Obama did a lot of talk during his campaign about his love of Our Lord Jesus Christ, but ever since taking office, he has yet to mention him in any significant manner. What is this about? Bush did a good job invoking Christ into his speeches and Billy Clinton brought him up on more than one occasion. Why doesn't Obama bring Christ into the mix more? Perhaps it would raise his approval ratings? Either way, it's the right thing to do.

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!

This post has a nice balance! Start with an objective observation... Followed by plenty of talking points in the form of innocent questions... Topped off with a very subjective moral judgement. I believe you've found the formula to success!

How could I overlook this crucial element to the formula! Invoking the name of, none other than, GEORGE DOUBLEYOU BUSH!

Well played!

It find it a little odd that the president has been in office 6 months and totally ignores Our Lord. Doesn't anybody else find that a little odd?

We just survived 8 years of having our president make decisions "because god told him so".

I think we need a little breather from all this fundamentalist bullshit.

God is great. God is good. But keep him the fuck out of my government.

All you protestant nut cases don't even know which jesus to pray to.

You really don't even believe in God. You just believe some superstitious idea that praying to some version of Jesus or another will produce treasures and good luck, because your preacher shouts about it every sunday.

Thank you baby jesus! dear lord baby jesus!

why not? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Obama did a lot of talk during his campaign about
> his love of Our Lord Jesus Christ, but ever since
> taking office, he has yet to mention him in any
> significant manner.

well this is probably because every politician is FORCED to do so during a campaign. As the general public wont vote for a man who doesnt believe an imaginary man in the sky. Or even an agnostic or deist.


What is this about? Bush did a
> good job invoking Christ into his speeches and
> Billy Clinton brought him up on more than one
> occasion.

Bush also said that god talked to him...

Why doesn't Obama bring Christ into the
> mix more?

because its irrelivant in politics, and should be kept out of them period.

Perhaps it would raise his approval
> ratings?
who gives a shit.

Either way, it's the right thing to do.

Bullshit.

Thurston Moore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We just survived 8 years of having our president
> make decisions "because god told him so".
>


I found it amusing that bush came out a few months before he left office and said that the bible wasnt to be taken literally. It didnt make major news outlets, but its funny to see that he bullshitted all of you religious right wingers into voting for him.

Let's say he told the truth and is a religious man. He is not the king of England. His position is secular. Therefore, it seems to be appropriate that he refrain from religious references in speeches.

why not? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Obama did a lot of talk during his campaign about
> his love of Our Lord Jesus Christ, but ever since
> taking office, he has yet to mention him in any
> significant manner. What is this about? Bush did a
> good job invoking Christ into his speeches and
> Billy Clinton brought him up on more than one
> occasion. Why doesn't Obama bring Christ into the
> mix more? Perhaps it would raise his approval
> ratings? Either way, it's the right thing to do.


I'm glad that he's not mentioning Christ as much as the others. I take it as an indication that he prefers reason to faith when making decisions.

Now, some of his decisions have been...disappointing, but they are still leaps and bounds above the prior chuckle head in office.

why not? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Obama did a lot of talk during his campaign about
> his love of Our Lord Jesus Christ, but ever since
> taking office, he has yet to mention him in any
> significant manner. What is this about? Bush did a
> good job invoking Christ into his speeches and
> Billy Clinton brought him up on more than one
> occasion. Why doesn't Obama bring Christ into the
> mix more? Perhaps it would raise his approval
> ratings? Either way, it's the right thing to do.


I don't really recall Obama talking that much about Jesus during the campaign. As for not bringing Jesus up now, did Reagan talk about Jesus that much as President? I don't really recall him doing that except when the Challenger blew up and a couple of instances like that.

Do people really worry about such jesus f..king christ bullshit?

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

This was such a troll thread.
Attachments:

I know that..I just couldnt pass up an opportunity to be blasphemous!

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Why not? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It find it a little odd that the president has
> been in office 6 months and totally ignores Our
> Lord. Doesn't anybody else find that a little odd?


He's YOUR lord, not ours! He certainly isn't mine. The only thing more conflicted than god is Brett Favre.

Quite frankly, it's refreshing to have a president that doesn't thank "the lord" for every other thing.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/31/2009 09:32AM by Numbers.

