Islam is bringing back slavery....but can Christians complain, morally?

The Islamic State is bringing back slavery and slave auctions, since Mohammad approved of that (and was a slave owner himself), just like the Bible's Abraham and Moses were....terrible role models.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/is...i-woman-recalls-horrors-slave-auction-n305856
Modern Secular Humanism condemns slavery of course.
Question: but because the Bible (and even Jesus) approved of slavery, and taught the proper way to beat one's slave in the Bible even, do Christians have any moral standing when it comes to complaining about Islam bringing back slavery? Or would it be like the pot calling the kettle black?

Me personally, I think it's tough for Christians to condemn ISIS's slavery, when they give their own impressionable children a book (and endorse the book as the best book of all time) that approves, expressly, of slavery. Morally it was tough for me to be a Christian, so I'm an ex-Christian.
http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm

 

The most you could say is that ISIS is bringing back slavery AND Mohammed would have approved. Saying they do so BECAUSE he would have approved is entirely too big of a leap in logic.

How can you say Abraham and Mohammed were terrible role models? They were both successful men of their times. As a humanist, you are supposed to be a moral relativist. You seem, however to be an absolutist. If you are an absolutist, where does your moral code come from? What is your basis for saying slavery is evil in this time and place and for all times and places?

The Secular Humanist Declaration I read says that Secular Humanists have wide differences of opinion. Do you claim to speak for all Secular Humanists, or just for yourself? It appears that you may be putting words in the mouths of people who disagree with you.

I have yet to see what your morality is based on, so I can't understand why you feel you have the moral right to condemn slavery. I personally am a moral relativist. I base my condemnation on the fact that slavery is no longer economically viable and is therefore wasteful. Christians and Muslims might use the same grounds. What are yours?

 

There are versions of contractarianism that will solve this conundrum without much problem.

Interesting, so if you found an economically feasible way to to make money, you would enslave me and consider that action morally, what, permissible? Mandatory?

 

My common sense says no to slavery....common sense. You might want to try that sometime.

 

The idea that slavery is no longer economically viable is ridiculous.

Free labor and minimal expense for their care is always economically viable.

 

That same document says that secular humanists believe in certain objective moral values and that they do not consider other cultures above moral criticism. It also says that there is a basic human right to liberty. Please don't skip those parts.

I don't presume to speak for FreedomSeeker, but it seems to me FS is condemning the practice on humanist grounds, which seems perfectly reasonable.

 

Any person that honestly opposes slavery can object to it's practice by others. As long as one acknowledges that it is wrong no matter who practices it, when it's practiced, against whom and why.

 

You aren't a moral relativist, you're a greedy relativist. If the only reason you no longer would do slavery is because you can't make money off the deal, how does that coincide with morals?

And what would be economically not feasible about free labor, but for room and board.
Hmmm, maybe I get it, you can pay people less money than it costs for one to have room and board. Thereby slowly killing them or making them turn to thievery. Not very moral either, IMO.

 

Agree,
No one wants to be a lave in the first place.

 

BTW, I'm allowed to IMPROVE that document, arguably, but the Bible is expressly forbidden to be improved (I can't recall the verse, however.) Clearly a less totalitarian document than the Bible is.

According to Jesus, yes, we have human rights....but, uh, dare to think differently than Jesus and he'll curse you to eternal torture like he did every single resident in those 3 villages (in the NT.) Jesus and Richard Dawkins have a different opinion about "human rights".

 

Yes, so we've overcome the slavery approved of in the Bible (it even teaches the proper way to beat one's slave) by being more MORAL than the bible, not just due to slavery being no longer economically viable (because it arguably is economically viable.) The Bible is clearly outdated, like the iPhone 3...and both are getting more so every decade.

 

If you stand in the way of Sharia Law, and won't live as a dhimmi, then about 1.5 billion people do agree that you should be a defacto slave (a dhimmi to the Islamic Caliph)....unless of course they will say that Qur'an 9:29 and 9:5 are dead wrong.

