Christians on Black Sunday

Kind of hard to take you seriously here when you repeat that drivel about James Randi. Have you looked into that matter before shooting your mouth off about it?

I refer you to: http://doubtfulnews.com/2013/03/james-randi-responds-to-storrs-social-darwinism-quote/

 

Junobet, this isn't covered until later in your post, but I wanted to address it first, since I feel it is the most important point I can make here. You argue that God allowed us to figure out for our selves that slavery is wrong. If he let us work it out for ourselves, that would make the argument for abolition a secular one. We apparently both agree that humanity came to the conclusion that slavery is wrong without God's help.

You just said “as soon as you’ve marked something out as unjust, you should get it right.” Why doesn’t that apply to God?

My own values are far more objective than those used to describe the God of the Bible.

As an educator, you probably care about the well being of your students, and of your students as individuals. You certainly wouldn't allow one to kill another just to help a third student understand that killing is wrong. You can’t be happy with God’s inaction here and still claim to value people as individuals. If God really did behave in this way, then he treated untold generations as a means to an end, rather than as an end unto themselves. You can’t get much more anti-humanist than that.

In pockets, sure. When it became a true abolition movement, striving for the absolute abolition of slavery – not just “we want our country to be free” but “we want all slaves everywhere to be free” – I’m crediting the Enlightenment for that.

Of course not. I don’t even believe he exists. If he did, what is the point of his revelation if he allows it to be corrupted like this? How are we to distinguish?

I’d have to check the article for quote mining, as Christian “debunkers” are quite fond of employing, but maybe it is true, maybe it isn’t. As I said, I don’t really follow the magician.

And that bishop deserves respect. The rest of his church, which largely stood idly by, deserves condemnation. And, yes, that mindset ought to have been eradicated long ago.

And on that I call BS. This is, in no way, a logical consequence of materialism. Social Darwinism and Nazi-style eugenics are pseudoscience, and have been thoroughly debunked.

Especially since the author made it very clear that this was a spiritual mindset, not one that pertained to the physical realm. The exact same author goes into great detail about how slaves should obey their masters as if they were Christ, and wives should do the same for their husbands.

Indeed I did.

I have. As interesting it is, Christians did not formulate true “human rights” until – indeed, the two words did not even appear together in the same sentence until – the Enlightenment. Specifically it was Thomas Paine, who despised the Bible and the Christian God – who put the two words together.

I’m afraid one can just as easily, if not more easily, excuse any kind of atrocity through “God said so”. The Bible itself, in its justifications of genocide, infanticide and slavery, is proof enough of that.
I’m assuming by “special” you mean “special” in some sort of religious sense. No. That is in no way required to treat humans humanely. All that is required for that is empathy and reason.

Ish. Most of the time the Protestent Reformation was every bit as bloody and intolerant as the Church they opposed. And many, citing Romans 13, were quite fond of authority, they just preferred to be the ones practicing it.

I said pagan secular ethics, not pagan secular philosophers. Seneca and the other stoics, along with Aristotle and his peripatetists, taught that the source of ethics was eudaimonia – human flourishing. They taught that human flourishing was achieved through following secular virtues: prudence, temperance, courage and justice.

You say that as if I said or implied otherwise for myself. That is not the case. I read things from people I disagree with all the time – I am responding to writings I disagree with, after all.

If I have spare time, possibly. Though the bigoted and false assumption that drives his interest makes me question the value of it. I’m not discouraged from reading him because I might disagree with him. I’m discouraged from reading him because I’ve heard this argument 1,000 times, I’ve never heard anyone add anything novel to it, and his starting assumption is terrible.

The Greek concepts of eudaimonism, the polis, the republic and democracy.

We both got the time wrong. I have corrected it. You said the Quakers got their start in the 16th century. As you can see in my correction and in the Wikipedia article you cited, it was the mid 17th century, which makes them contemporaries with the Enlightenment. 0-100 AD = 1st century, 100-200 AD = 2nd century . . . 1600-1700 AD = 17th century. Paine and Jefferson both spoke of Christianity and Quakerism as two separate movements, especially given the overlap between Deist and Quaker sentiment.

 

This thread is full of words and references most of which show that organized religion can and did organize the institution of slavery as well as the reformation of societies away from slavery. Religion supplied both leaders and followers for slavery and abolition as well It supplied some ideas and words that both justified and condemned slavery. The 'devil' could quote the scripture directly and simplistically, but that had almost no impact on Christian abolitionists, who had no trouble finding enough in there to cast plenty of Christ-inspired aspersions on the stagnant readings, and plenty of contextual evidence to suggest reform.