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why not? Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It find it a little odd that the president has
> > been in office 6 months and totally ignores Our
> > Lord. Doesn't anybody else find that a little
> odd?
>
>
> He's YOUR lord, not ours! He certainly isn't mine.
> The only thing more conflicted than god is Brett
> Favre.
>
> Quite frankly, it's refreshing to have a president
> that doesn't thank "the lord" for every other
> thing.

Mark 12:30
And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength. This is the first commandment.


YOUR GOD. Read it again. It is written. Whether you accept your fate or not, it is.

open eye Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> YOUR GOD. Read it again. It is written. Whether
> you accept your fate or not, it is.

I didn't vote for him.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> open eye Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > YOUR GOD. Read it again. It is written. Whether
> > you accept your fate or not, it is.
>
> I didn't vote for him.


...but your heart does. Besides, Heaven isn't a democracy. The Bible describes it as a somewhat of a fascist-loveocracy. Accept Him.

open eye Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...but your heart does. Besides, Heaven isn't a
> democracy. The Bible describes it as a somewhat of
> a fascist-loveocracy. Accept Him.

I'll stick with being a Muslim, but thanks.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

Obama doesn't mention Jesus because the Messiah doesn't refer to himself in the third person.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> open eye Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ...but your heart does. Besides, Heaven isn't a
> > democracy. The Bible describes it as a somewhat
> of
> > a fascist-loveocracy. Accept Him.
>
> I'll stick with being a Muslim, but thanks.


You would.

allah is a fag. bury your kids head in the sand and throw rocks at him because he was raped. dumb. read a logic book

allah akbar Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> allah is a fag. bury your kids head in the sand
> and throw rocks at him because he was raped. dumb.
> read a logic book

Like the Bible?

Yes, I really hope that Obama will step up to the plate and embrace the intolerance that thousands of years of Christian rule have brought us.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

open eye Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Numbers Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Why not? Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > It find it a little odd that the president
> has
> > > been in office 6 months and totally ignores
> Our
> > > Lord. Doesn't anybody else find that a little
> > odd?
> >
> >
> > He's YOUR lord, not ours! He certainly isn't
> mine.
> > The only thing more conflicted than god is
> Brett
> > Favre.
> >
> > Quite frankly, it's refreshing to have a
> president
> > that doesn't thank "the lord" for every other
> > thing.
>
> Mark 12:30
> And you shall love the LORD your God with all
> your heart, with all your soul, with all your
> mind, and with all your strength. This is the
> first commandment.
>

Sorry, my God is not egotistical. It really does not care if I worship/love it or not. It is God, so it has more important things on its mind.

Thurston Moore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We just survived 8 years of having our president
> make decisions "because god told him so".
>
> I think we need a little breather from all this
> fundamentalist bullshit.
>
> God is great. God is good. But keep him the fuck
> out of my government.

Good thing you're nothing more than an internet politician, as if this country isn't screwed up enough.

Why not?,

I knew your post would be a hit!

Even making passing references to Christ would be nice...just to show unity. Don't forget, we are a CHRISTIAN nation founded on CHRISTIAN principles by CHRISTIAN men. To have it any other way is an abomination. If you want secular, go to France or Belgium. Obama should really do his part in spreading Christ's love, even if it is a small, but noticeable, gesture

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> open eye Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > YOUR GOD. Read it again. It is written. Whether
> > you accept your fate or not, it is.
>
> I didn't vote for him.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Why NOt? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Even making passing references to Christ would be
> nice...just to show unity. Don't forget, we are a
> CHRISTIAN nation founded on CHRISTIAN principles
> by CHRISTIAN men. To have it any other way is an
> abomination. If you want secular, go to France or
> Belgium. Obama should really do his part in
> spreading Christ's love, even if it is a small,
> but noticeable, gesture

Actually it was more of a Deist theme. They always end with "God Bless America", not "Christ Bless America". They used to have folks swear on a bible since they felt people would be more swayed by breaking an oath made in front of their God, than one just made in front of men. Now they just hold their hand up when they swear an oath, although most of the ceremonies in the Federal Government start with a prayer, and swearing in officials like the President and such is still done on a bible (or Koran based on their professed religion).

But no, the President is not required, nor should he make references to God or Christ unless that is part of his "normal" way of life. There is no job requirement that says "must hold to a belief in God/Christ and profess that belief when speaking in public".

