Atheist author fights back

[RobNY]

So, it commands people to take slaves, says it’s okay to beat slaves to death, slaves must be good and kind to their masters even if their masters beat them, foreigners should all be taken as slaves, it’s okay to sell your daughter into slavery

Wonderful moral guide, and I see you don’t even deny that the bible promotes rape.

It seems to me that the Bible is often prescribing temporal penalities for actions, not that it is commenting on morality directly. In terms of morality, the eternal penalty due to sin is much more important. It is a mistake to connect a lack of temporal penalty to a lack of eternal penalty (or vice versa).

-Rob

 

[RobNY]

Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward" (1 Peter 2:18).

“Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ”(Ephesians 6:5)

Etc…

All we can know for sure is what the bible says, and it clearly supports slavery.

I don’t see a support of slavery from Peter or Paul. This is directed to slaves, not to slave owners. The simple fact is that Christian life is a life of suffering-- the life of the slave no less than the life of the freeman. Indeed, the dignity of each person is equal in Christ, as Paul asserts (Gal 3:28):

28: There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

You would have Paul seemingly contradict himself if you make him say a sin against someone is ok-- that is not what he is saying. He is addressing the slaves, not the slave owners. Indeed, since there is no distinction in the dignity of the person in Christ, one cannot do sinful things to slaves, at least not without the consequences which are proper to sin.

What Paul is addressing is how slaves in particular should go about their Christian life. I realized this without even knowing the context of the quote, upon looking, I thought it relevant to take the context of Peter’s quote:

14: or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right.
15: For it is God’s will that by doing right you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish men.
16: Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God.
17: Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.
18: Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to the kind and gentle but also to the overbearing.
19: For one is approved if, mindful of God, he endures pain while suffering unjustly.
20: For what credit is it, if when you do wrong and are beaten for it you take it patiently? But if when you do right and suffer for it you take it patiently, you have God’s approval.
21: For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.
22: He committed no sin; no guile was found on his lips.
23: When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten; but he trusted to him who judges justly.
24: He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.

This doesn’t have to do with the legitimacy of the ruler. After all, he is talking about pain endured, ‘while suffering unjustly.’ To be submissive even to ‘the overbearing’ for this reason: that to endure suffering is central to the Christian experience. I have no idea where to start to explain this to you because quite frankly, I’m inadequate to the task. But I’ll leave it at this: suffering for Christ’s sake is the purpose of this passage, not slavery.

What does the Bible indeed say about what slave masters should do to slaves? After all, you’ve only showed us what slaves should do to their masters. Let us take the quote from Ephesians in context:

5: Slaves, be obedient to those who are your earthly masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as to Christ;
6: not in the way of eye-service, as men-pleasers, but as servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart,
7: rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not to men,
8: knowing that whatever good any one does, he will receive the same again from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free.
9: Masters, do the same to them, and forbear threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no partiality with him.

Masters, in fact, are commanded to act well towards their slaves. This doesn’t seem as one-sided as you present it.

But one final analogy. You would seem to think that by a slave being obedient and submissive the bible is condoning slavery. But take this example from the Sermon on the Mount:

39: But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also;(Matt 5:39)

Now, if one is struck on the cheek and does not resist, does that mean that he condones the strike?

No more does the bible telling a slave to act obediently mean that it condones slavery-- indeed, it applies the same principle that Jesus gives in the Sermon.

-Rob

 

[rtconstant]

In the parts of the world where that the Bible has become the basis for law and morality. Slavery has been abolished. Yet in most of the world where it has had little influence the practice is still carried out today. There are exceptions of course. Yet most of the objection to current human rights issues tend to come from christenized world. That isn’t an accident.

Even your assumptions on ethics are generated by living in a world where judeo-christian morality is at least culturally considered the norm or at least a standard.

Before you can judge any system you have to view it in context and that is your mistake here. You can not take select verses outside of the fullness of their situations and the rest of the text that is offered and place it up against a culture that has had thousands of years to consider its implications and evolve. It just doesn’t work.

 

[Maranatha]

But individual atheists, as humanists, or as human beings, will feel the urge to speak out just on the basis of an obligation to make the world a better place.

Where does the obligation to make the world a better place come from?