Religious thinkers and institutions time and again have played a role in casting the mold of societies and, a few centuries later, have helped crack and shatter that mold and casting in the next one. No major reform movements failed to recruit both secular and religious advocates/thinkers. None has gotten very far without a two pronged appeal and a two pronged underground organization to spread the ideas of the movement and protect its people from the powers of authority and control seeking to maintain the status quo.

Ideas of reform are still-born of several times , but only mature past infancy when circumstances and fortune recommend them to a broad enough spectrum that there are always enough white blood cells to protect the baby from yet another murderous infection. That immunity must cross the theist/atheist divide or history has to await another pregnancy.

Its a wash, people.

 

I refer you to: http://zthoughtcriminal.blogspot.de/2013/04/james-randi-social-darwinist-deceiver.html

I doubt you'll read it any more than the previous link. Ah well.

 

Actually we don’t agree. I happen to believe in God and a God given Natural Law, that helps us to discern good from evil and I hope for progressive revelation and divine inspiration, if I can call it that. But one doesn’t have to be a believer to acknowledge that religious thought was implemental to bring humanity to the conclusion that slavery is wrong.
It's simply a matter of fact observation for anybody who has a halfway neutral glance at the history of ideas.

No. There’s no “as soon” for God. He is eternal, outside of time, meaning that in Him all things happen at the same time.

That’s what you like to think. Personally I expect future generations to find at least some of our moral values and 21th century social practices utterly barbaric. And there are a lot of contemporaries who in many respects have different moral values than I do. So who’s to say what is morally better or worse, if there’s no such a thing as an absolute in morals, utter goodness, or in other words: God?

As a Christian I believe in eternal justice and redemption. If I was a fully blown atheist in my mind the victims of slavery, poverty, murder, you name it ... would just be (*)(*)(*)(*)ed and in the great scheme of things their suffering would be about as significant as the suffering of an amoeba or rock. They’d all just be soulless bits of randomly arranged matter. I think you couldn't get more anti-humanist than that.

And of course you think and that the enlightenment developed out of thin air and that it’s utterly accidental that almost every leading member of the British abolition movement was deeply religious .

By using our God-given reason.

Well, he wasn’t the only Christian who stood up against the Nazi regime. But I’m glad to hear that you and I agree that this mindset ought to have been eradicated long ago. I fear it’s creeping back into society at the moment.

Sure, but let's not forget that modern medicine still profits from some of the experiments Nazi-scientists conducted on KZ-prisoners and that it may indeed cheaper for our health systems not to pay for the upkeep of disabled people. So if you want to go for utilitarianism ...

But what ethics do you think can be drawn from materialism?

So what would have happened had he told them to revolt? Christianity would have been crushed in no time.

“Christianity, however, sowed the seeds of the destruction of slavery. It would be destroyed not by social upheaval, but by changed hearts. The book of Philemon illustrates that principle. Paul does not order Philemon to free Onesimus, or teach that slavery is evil. But by ordering Philemon to treat Onesimus as a brother (Philem. 16; cf. Eph. 6:9; Col. 4:1), Paul eliminated the abuses of slavery. Marvin Vincent comments, “The principles of the gospel not only curtailed [slavery’s] abuses, but destroyed the thing itself; for it could not exist without its abuses. To destroy its abuses was to destroy it” (Vincent, Philemon, p. 167).” http://www.gty.org/resources/bible-qna/BQ070912/The-Apostle-Paul-and-Slavery

Paine may have spawned the words but he did not spawn the idea. And for someone who despised the Christian God and the Bible I must say he was rather well versed in it. Did you ever read “Common Sense”? Here's a page you should have a glance at: http://publicliterature.org/books/common_sense/5

Sure, humans will never fall short of an excuse to justify their evil deeds, be it God, fatherland, science or the common good.

But Christianity believes that God is Absolute Goodness, striving for which means that you have to avoid evil and follow good. And it’s your conscience that informs you on what’s good and what’s evil. So if somebody tells you God wants you to do something that is against your conscience, Christianity’s advice is that you should follow to your conscience at all costs. Of course you may still do wrong even though you think you do right. But your conscience having been in error can be excused, whereas not following your conscience is an evil act in itself. And if your conscience commands you to commit atrocities it must be very “incontinent” indeed. (Comp.: Aquinas, “Summa Theologica”)

I’m enough of an historian to assume that there probably never was a genocide in Canaan, but of course the ancient Israelite’s sagas were just as violent as those of their contemporaries. What interests me is the development of morals that can be detected in the Bible. Take for example Isaiah, a book whose author(s) moved from the idea that God demands burned sacrifice to the idea that God demands us to do justice.