*shrug*

Why NOt? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Even making passing references to Christ would be
> nice...just to show unity. Don't forget, we are a
> CHRISTIAN nation founded on CHRISTIAN principles
> by CHRISTIAN men.

Ah, I was wondering where slavery and inequal rights between the rights came from. Nice that Christianity steps up to claim the prize.

> To have it any other way is an
> abomination. If you want secular, go to France or
> Belgium. Obama should really do his part in
> spreading Christ's love, even if it is a small,
> but noticeable, gesture

No, I think it's better when politicians at least attempt to do some critical thinking as opposed to relying on faith. We don't want another Dark Ages, do we?

Christians love all the modern conveniences, medicine and technologies that make their lives easier and allow them to live longer, but they get bitter when we use science and biology to support evolution and debunk their particular mythology.

what i dont quite get is why does evolution have to prove creationism wrong? couldn't God have created the animal and what nots and then they evolved?

Why NOt? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Even making passing references to Christ would be
> nice...just to show unity. Don't forget, we are a
> CHRISTIAN nation founded on CHRISTIAN principles
> by CHRISTIAN men. To have it any other way is an
> abomination. If you want secular, go to France or
> Belgium. Obama should really do his part in
> spreading Christ's love, even if it is a small,
> but noticeable, gesture

god i cant take these trolls anymore, no one can really be this stupid.

bloody blisters Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> what i dont quite get is why does evolution have
> to prove creationism wrong? couldn't God have
> created the animal and what nots and then they
> evolved?


I assume this is an attempt at sarcasm, but in the event you're actually serious, it means you don't understand evolution or creationism.

Creationists believe the Earth was created in 6 days, approximately 6000 years ago. We now know for a fact this isn't true. The Earth is actually around 4.5 billion years old. Evolution is no longer disputed realistically and rationally and this destroys the old testament stories of creation.

Creationists also believe that people were 20-30 feet tall that lived for hundreds of years and could survive inside the belly of a giant fish for days. They believe that every animal in the world (including the dinosaurs, birds insects) were loaded onto a boat and cast adrift during a giant flood that wiped out every living thing on the planet.

You can believe in any god you want, if it makes you feel better, but the biblical and quranic gods have been officially debunked over and over again along with all the gods before them.

I know this hurts some people to hear this, but look at it this way. Since you now know there is no god to magically bail you out of all your messes, you can actually take responsibility for your actions.

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I know this hurts some people to hear this, but
> look at it this way. Since you now know there is
> no god to magically bail you out of all your
> messes, you can actually take responsibility for
> your actions.

Why, that's just unpatriotic.

and heresy!

heretic heathen traitor!

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why NOt? Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Even making passing references to Christ would
> be
> > nice...just to show unity. Don't forget, we are
> a
> > CHRISTIAN nation founded on CHRISTIAN
> principles
> > by CHRISTIAN men. To have it any other way is
> an
> > abomination. If you want secular, go to France
> or
> > Belgium. Obama should really do his part in
> > spreading Christ's love, even if it is a small,
> > but noticeable, gesture
>
> Actually it was more of a Deist theme. They always
> end with "God Bless America", not "Christ Bless
> America". They used to have folks swear on a bible
> since they felt people would be more swayed by
> breaking an oath made in front of their God, than
> one just made in front of men. Now they just hold
> their hand up when they swear an oath, although
> most of the ceremonies in the Federal Government
> start with a prayer, and swearing in officials
> like the President and such is still done on a
> bible (or Koran based on their professed
> religion).
>
> But no, the President is not required, nor should
> he make references to God or Christ unless that is
> part of his "normal" way of life. There is no job
> requirement that says "must hold to a belief in
> God/Christ and profess that belief when speaking
> in public".
>
> *shrug*


We are a Christian Nation, I feel that is undeniable if you take a thorough look at our Founding History. However, we are also a Fair and Accepting Nation which holds no OFFICIAL religious stance, so that we will not and do not persecute our citizenry based upon varying religious convictions.

Yeah, notice I did not go into that.

Certainly, right now, there is definitely a religious persecution going on in the US. Unfortunately some of the religions have brought it on themselves.

- Catholics (and related religions) have had issues with pedophiles being protected by the Church
- Muslims and the obvious issues with 9/11 and fanatics
- Evangelists who have had too many issues of being hypocrites and non-tolerant of others
- etc

In an age where science is becoming dominant, and religion has NOT always been right (Crusades, suppression of education in the past, etc) - religion is an easy target.