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Mersenne

Christianity never abolished slavery, the United States did. And plenty of other countries, who are not primarily Christian, have abolished slavery.

Was Thomas Jefferson a bible thumping Christian?

In fact, when slavery was abolished, the United States was a largely Christian country. The underground railroads for escaped slaves were very much sponsored by various Christian denominations. Christians did a lot more than Thomas Jefferson did to change the conditions of the bound slaves. Even when he had it in his power to free all his slaves upon his death, he freed only several choice ones.

Mersenne (on the Bible)

I’ve read through all of it twice. I don’t think YOU’VE read it, most christians haven’t. The book is drenched with immorality, it’s hard to miss.

It’s drenched with immorality? The Ten Commandments are immoral? The commandments of Jesus are immoral? Do tell us which one you find the most offensive: “Love one another?”

I think you do confuse the actions of some with the principles that are cherished by all true Christians.

Your lashing out at Christians as preachers and merchants of evil has made you become exceedingly obnoxious to me. I guess you’d like to hear again about the horrors of atheist tyrants like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. I guess you’d like that very much … as you seem to be asking for it.

"If the world is so bad with religion, what would it be like without religion? Benjamin Franklin

I guess it would be a thousand times worse!

Fortunately for us all … we’ll never get a chance to find out.

 

[celluloid]

Where does the obligation to make the world a better place come from?

My reply is in a new thread here

 

[Axion]

I seek to judge Christianity on statements found in it’s bible and still considered to be the divine word of god.

You seem to be trying to be deliberately obtuse. The point is quite clear. You cannot take quotes from the OT and state that they represent the point of view of Christianity.

The new testament quotes condone slavery, it doesn’t legalize it because the legal precedent had already been set, but it continues to treat it as a legitimate institution. If you are a slave, and you are seperated from your family, and you are being beaten, if you try to escape to meet back up with your family, you are sinning, you are doing something wrong in god’s eyes.

Again the New testament says “Obey the Law” to those who are in the position of being slaves. Obeying the law is not the same as agreeing with it or advocating the beliefs that the law enforces. Just as when jesus said “Pay your taxes”, he wasn’t defending what the Romans did with the taxes.

If you or anyone else has a hard time reading posts, they could just ramp up the font in their browser settings. Increasing the font size of your own posts only increases the size relative to everyone else’s posts. It’s like typing in all caps. It’s very rude.

If you don’t like readable text, that’s your problem.

Okay, so now you’re switching from claiming that only christian countries abolished slavery to saying it only happens under “christian pressure” which is impossible to know and by all likihood untrue.

A read of history will show that most of the non-christian nations which abolished slavery in the past 300 years did so under Christian pressure.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Japan

so while slavery was starting to be considered a discusting practice in Japan, catholic priests were bringing over slaves as gifts, ultimately being freed by the Japanese.

Slavery hardly existed in Japan at the time.

As for the quote it is unattributed, and represents one incident, not many

 

[wanner47]

But did the early Church endorse slavery? Certainly, the early Christians more or less tolerated the slavery of their day, as seen from the New Testament itself and the fact that after Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire, slavery was not immediately outlawed. Even so, this doesn’t mean Christianity was compatible with Roman slavery or that the early Church did not contribute to its demise. In that regard, there are a number of important points to be kept in mind.

First, while Paul told slaves to obey their masters, he made no general defense of slavery as such, anymore than he made a general defense of the pagan government of Rome, which Christians were also instructed to obey despite its injustices (cf. Rom. 13:1-7). He seems simply to have regarded slavery as an intractable part of the social order, an order which he may well have thought would pass away shortly (1 Cor 7:29-31).

Second, Paul told masters to treat their slaves justly and kindly (Eph 6:9; Col 4:1), implying that slaves are not mere property for masters to do with as they please.

Third, Paul implied that the brotherhood shared by Christians is ultimately incompatible with chattel slavery. In the case of the runaway slave Onesimus, Paul wrote to Philemon, the slave’s master, instructing him to receive Onesimus back “no longer as a slave but more than a slave, a brother” (Philem. 6). With respect to salvation in Christ, Paul insisted that “there is neither slave nor free . . . you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:27-28).