So on what grounds do you declare it a value to treat humans humanely? Why show empathy? Why shouldn’t man be his fellowman’s wolf? Social Darwinism, which we both despise, makes eugenics come across as very reasonable. So assuming that we’re both reasonable people, why do you think we despise it?

Sure, and you think the French Revolution was less bloody and authoritarian? Does its “Reign of Terror” mean that it did not spark any great ideas in human thought?

You must have overlooked that both Seneca and Aristotle based their “secular ethics” on metaphysical reasoning. Metaphysical reasoning that strongly influenced Christian notions of God. Striving for Good/virtue presupposes the idea that there is perfect Good. Leaning on Aristotle Aquinas calls this “Actus Purus” = God.

Well, as indicated above: Greek concepts of eudaimonism are based on concepts of a divine, which Plato would have called “The Form of the Good” and Augustine “God”. And with all due respect I wouldn’t embrace, the Greek polis, republic and democracy too much. The vast majority of the population wasn’t eligible for voting and offhand I can’t think of any Greek philosopher who ever condemned slavery. In fact Aristotle claimed that there are people who are slaves by their very nature:

So why do you hold it against Biblical authors that they were children of their time, but not against Aristotle?

 

Those people in Selma that day were attacked and killed by christians. A white minister was killed by christian cops....

Christians turned attack dogs on children. Christians blew up churches killing black children....Christians insisted on seperate schools and restaurants....

Christians during the time of slavery owned slaves.

 

Conscience brought them to that conclusion, we can agree on that. And many found justification for that conscience in their religion. Sometimes that even found it in their scriptures, though they had to ignore the verses that violated their conscience.

As I’ve said before, it should come as no surprise that, in majority Christian areas, the majority of abolitionists were Christian.

That should make him more observant, not less. A God that can’t understand the suffering of his individual creations, at their point in time, is handicapped.

The God of the Bible committed and commanded slavery, infanticide, the punishment of untold generations for the actions of their ancestors, the subjugation of women and religious persecution. Yes. I can say with great confidence that my morals are more objective than this. The only objective moral law to be found in the Bible is “Obey God”. Everything else can, and does, change when his will commands it.

I not only expect it to be the case, but hold out hope.

Absolute is a little hard to nail down. But objective? Yes. I believe in objective morality. No, I don’t believe in God, nor is there any proof that such morality would require God (see the Euthyphro Dilemma). If a god is the basis for morality, it certainly isn’t the slave driving, baby killing, genocidal God of the Bible.

Which allows all sort of suffering to be “justifiable” and allows conscience to be circumvented in the name of a theological belief.

[quote\If I was a fully blown atheist in my mind the victims of slavery, poverty, murder, you name it ... would just be (*)(*)(*)(*)ed and in the great scheme of things their suffering would be about as significant as the suffering of an amoeba or rock. to matter, They’d all just be soulless bits of randomly arranged matter.[/quote]You apparently think that, in order for suffering to matter, it has to be of universal importance to an omnipotent being. I don’t share that strange, and frankly megalomaniacal, view. Empathy and conscience would not allow me to ignore human suffering for the sake of wounded pride.

You are correct. Please never stop believing in God. It sounds like it would be dangerous for you, and possibly those around you.

Nope. It primarily developed from the fact that recent discoveries and events lead to a questioning of religious and political authority.

See above. There is no need for accident when almost everyone in Britain was deeply religious.

Our reason, which goes against religious revelation and most of the argument for religion, should we choose to actually pursue it. It certainly goes against the God of the Bible. You believe that reason comes from God, which is fine but also unnecessary. “Reason” will do just fine without the “God-given” part.

If I see evidence of this, I’ll be happy to join the ranks in fighting it.

I advocate humanism, not necessarily utilitarianism. And formulating the utilitarian argument for this would be difficult, to say the least. One of the problems with utilitarianism is the hefty job of trying to assign value to each of the variables, determining if the positive consequences could have arisen from a separate/later cause, etc.

Humanism. A system of ethics based on the concern for the wellbeing of conscious beings, through empathy and reason. I don’t see how conscience requires God.
Any challenge to this system of ethics equally holds to any system of ethics based on theism.
What ethics do you think can be drawn from theism?
Why is it good to obey God?

In short, see the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-question_argument]open-question argument[/url], which all systems of ethics struggle with.

A nice start would have been to at least command Christians not to own slaves. But in all earnestness, this is an absurd defense. Were the Christians who opposed the Nazis not in equal danger? Were the Christians at the time not already in danger for, well, practicing Christianity.

