No Christianity Isn’t Dying But It Is Under Attack

[This_person]

Obviously, the US a Christian nation. But Christians should have known better than to enslave others in the first place, no?

It was the abolitionist movement in both Europe and the Northern US states, initially very small groups of very brave - some died because of their activism - and very committed people who drove the effort. These people were compelled by their basic humanism. And, wherever they could, they would draw on their faith, but, eventually have to fight the bloodiest war in the nation's history against christians who were drawing on theirs.

What moral code, what religion did those humanists have? What did they use as arguments?

 

[ProximaCentauri]

What you find patently obvious is a judgment based on an opinion of an inference. I find it patently obvious that the Jesus who told me to love my fellow human as He loves me and inspired his disciples to violate OT law in favor of asking for a slave's freedom puts the responsibility on me and all of mankind to do the right thing BECAUSE it is the right thing. What I find patently obvious is based on opinion, just like you. I am merely aware and honest enough to admit it.

I find that most who proclaim their own honesty, are being anything but honest.

It's likely that you discovered the obsure Paulian passage recently, while researching your apologetic argument for a pro-slavery biblical text.

Anti-slavery morality is a result of being born and brought up and educated in modern day American society.
Your anti-slavery morality originated in secular morality, in the same manner as it does for all Americans.

Had you been brought up in the slave-holding south, it's a near certainty your morality would have been shaped by that culture, and you would have used biblical passages to justify slavery - as they did.

You my friend, are just not honest enough to admit that you derive your morality from secular values when it comes the question of slavery.

 

[This_person]

I find that most who proclaim their own honesty, are being anything but honest.

It's likely that you discovered the obsure Paulian passage recently, while researching your apologetic argument for a pro-slavery biblical text.

Anti-slavery morality is a result of being born and brought up and educated in modern day American society.
Your anti-slavery morality originated in secular morality, in the same manner as it does for all Americans.

Had you been brought up in the slave-holding south, it's a near certainty your morality would have been shaped by that culture, and you would have used biblical passages to justify slavery - as they did.

You my friend, are just not honest enough to admit that you derive your morality from secular values when it comes the question of slavery.

So, you didn't answer my question about the arguments the "secular humanists" used.

It would appear that you believe mankind is inherently good and just evil religion has ruined that. I disagree with that opinion.

You have a series of opinions on me and how I come to decisions. You are inaccurate on them.

 

[ProximaCentauri]

So, you didn't answer my question about the arguments the "secular humanists" used.

I said: [Abolitionists] were compelled by their basic humanism.
How do you get "secular humanists" from that? There's your *honesty* on display again.
While many Abolitionists did draw on their faith, they also drew on their humanism, and not all abolitionists were Christian.

It would appear that you believe mankind is inherently good and just evil religion has ruined that. I disagree with that opinion.

No, it's fair to say I don't believe in 'original sin', and view this idea as an 'evil' one that's used to enslave minds to a totalitarian deity. But, mankind - with or without religious belief - is a complex being with complex motives, both 'good and bad'. Religion has been an enabler of both 'good' and 'evil' in the world. One striking example of that is the civil war era Christians', using their faith on one side to justify the human atrocity of slavery, while using that same faith on the other side to fight against it.

 

[This_person]

I said: [Abolitionists] were compelled by their basic humanism.
How do you get "secular humanists" from that? There's your *honesty* on display again.

Giventhat the person who follows humanism is a humanist, and non-theists are secular, I would agree I was being honest. What did YOU mean if not secular and humanist?

While many Abolitionists did draw on their faith, they also drew on their humanism, and not all abolitionists were Christian.



No, it's fair to say I don't believe in 'original sin', and view this idea as an 'evil' one that's used to enslave minds to a totalitarian deity. But, mankind - with or without religious belief - is a complex being with complex motives, both 'good and bad'. Religion has been an enabler of both 'good' and 'evil' in the world. One striking example of that is the civil war era Christians', using their faith on one side to justify the human atrocity of slavery, while using that same faith on the other side to fight against it.

Well, that's quite the shift from your previous position to what has always been my position, so I guess now that you agree Christians were both responsible for the rise and fall of slavery, along with non-Christians on both ends, I guess we can conclude the discussion.

 

[ProximaCentauri]

Giventhat the person who follows humanism is a humanist, and non-theists are secular, I would agree I was being honest. What did YOU mean if not secular and humanist?
Well, that's quite the shift from your previous position to what has always been my position, so I guess now that you agree Christians were both responsible for the rise and fall of slavery, along with non-Christians on both ends, I guess we can conclude the discussion.

I changed nothing with my positions, so I'm happy to see you are agreeing with...