Fourth, the Christian principles of charity (“love your neighbor as yourself”) and the Golden Rule (“Do unto others as you would them to do unto you”) espoused by the New Testament writers are ultimately incompatible with chattel slavery, even if, because of its deeply established role as a social institution, this point was not clearly understood by all at the time.

Fifth, while the Christian Empire didn’t immediately outlaw slavery, some Church fathers (such as Gregory of Nyssa and John Chrysostom) strongly denounced it. But then, the state has often failed to enact a just social order in accordance with Church teachings.

Sixth, some early Christians liberated their slaves, while some churches redeemed slaves using the congregation’s common means. Other Christians even sacrificially sold themselves into slavery to emancipate others.

Seventh, even where slavery was not altogether repudiated, the slaves and freemen had equal access to the sacraments, and many clerics were from slave backgrounds, including two popes (Pius I and Callistus). This implies a fundamental equality incompatible with slavery.

Eighth, the Church ameliorated the harsher aspects of slavery in the Empire, even trying to protect slaves by law, until slavery all but disappeared in the West. It was, of course, to re-emerge during the Renaissance, as Europeans encountered Muslim slave traders and the indigenous peoples of the Americas.

Source: catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9907fea2.asp

I recommend reading the entire article for an even more indepth look at Catholicism and slavery.

Also, Mersenne, it’s questions like yours that make me grateful Catholics don’t conform to sola scriptura. It’s very simple for many to look at the Bible by itself and give a blanket condemnation - “The Bible says X, which is clearly wrong, so the Bible must be false” without taking into account different translations, possible mistranslations, the historical context of the verses in question, etc.

In the Church there are many learned individuals who help laymen to interpret the scriptures in their proper historical context and who can clarify the translation of the original sources.

God bless,

JoAnna

 

[Mersenne]

You seem to be trying to be deliberately obtuse. The point is quite clear. You cannot take quotes from the OT and state that they represent the point of view of Christianity.

You’re being deliberately obtuse. I have given you two good reasons why I can, in fact, criticize Christians using the old testament. I have also requested scriptual proof that the entire old testament is out the door. I have also used the new testament. You seem to equate proving you wrong with “being obtuse”.

Mersenne:

The new testament quotes condone slavery, it doesn’t legalize it because the legal precedent had already been set, but it continues to treat it as a legitimate institution. If you are a slave, and you are seperated from your family, and you are being beaten, if you try to escape to meet back up with your family, you are sinning, you are doing something wrong in god’s eyes.

Axion;:

Again the New testament says “Obey the Law” to those who are in the position of being slaves. Obeying the law is not the same as agreeing with it or advocating the beliefs that the law enforces. Just as when jesus said “Pay your taxes”, he wasn’t defending what the Romans did with the taxes.

Okay, but let’s be clear. If you are a slave, and you are seperated from your family, and you are being beaten, if you try to escape to meet back up with your family, you are sinning, you are doing something wrong in god’s eyes. I do understand that these are the logical consequences of things like the golden rule, but that only serves to prove that the golden rule is a disgusting piece of immorality. I’m sure it was pretty enlightened for the dark ages, but now adays we’ve come a bit further.

Mersenne:

If you or anyone else has a hard time reading posts, they could just ramp up the font in their browser settings. Increasing the font size of your own posts only increases the size relative to everyone else’s posts. It’s like typing in all caps. It’s very rude.

Axion:

If you don’t like readable text, that’s your problem.

Did you not read what I wrote or did you not understand it? Let me repeat, if you or anyone else has a hard time reading posts, they could just ramp up the font in their browser settings. Tell you what, until you can grow up and stop being rude by increasing the font size of your posts, I just will ignore your posts.

 

[Mersenne]

Also, Mersenne, it’s questions like yours that make me grateful Catholics don’t conform to sola scriptura. It’s very simple for many to look at the Bible by itself and give a blanket condemnation - “The Bible says X, which is clearly wrong, so the Bible must be false” without taking into account different translations, possible mistranslations, the historical context of the verses in question, etc.

And I’m equally grateful to any Christian dennomination that doesn’t conform to sola scriptura. The bible certainly becomes a much better book if you put it in it’s historical context and take much of it figuratively.