Religion teaches tolerance, and yet some of the loudest "hate speak" (and actions - killing abortion doctors) is coming from those who have strong religious backgrounds. That is a big part of the issue.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/01/2009 01:44AM by Registered Voter.

bloody blisters Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> what i dont quite get is why does evolution have
> to prove creationism wrong? couldn't God have
> created the animal and what nots and then they
> evolved?

When I was a little kid, i asked my Sunday school teacher this very question. I was told that i can't believe in both, because evolution goes against God.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

I always rationalize the co-existence of religion and science in this way - who knows how long a "day" is to God. So 7 days to him could have been a few hundred thousand (million?) years of evolution.

Then again, I don't believe we are the only planet in the universe inhabited by intelligent species.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/01/2009 02:21AM by Registered Voter.

,



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/29/2012 08:00PM by Alias.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When I was a little kid, i asked my Sunday school
> teacher this very question. I was told that i
> can't believe in both, because evolution goes
> against God.


Are you catholic, or one of the splinter sects?

Because, at least in my experience, the catholic church has been really adept at skirting the issue and "adapting" to new science. I was always taught that the bible is not a literal book, but a book that needs to be interpreted by each generation, based on their understanding of the modern world.

I'm starting to realize that the protestant reformation did good during the dark ages, to break the power of the church, but then the church adapted, and all the breakaway sects seemed to stay stuck in the mindset of the middle ages.

At least in Catholic schools, they don't teach creationism, they actually have biology courses, and teach evolution, and then in religion courses they treat it as a test of faith, by postulating that the whole "God created the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th" parable to mean that each of those "days" means some millions or billions of years, and that when he created man and the creatures on the sixth day, he created life forms that would evolve throughout the millions of years that represent the "sixth day".


First day: God creates light ("Let there be light!") - the first divine command. The light is divided from the darkness, and "day" and "night" are named.

Big Bang.


Second day: God creates a firmament ("Let a firmament be...!") - the second command - to divide the waters above from the waters below. The firmament is named "heavens".

Galaxies, Solar systems and planets coalesce over billions of years of matter expanding after the big bang.


Third day: God commands the waters below to be gathered together in one place, and dry land to appear (the third command). "Earth" and "sea" are named. God commands the earth to bring forth grass, plants, and fruit-bearing trees (the fourth command).

Evolving planet produces water from the free hydrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere. Small forms of life are produced, eventually resulting in plant life.



Fourth day: God creates lights in the firmament (the fifth command) to separate light from darkness and to mark days, seasons and years. Two great lights are made (most likely the Sun and Moon, but not named), and the stars.

The solar system orders itself, and orbital patterns create seasons. I'm sure that earth didn't always rotate in 24 hour intervals and wobble precisely enough to create a reliable 12 month pattern of shifting lighter and darker periods on both hemispheres.


Fifth day: God commands the sea to "teem with living creatures", and birds to fly across the heavens (sixth command); He creates birds and sea creatures, and commands them to be fruitful and multiply.

He starts the sea life, and then the life of avians. Millions of years go by, and they become what we know as fish and birds, today.


Sixth day: God commands the land to bring forth living creatures (seventh command); He makes wild beasts, livestock and reptiles. He then creates Man and Woman in His "image" and "likeness" (eighth command). They are told to "be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it." Humans and animals are given plants to eat. The totality of creation is described by God as "very good."

Everything evolved over hundreds of millions of years to create a perfect ecosystem for both man and the food he needs to survive. A catholic would call that God's plan. God sparked the creation of the universe, set some rules in place and created what became the world and universe we now know.


Seventh day: God, having completed the heavens and the earth, rests from His work, and blesses and sanctifies the seventh day.

God needs a break, too, you know? Now that the modern era is upon us, God is on hiatus. Get over it christian fundamentalists. God isn't listening. The Epoch we live in is God's seventh day. He's taking a break, he ain't worried about your petty requests for Godly assistance. It's the seventh day, let him have his day off.

I'm thinking if an 8th day ever comes, we should be worried :)

\



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/29/2012 07:59PM by Alias.

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mr. Mephisto wrote:
>
> "When I was a little kid, i asked my Sunday school
> teacher this very question. I was told that i
> can't believe in both, because evolution goes
> against God."
> _________________
>
> WOW! That must have been traumatic for you, Mr.
> Mephisto.