The fact that at no where in the bible can it be found that enslaving others is a sin. Jesus tacitly condoned slavery.

That with respect to anti-slavery morality, Americans today including Christians, adopt the secular morality of their culture. Even if you won't admit to it, this is likely true for you as well.

The fact that Christians and non-Christians alike, drew on humanistic values, was evident in the abolitionist movement.

The fact that Christians, and non-Christians, were involved in both the rise and fall of slavery.

 

[Bird Dog]

I changed nothing with my positions, so I'm happy to see you are agreeing with...

The fact that at no where in the bible can it be found that enslaving others is a sin. Jesus tacitly condoned slavery.

That with respect to anti-slavery morality, Americans today including Christians, adopt the secular morality of their culture. Even if you won't admit to it, this is likely true for you as well.

The fact that Christians and non-Christians alike, drew on humanistic values, was evident in the abolitionist movement.

The fact that Christians, and non-Christians, were involved in both the rise and fall of slavery.

I am traveling so I can't post much..but sometimes you are really full of yourself.......

 

[This_person]

I changed nothing with my positions, so I'm happy to see you are agreeing with...

The fact that at no where in the bible can it be found that enslaving others is a sin. Jesus tacitly condoned slavery.

That with respect to anti-slavery morality, Americans today including Christians, adopt the secular morality of their culture. Even if you won't admit to it, this is likely true for you as well.

The fact that Christians and non-Christians alike, drew on humanistic values, was evident in the abolitionist movement.

The fact that Christians, and non-Christians, were involved in both the rise and fall of slavery.

I agree with your last sentence only. The rest is pointless drivel, but if it makes you feel better I will remind you that you are certainly entitledto any opinions you choose.

 

[ProximaCentauri]

I agree with your last sentence only. The rest is pointless drivel, but if it makes you feel better I will remind you that you are certainly entitledto any opinions you choose.

Ah yes, the predictable response from you.

Contrary to your belief, your opinions cannot change facts, no matter what the voices in your head tell you.

 

[This_person]

Ah yes, the predictable response from you.

Contrary to your belief, your opinions cannot change facts, no matter what the voices in your head tell you.

The "fact" is Jesus never explicitly condones nor condemns slavery. The fact is Christianity was used as both arguments for and against slavery. The fact is everything else here has been opinion and opinions are rooted in people's perspectives.

Those are the facts.

 

[ProximaCentauri]

The "fact" is Jesus never explicitly condones nor condemns slavery. The fact is Christianity was used as both arguments for and against slavery. The fact is everything else here has been opinion and opinions are rooted in people's perspectives. Those are the facts.

The fact is, jesus does not condemn one of the most heinous things one human can do to another.
The fact is, his father not only explicitly condones slavery in the OT, but instructs the faithful on how to beat their slaves.
The fact is, nowhere can it be found in the bible that enslaving others is a sin.

These facts should give you pause, but your blind faith subverts reason and promotes ignorance.

The bible's 'moral code' utterly fails here.

The bible's 'moral code' fails in other many other ways as well, but as long as one persists in self deception it is impossible to see.

 

[This_person]

The fact is, jesus does not condemn one of the most heinous things one human can do to another.
The fact is, his father not only explicitly condones slavery in the OT, but instructs the faithful on how to beat their slaves.
The fact is, nowhere can it be found in the bible that enslaving others is a sin.

These facts should give you pause, but your blind faith subverts reason and promotes ignorance.

The bible's 'moral code' utterly fails here.

The bible's 'moral code' fails in other many other ways as well, but as long as one persists in self deception it is impossible to see.

How does one love their neighbor as Jesus loves you and own slaves?

The moral code is there.

 

[Bird Dog]

The fact is, jesus does not condemn one of the most heinous things one human can do to another.
The fact is, his father not only explicitly condones slavery in the OT, but instructs the faithful on how to beat their slaves.
The fact is, nowhere can it be found in the bible that enslaving others is a sin.

These facts should give you pause, but your blind faith subverts reason and promotes ignorance.

The bible's 'moral code' utterly fails here.

The bible's 'moral code' fails in other many other ways as well, but as long as one persists in self deception it is impossible to see.

OK, you win. If it wasn't for Jesus there would of never of been slaves in the USA......all he had to do was condemn it and the problem would of been solved. Just like everything else he condemned that went away.
Genius

 

[Midnightrider]

The fact is, jesus does not condemn one of the most heinous things one human can do to another.
The fact is, his father not only explicitly condones slavery in the OT, but instructs the faithful on how to beat their slaves.
The fact is, nowhere can it be found in the bible that enslaving others is a sin.

These facts should give you pause, but your blind faith subverts reason and promotes ignorance.