Paul told one Christian slave owner that he should free one of his Christian slaves. Paul’s other writings go on to command slaves to obey their masters as they would obey Christ, and to command Christian slave owners to be kind to their Christian slaves (though no word on freeing them).

I’ve read Common Sense multiple times, as I have the other works of Paine. Common Sense mostly delves into Judges, pointing out that God did not originally want the Israelites to have a king. From what I recall, the only part he mentions from the New Testament is the “render unto Caesar” part, which he only mentions to say that this doesn’t excuse the divine right of kings. Note that he ignored Romans 13, which expressly details the Christian case for the divine right of kings.
If you would like to see Paine really get into the Bible in earnest, read Age of Reason. You’ll say here that he despises the Bible (his words, not mine) because he is well versed in it.

A couple of quotes for you:

”The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries, that have afflicted the human race have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion. It has been the most dishonourable belief against the character of the divinity, the most destructive to morality, and the peace and happiness of man, that ever was propagated since man began to exist. It is better, far better, that we admitted, if it were possible, a thousand devils to roam at large, and to preach publicly the doctrine of devils, if there were any such, than that we permitted one such impostor and monster as Moses, Joshua, Samuel, and the Bible prophets, to come with the pretended word of God in his mouth, and have credit among us.

Whence arose all the horrid assassinations of whole nations of men, women, and infants, with which the Bible is filled; and the bloody persecutions, and tortures unto death and religious wars, that since that time have laid Europe in blood and ashes; whence arose they, but from this impious thing called revealed religion, and this monstrous belief that God has spoken to man? The lies of the Bible have been the cause of the one, and the lies of the Testament of the other.”
” Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon that the Word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and for my own part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel.”

And what reason do I have to believe that my conscience comes from God, especially when the same conscience that tells me that slavery is wrong also tells me that the Christian God is detestable.

Unless it is God or scripture that is telling you to go against your conscience.

I agree, but I’m afraid only the most liberal of “Christians” preach this.

That doesn’t bode well for God’s conscience or the conscience of the authors of the Bible.

There probably never was a genocide in Canaan, though the idea that there was has created horrors of its own. I can credit the moral developments of the Bible to the same thing I can credit moral development all over the world: conscience. No need for God in that picture.

On what grounds do you declare that we should obey God’s moral guidance? All morality eventually comes down to seeing something as inherently valuable and worth pursuing for its own sake. You add an extra step to yours that I don’t see the need for. Empathy is an inherent part of our neurology, and has been vital to our survival and thriving as a species. Reason tells me that following only my own good and ignoring the good of others, especially when ignoring that good causes them pain, is arbitrary and not rationally justified, just as favoring one race over another would be.

Because only sociopaths desire to be, our society can’t function that way, our basic neurology guides us against it, because cooperation grants benefits to the individual, and our species would have died out long ago without cooperation.

I disagree with the idea that they are reasonable. There is a version of eugenics which could be reasonable, but it isn’t what we are talking about here. If there were a gene therapy that would prevent any future child from getting a horrible, painful and lethal genetic disease, I wouldn’t see the problem with implementing it.

The Reign of Terror was is as bloody as it was authoritarian and immoral.

I was a Classics minor. I’m quote familiar with the metaphysics of the Stoics and Aristotle – both of whom were polytheists and one of whom could be described as materialist. It doesn’t change the fact that the ethics themselves were secular. They were based on the well-being of human beings through virtues. They thought their metaphysics complemented this, but their ethics survives just as well without it, as evidenced by the fact that many people continued with following the ethics while dismissing with the metaphysics.

No, eudaimonism is based on well-being. The act that these philosophers saw it as part of a bigger system doesn’t change the very definition of eudaimonism.

That’s because they didn’t carry these philosophies through to their logical conclusion. That mission continues into the modern day. That’s all understandable, of course, because these are secular institutions that don’t have the benefit of divine revelation. Those that believe in divine revelation have no such excuse for the slow-turning wheels of their institution.

There were plenty of Greek systems which treated slaves and freemen equally within the confines of their schools and property – the Epicureans, Stoics – but none wielded enough power to overturn the institution within their time. Again, understandable given the lack of divine interference. Believers in divine interference have a lot more to explain.

“Kindly remember that he whom you call your slave sprang from the same stock, is smiled upon by the same skies, and on equal terms with yourself breathes, lives, and dies.” – Seneca

I do hold it against Aristotle. “They were children of their time” is no excuse for someone who believes in divine revelation.

 

It's not a matter of not reading your links. It's a matter of not being taken in by them.