 

Morality needs to be taken in context to its time and place. So, I would say that were it moral in its context to enslave you, I would.

 

What common sense says morality is the same in all times and places? Common sense says the opposite. You are not thinking clearly.

Again, what is your moral basis for saying slavery is immoral?

 

The labor is not free: it must be paid for. The upkeep and supervision of slaves is not free, the quality and quantity of labor received does not come near what a free labor force produces. Slaves must be guarded and watched by a slave holding society, the cost is not solely to their owners. Slaves have no interest in learning; education does not better their lot. A free population attempts to improve its lot by hard work and education. These differences renders a slaveholding economy nonviable in the long term.

 

What I was getting at there is that other people have different values they arrived at thru a thinking process, the same way humanists arrived at their values. As to liberty being a humanist value, well, it's really a matter of definition, isn't it? Russians were free when the Commies were in power, weren't they? What about North Koreans? Free, or not? If not, who owns them? Where are the deeds/titles/whatever?

According to HIS definition of humanism, which he is conveniently leaving undefined and vague. I am simply trying to draw his reasoning out so it can be examined. He is being less than cooperative.

 

I am not defending modern slavery; I am attempting to find the reasoning behind Freedomseeker's moral objection to it. If it's only a prejudice (as it seems to me), then his position carries no more weight than those of the Christians and Muslims to which he objects.

 

How do you get greedy from what I wrote? Economical viability is important to whole societies, not just the individual. The reason I oppose slavery is that it drives the whole society under, not myself. The societal good is the basis of morality. That which is good for the society is made moral thereby. It has very little to do with individuals.

See post #15

 

A common expression of opposition to slavery involves opposing slavery in the Southern states of the US prior to and during the civil war. That may signal a prejudice against southern whites. Does that mean such opposition carries less weight? If one says "I oppose the death camps under Nazi Germany" does this show a prejudice against Germans during the Third Reich? Would that carry less weight than just saying "I oppose all death camps"?

 

In your thread title, you should really make a difference between Islam and the Islamic State. The Islamic State does not represent Islam but an extremists interpretation of Islam. If we had extremist Christians- or at least still had them- then they would be doing the same thing.

 

Since that document pretty much defines what a secular humanist is, if you revise the document, you are by definition no longer a secular humanist. Pretty much the same deal as the Bible or Koran. The moment an idea is committed to paper, it can't be changed without revising the idea itself.

Look up Christian Universalism. Google is a wonderful thing. Then post about things you actually know about.

 

Not really more moral. Just different. Quit patting yourself on the back for a virtue you don't possess.

 

I don't understand why its tough for Christians to condemn slavery. Afterall, much of the move to get rid of slavery here originated from Christianity, the Quaker sect. Christianity like Judaism evolved. That they could do that is a good thing. You do realize that even the RCC is not the same organization with many of its beliefs today as it was long ago.

The greatest moral principle ever was taught by Christ, do unto others....remember. And also his teaching about love, and to love one another, and not just those who love you. Of course there has been 2000 years of corruption of what he tried to teach.

Logically if you actually love the other, would you then enslave him or her? If you were doing to others the way you want to be treated, would you enslave? That people refused to follow those moral principles is the problem.

 

Slavery is just one of the 12 types of economic systems which man uses.

This is difficult for Americans to understand because of the Civil War and issues.
But it is true.

Serfs existed necessarily during the Middle Ages, for instance, and if it had not been for the Plague, it might not have changed.
The reduced population suddenly had an economic advantage with farm owners, and wages developed and cities grew.

 

Why should anyone, Christians included, condemn one economic system which often has it place under the right circumstances?

The major benefit of Slavery is called "survival."
That instinct can at time require one become a slaver or chattel or serf or indentured person,
Almost all immigrants in 1776 forward came to America as indentured slavers to pay the passage to get here.