 

[Mersenne]

It’s drenched with immorality?

Yes

The Ten Commandments are immoral?

Yes

“In no way does superstitious nonsense like this apply to the lives of intelligent civilized people of the 21st century.” - George Carlin on the ten commandments

A day where I get an excuse to quote George Carlin is a good day.

The commandments of Jesus are immoral?

Yes

Do tell us which one you find the most offensive: “Love one another?”

Oh, how could I pick just one? I think I’ve pointed out a few choice verses already.

I think you do confuse the actions of some with the principles that are cherished by all true Christians.

I haven’t really talked about the actions of Christians, simply what is in this book they claim to come from god and to be a wonderful moral guide even for secular people.

Your lashing out at Christians as preachers and merchants of evil has made you become exceedingly obnoxious to me. I guess you’d like to hear again about the horrors of atheist tyrants like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. I guess you’d like that very much … as you seem to be asking for it.

I haven’t done anything near that. I’ve offered up criticisms of your holy text. I haven’t said Christians are bad people. If you want me to start talking about the Crusades, witch hunts, the inquisition, birth control, aids in africa, the treatment of homosexuals over the years, the treatment of women over the years, any particular monarchy you chose, child molestation cases, the Christian roots of Islam, the Christian roots of terrorism, the prioritization of salvation over human life and of bibles over food, the percentage of money given to churches that is used for good purposes, Peter Popoff, faith healers in general, faith in general, Susan Smith, abortion clinic bombers, the firebombings of Muslim churches, theocracy in general, the coorelation between Christianity and crime, the coorelation between Christianity and being uneducated, the stiffling of science by Christianity, anti-semetism, manifest destiny, Christian rock, boy bands, dogmatism, pollution, reservations, the war on drugs, AA, WACO, blue laws, and the left behind series; well then I can. I can come up with silly criticisms just as well as you, but that would be a derailment.

 

[deb1]

Yes

I haven’t done anything near that. I’ve offered up criticisms of your holy text. I haven’t said Christians are bad people. If you want me to start talking about the Crusades, witch hunts, the inquisition, birth control, aids in africa, the treatment of homosexuals over the years, the treatment of women over the years, any particular monarchy you chose, child molestation cases, the Christian roots of Islam, the Christian roots of terrorism, the prioritization of salvation over human life and of bibles over food, the percentage of money given to churches that is used for good purposes, Peter Popoff, faith healers in general, faith in general, Susan Smith, abortion clinic bombers, the firebombings of Muslim churches, theocracy in general, the coorelation between Christianity and crime, the coorelation between Christianity and being uneducated, the stiffling of science by Christianity, anti-semetism, manifest destiny, Christian rock, boy bands, dogmatism, pollution, reservations, the war on drugs, AA, WACO, blue laws, and the left behind series; well then I can. I can come up with silly criticisms just as well as you, but that would be a derailment.

Actually, you are welcome to discuss any of these issues on this forum, but please start new threads for each subject. I think that you might be surprised by some of our opinions on these issues.

 

[deb1]

And I’m equally grateful to any Christian dennomination that doesn’t conform to sola scriptura. The bible certainly becomes a much better book if you put it in it’s historical context and take much of it figuratively.

Catholics are not followers of Sola Scriptura.

 

[Mersenne]

Actually, you are welcome to discuss any of these issues on this forum, but please start new threads for each subject. I think that you might be surprised by some of our opinions on these issues.

I’m getting into the pool one toe at a time. I didn’t even start this topic and it spiralled into people accusing me of launching a campaign against Catholisism before we were off page one.

Catholics are not followers of Sola Scriptura.

I know, that’s what he said.

 

[deb1]

I’m getting into the pool one toe at a time. I didn’t even start this topic and it spiralled into people accusing me of launching a campaign against Catholisism before we were off page one.

.

Well, I’ll apologize for that. I hope that you enjoy your time here.

 

[estesbob]

I’m getting into the pool one toe at a time. I didn’t even start this topic and it spiralled into people accusing me of launching a campaign against Catholisism before we were off page one.

I know, that’s what he said.

I get dunked in the CAF pool all the time and I’m catholic!