The bible's 'moral code' utterly fails here.

The bible's 'moral code' fails in other many other ways as well, but as long as one persists in self deception it is impossible to see.

The other 'fact' that they always like to ignore in these discussions is that Jesus ands god are supposed to be the same entity. So 'if' Jesus didn't explicitly condone slavery in the NT, he did in the OT. Its the same guy. Not to mention that sermon where Jesus says he is not here to change OT law.

How does one love their neighbor as Jesus loves you and own slaves?

The moral code is there.

Jesus covered that, you treat them justly.

 

[This_person]

The other 'fact' that they always like to ignore in these discussions is that Jesus ands god are supposed to be the same entity. So 'if' Jesus didn't explicitly condone slavery in the NT, he did in the OT. Its the same guy. Not to mention that sermon where Jesus says he is not here to change OT law.

Jesus covered that, you treat them justly.

The other fact you missed is that the NT is a new covenant with God, so rules change.

The OTHER fact you missed is the disciple asking for the release of a slave in direct violation of the OT.

So, the only useful facts remain that Jesus neither explicitly condones nor condemns slavery, therefore all opinions beyond that are based on inference from each reader's perspective.

 

[ProximaCentauri]

How does one love their neighbor as Jesus loves you and own slaves?
The moral code is there.

The southern slave holders loved their white neighbors, and I'm sure many of them would say they even loved their slaves.

So jesus (i.e. god) decides to condemn homosexuals specifically in several versus in the NT, while saying nothing whatsoever about the human atrocity of slavery.

The 'god of the known universe' obviously feels it is infinitely more important to explicitly condemn people to hell for their sexual orientation, than it is to condemn people who brutally enslave others. Odd, don't you think?

And this resulted Christian slave holders brutalizing their fellow humans over nearly two millennia - quite an ugly legacy - until humans realized ALL humans have rights.

 

[This_person]

The southern slave holders loved their white neighbors, and I'm sure many of them would say they even loved their slaves.

And many Christians argued against that position. All in perspective, as I have said.

So jesus (i.e. god) decides to condemn homosexuals specifically in several versus in the NT, while saying nothing whatsoever about the human atrocity of slavery.

Neither of those things are true. Jesus condemned the act of single-sex sex, not the homosexuals themselves, while inspiring His disciples to seek human intervention in slavery.

The 'god of the known universe' obviously feels it is infinitely more important to explicitly condemn people to hell for their sexual orientation, than it is to condemn people who brutally enslave others. Odd, don't you think?

I don't find your interpretation odd at all. It fits the grossly inaccurate view you have of Christianity. But, nowhere does Jesus condemn homosexuals to Hell. And, Jesus specifically, explicitly condemns being brutal to our fellow human.

And this resulted Christian slave holders brutalizing their fellow humans over nearly two millennia - quite an ugly legacy - until humans realized ALL humans have rights.

Sadly, it wasn't only Christians or even religious people who began slavery, so that doesn't really seem to be much of a point at all. Add to that the main arguments against slavery were Christian and the point goes away altogether.

The fact remains that Jesus never explicitly condemns nor condones slavery. All opinions beyond that come from the perspective of the person who infers from the stories.

 

[Midnightrider]

The other fact you missed is that the NT is a new covenant with God, so rules change.

The OTHER fact you missed is the disciple asking for the release of a slave in direct violation of the OT.

So, the only useful facts remain that Jesus neither explicitly condones nor condemns slavery, therefore all opinions beyond that are based on inference from each reader's perspective.

You cant show any where that shows that law changed. Jesus did not change it. A disciple asking for something and not being given it does not change god's law. The bible is full of people who disobey or disregard god's laws. Your interpretation is thin because its based on progressive ideals, not scripture.

 

[This_person]

You cant show any where that shows that law changed. Jesus did not change it. A disciple asking for something and not being given it does not change god's law. The bible is full of people who disobey or disregard god's laws. Your interpretation is thin because its based on progressive ideals, not scripture.

That's an interesting opinion.

Show where Jesus explicitly condones slavery and it might make it all the way to being a point.

He doesn't do that. He also doesn't condemn it, making both of our positions opinions based on our perspectives.

 

[Midnightrider]

That's an interesting opinion.

Show where Jesus explicitly condones slavery and it might make it all the way to being a point.

He doesn't do that. He also doesn't condemn it, making both of our positions opinions based on our perspectives.

That you don't accept the law of the OT and the words and actions of Jesus as explicit proof doesn't mean its not. You are claiming Jesus changed that law. Show your work. Show any passage from Jesus that comes even close. I have shown plenty that show Jesus was just fine with the slavery that HE laid the law for in the OT.