there is an easy way to test the theory - go into a Southern Baptist Church, one filled with African Americans, and roundly call them all slave owners commanded by God to own their fellow man.

If you are not immediately shown the door - let me know.

Yet for atheists constantly pushing the call of criminality, its actually rude to call the atheists running around seeing slavers everywhere flame baiters? Simple incivility reaps its reward, and its amazing what atheists think will pass for solid 'intellectualism' on the internet versus real life.

They are welcom eto take their charges of slavery everywhere to the police, to bust up those of seeking to enslave - actually commanded by God mind you - to enslave our fellow man and see how that goes for them? It is the law of the land that abolishes slavery correct? Why tolerate it? Or, you can walk around a church on Sunday, loudly denouncing the faithful as slavers, and see how long it takes the police to come and escort you away and charge you with disturbing the peace? Harassment?

But, on the internet, its atheist intellectualism at its finest?

YOu don't HAVE to be a dick to be atheist. And there are a few in this forum who realize that. However, those that repeatedly participate in the random denunciation of Christians as slavers? That ain't atheism, its just being rude.

However, to be atheist and participate in a debate forum, you should at least attempt tro support your arguement, rather than making declarative statements that are easily disproven.

"Some of the first freedom suits, court cases in the British Isles to challenge the legality of slavery, took place in Scotland from 1755 to 1778. The cases were Montgomery v. Sheddan (1755), Spens v. Dalrymple (1769), and Knight v. Wedderburn (177. Each of the slaves had been baptized in Scotland and challenged the legality of slavery. They set the precedent of legal procedure in British courts that would later lead to successful outcomes for the plaintiffs. In the first two cases, deaths of the plaintiff and defendant, respectively, brought an end before court decisions. The Knight case was decided in favor of the plaintiff, the former slave.[5]"

"That year a group of Quakers founded the first British abolitionist organization. The Quakers continued to be influential throughout the lifetime of the movement, in many ways leading the campaign.[13]"

Etc. Etc.

http://www.politicalforum.com/relig...exts-disaproves-slavery-7.html#post1061684699

Notably absent from any of that are atheist organizations. Such a pattern continues today with Christians leading the charge against modern slavery, specifically, the human sexual bondage. Groups like the Rachael Project and CASS, stand in sharp contrast to the complete dearth of anti-slavery activity within atheism. Even though, as we see, atheists like to see it everywhere ... in the wrong places.

 

......................

 

Where do you find Jesus approving of slavery ?

 

Has anyone seen a post on these boards that calls Christians "slavers", or accused them of being slave owners?
Neither have I.
Aren't you perplexed by what this post is referring to?
Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
The only argument that I have ever seen made, and that I agree with, is that the bible does not condemn the practice, and actually gives advice as to how to pursue the practice ethically. This is demonstrably true. That is why I give such props to the Christian abolitionists that had to overcome such teaching to arrive at the correct conclusion that slavery is an abomination, a conclusion that the bible never reaches.

 

In the OT the Jews were the choosen people. They were God's favoured people. Before Jesus came and made salvation open to all it was the Jewish race he favoured and put above all other people. So it was justifiable back then to own slaves as they were not regarded as God's choosen people.

 

Do you find those ethics acceptable? Of course not. Were Jews the only ones holding slaves? Of course not. So it is just a cultural artifact, and not god's ethics? I have to agree, at least regarding a god that I could worship with integrity. Many of us feel that much of the bible is cultural and has to be taken in that context, and not as the word of god, but the mistakes of men.
So that handles the ridiculous notion that the OT could find the ownership of another human being acceptable in any context.
Now what about the NT? It is just as agreeable toward slavery. In Philemon, Paul recognizes his obligation to return slave property to its rightful owner. This is just as agregious as it is in the OT, don't you agree?

 

It is quite obvious the God did not agree with others having slaves apart from his own people. We know he freed His people from slavery. We know he blessed certain slaves and made them prophets. However He did not condemn the actions of his chosen people owning slaves, I am not saying He agreed with the practice either. We know that one man cannot be the property of another, so as you say it was maybe just the way things were then, it was cultural thing that God probably did not agree with.

 

But chose not to denounce?
No condemnation of the practice in scripture?
The ownership of humans?
Ok. If you can sleep with that, more power to you.

 

The OT and the NT both approving of slavery clearly shows that the Bible is NOT from god, but from ancient barbarians who were fine with slavery, killing gays, treating women as 1/2 a man, etc., etc.