Wait... MM went to CHURCH? I am so confused now... although I suppose that is not inconceivable seeing as how he was a fallen angel.. hmm?

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm thinking if an 8th day ever comes, we should
> be worried :)


No shit. Nobody ever talked about an 8th day. They described (pretty accurately if you interpret it just the right way) the 6 days that got us to the 7th day.

Assuming that each "day" was really an epoch or some other greater order of magnitude in time, and assuming that we are in the 7th day right now, there must be some sort of 8th day eventually.

That sort of makes sense. Somehow over thousands or even millions of years, the understanding of life evolved (there's that hated word again) to create the parables of the 7 days of creation, to explain our current existence. We are only 2 to 5 thousand years ahead of the people that came up with that explanation. And we don't even fully understand their explanation of the origins of life and our current existence.

How do we know that they just never contemplated what comes next? (yeah, revelations, but none of that shit makes sense unless you apply it to the events that were contemporary to the authors, like megiddo, etc.)

I mean, maybe there's an 8th day where God decides to shake his etch-a-sketch and start over??

\



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/29/2012 07:58PM by Alias.

As an interesting side note, "Horton Hears a Who" is a story with very deep meanings :)

Do you ever wonder if we are inside a speck, or maybe we are outside one? :)

"even though you can’t see or hear them at all, a person’s a person, no matter how small"

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> thurston wrote:
>
> "Are you catholic, or one of the splinter sects?"
> ____________
>
> Do you hate Catholics?
>
> I'm a Catholic, thurston. Do you hate me?


Good job on the reading comprehension.

I just posted a mile-long comment about how the catholics are the ones that surprisingly adapted to modern times while all the fundamentalist splinter "christian" sects are the ones that advance all the middle age and dark age ideologies.

I think I even said that I learned to interpret the 7 days of creation loosely, in Catholic school.

Go back and re-read what I wrote.

Stop threatening me with you bird. I bought a cat.

l



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/29/2012 07:56PM by Alias.

It just dawned on me.

What if all the people who are trying to find meaning in a 1,500 year old Bible were doing the same thing as people trying to get their computer to work in 2009 by reading a manual for a Ti-99 written in 1983?

Or trying to use the 1985 ADC map for Northern Virginia to find a house built in 2004?

]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/29/2012 07:56PM by Alias.

It just dawned on me.

What if all the people who are trying to find meaning in a 1,500 year old Bible were doing the same thing as people trying to get their computer to work in 2009 by reading a manual for a Ti-99 written in 1983?

Or trying to use the 1985 ADC map for Northern Virginia to find a house built in 2004?

m?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/29/2012 07:55PM by Alias.

,



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/29/2012 08:58PM by Alias.

]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/29/2012 08:59PM by Alias.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:

> > CHRISTIAN nation founded on CHRISTIAN
> principles
> > by CHRISTIAN men.
>
> Ah, I was wondering where slavery and inequal
> rights between the rights came from. Nice that
> Christianity steps up to claim the prize.
>

I was glancing back through here and came upon this and just wanted to note - it is because of Christianity (more so than a lot of other reasons) that we DON'T have slavery today. While there are passages in the Bible that talk to holding slaves, there are also passages that speak of treating slaves as brothers, extended family, etc. Unfortunately the Bible itself was (re) written during a time when slavery was the normal way of life.

From Wiki (not always a consistent source):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_slavery

Quote

...

Slavery was by no means relegated to the continental United States, as in addition to vast numbers of Native Americans slaves, it is estimated that for every slave who went to North America, South America imported nearly twelve slaves, with the West Indies importing over ten.[107] By 1570 56,000 inhabitants were of African origin in the Caribbean.[108]

In introduction of Catholic Spanish colonies to the Americas resulted in forced conversions and slavery to the indigenous peoples living there. Some priests, such as Father Bartolomé de las Casas worked to protect Americans from slavery, although Casas' works may have helped to inspire the African slave trade.

In 1888 Brazil became the last country in the Americas to abolish slavery.[109] See Abolition of slavery timeline for other dates.

...
United States

For additional context, see Slavery in the United States

The first African slaves arrived in Jamestown, Virginia in 1619, when a Dutch slave trader traded his African 'cargo' for food. These Africans became indentured servants, possessing a legal position similar to many poor Englishmen[110]. It was not until around the 1680s that the popular idea of a racial-based slave system became reality.[111]

Additionally, "New World slavery was a unique conjuntion of features. Its use of slaves was strikingly specialized as unfree labor-producing commodities, such as cotton and sugar, for a world market."[112] "By 1850 nearly two-thirds of the plantation slaves were engaged in the production of cotton...the South was totally transformed by the presences of slavery.[113]

For the most part, the Pilgrims who had settled at Plymouth Massachusetts in 1620 had servants and not slaves, meaning that after turning 25 years old most black servants were offered their freedom, which was a contractual arrangement similar to that of English apprenticeships.[114]

Opposition to slavery in the United States predates the nation's independence. As early as 1688, congregations of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) actively protested slavery. The Quaker Testimony of Equality would have an influence on slavery in Pennsylvania. However, at independence the nation adopted a Constitution which forbade states from liberating slaves who had fled from other states, and instructed them to return such fugitive slaves[115]

The rise of abolitionism in nineteenth century politics was mirrored in religious debate; slavery among Christians was generally dependent on the attitudes of the community they lived in. This was true in Protestant and Catholic churches.[116] Religious integrity affected the white slave-holding Christian population. The Bible was used and manipulated to support the institution of slavery and inhumane practices. Crimes such as murder were justifiable if it was inflicted upon African-Americans. Christianity was used to suppress and conform a people. Slaveholders, priests, and those tied to the Church undermined the beliefs of the millions of African-American converts.

As abolitionism gained popularity in the northern states, it strained relations between northern and southern churches. Northern preachers increasingly preached against slavery in the 1830s. In the 1840s, slavery began to divide denominations.[117] This, in turn, weakened social ties between the North and South, allowing the nation to become even more divided in the 1850s. [118][119]

The issue of slavery in the United States came to a conclusion with the American Civil War. Although the war began as a political struggle over the preservation of the nation, it took on religious overtones as southern preachers called for a defense of their homeland and northern abolitionists preached the good news of liberation for slaves. Gerrit Smith and William Lloyd Garrison abandoned pacifism, and Garrison changed the motto of The Liberator to Leviticus 25:10, "Proclaim Liberty throughout all the land, and to all the inhabitants thereof." The YMCA joined with other societies to found the United States Christian Commission, with the goal of supporting Union soldiers, and churches collected $6 million for their cause.[120]

Harriet Tubman, considered by many to be a prophet due to her success as a liberator with the Underground Railroad, warned "God won't let master Lincoln beat the South till he does the right thing" by emancipating slaves. Popular songs such as John Brown's Body (later The Battle Hymn of the Republic) contained verses which painted the northern war effort as a religious struggle to end slavery. Even Abraham Lincoln appealed to religious sentiments, suggesting in various speeches that God had brought on the war as punishment for slavery,[121] while acknowledging in his Inaugural Address that both sides "read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other."

With the Union victory in the war and a constitutional ban on slavery, abolitionist Christians also declared a religious victory over their slave-holding brethren in the South. Southern religious leaders who had preached a message of divine protection were now left to reconsider their theology.
...

But Christian beliefs eventually won out over the institutions that mankind had created long before Christianity became the dominant religion. Not that Christians weren't conflicted during the process. Just didn't want to let that statement stand as the truth of what happened. Slavery in the US was more about economics as time went on - and we know how folks can use such a strong motivation (as money) to justify continuing bad practices.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/05/2009 11:42AM by Registered Voter.

I always find it humorous when religious people stretch to find ways of fitting old testament stories into everything we learn about the universe. So now a day equals .75 billion years? Hahahahhaha.

Why would god even bother making useless planets like Venus or Uranus, not to mention the millions of other planets and stars which seemingly have no benefit or bother to mankind? Why not just put the Earth and the sun in place and leave it at that?

You can't pick and choose which parts of the bible you want to believe. It's all or nothing.

If you met someone today that knew nothing of the bible or god and told him/her these ridiculous stories, they would laugh at you and think you are mad, probably call the cops.

Yeah - did I mention I don't believe in everything the Bible says? I am not a "religious person" per se. Just to get the facts straight. Please don't assume that because I make statements in support of (or against) religion, that I am of a religion.

The Bible was written by MEN. Enough said. And yes, I am a man, but also reality tells me that men have been known (gasp!) to stretch the truth from time to time as a means to an end. No?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/01/2009 11:23AM by Registered Voter.

;



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/01/2012 11:15AM by Alias.

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I always find it humorous when religious people
> stretch to find ways of fitting old testament
> stories into everything we learn about the
> universe. So now a day equals .75 billion years?
> Hahahahhaha.
>
> Why would god even bother making useless planets
> like Venus or Uranus, not to mention the millions
> of other planets and stars which seemingly have no
> benefit or bother to mankind? Why not just put the
> Earth and the sun in place and leave it at that?
>
> You can't pick and choose which parts of the bible
> you want to believe. It's all or nothing.
>
> If you met someone today that knew nothing of the
> bible or god and told him/her these ridiculous
> stories, they would laugh at you and think you are
> mad, probably call the cops.


Not really. You can pick and choose so that we can all "do the right thing". If we "do the right thing", everybody wins. Anything less is evil and possibly terrorism

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Why, though, does it seem that liberals go
> ballistic regarding Christians yet fall all over
> themselves to be tolerant of Muslims? I just
> don't get that.

Maybe people rebel against other people telling them how to live their lives based on a book written some 1600 years ago.

Christians, Muslims, Scientologists. All junk science and I will rebel against anyone who shouts it loudly.

And if I should just whisper in your ear...?

"For I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger forever." (Jeremiah 3:12)
"Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn forever." (Jeremiah 17:4)

God is a flip-flopper.

\



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/29/2012 08:48PM by Alias.

I just think conservatives have too many cocks up their asses. That's their idea of letting their buns down.

\.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/29/2012 08:44PM by Alias.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was glancing back through here and came upon
> this and just wanted to note - it is because of
> Christianity (more so than a lot of other reasons)
> that we DON'T have slavery today.

I'm not sure if this is technically true. It is because of Christians (not the tenants of the religion) that the abolish movement started/began to gain steam.

But let's remember that if those Christians had followed the tenants of their bible, we would still have slavery today.

> While there are
> passages in the Bible that talk to holding slaves,
> there are also passages that speak of treating
> slaves as brothers, extended family, etc.

I'm sorry, but I would never beat my brother to the brink of death and feel justified if he lived (or took longer then three days to die).

> Unfortunately the Bible itself was (re) written
> during a time when slavery was the normal way of
> life.

Right, so what does that tell you of the divine inspiration aspect? Do you think god was whispering in the prophet's ear and the prophet chose to ignore God only in regards to slavery?

> But Christian beliefs eventually won out over the
> institutions that mankind had created long before
> Christianity became the dominant religion.

??

Does this mean 'Judaism' as the prior dominant religion?

> Not
> that Christians weren't conflicted during the
> process. Just didn't want to let that statement
> stand as the truth of what happened. Slavery in
> the US was more about economics as time went on -
> and we know how folks can use such a strong
> motivation (as money) to justify continuing bad
> practices.

You are simply incorrect. The Christians who fought against slavery did so IN SPITE of their religious teachings, not because of them.

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Radiophile,
>
> How often are you bothered by these Christians? I
> have to admit that before moving to VA, I didn't
> know any Baptists and imagined them all jumping
> around and yelling, the way they're depicted in
> movies. My New York friends were saying things
> like, shit, Alias, you’re going to be bombarded
> with all those religious wackos down there. Yet,
> I haven’t been screamed at or accosted by
> Baptists. When my kids are driving somewhere, I
> don’t have to say, be careful of those Baptists
> out there or stay out of that neighborhood, it’s
> loaded with Baptists.

Good for you. I, on the other hand, have not been so lucky. I worked for a government contractor and we had daily sermons from a Christian lady. Somehow she found out that I was a non Christian (I think it's because I didn't attend her morning prayer meetings) and she'd heckle me about 'gawd', 'mel gibson and his fantastic movie' and how I was going to hell.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:

> But let's remember that if those Christians had
> followed the tenants of their bible, we would
> still have slavery today.

> > Unfortunately the Bible itself was (re) written
> > during a time when slavery was the normal way
> of
> > life.
>
> Right, so what does that tell you of the divine
> inspiration aspect? Do you think god was
> whispering in the prophet's ear and the prophet
> chose to ignore God only in regards to slavery?

I think MEN wrote the Bible (during a time when slavery was accepted as normal by almost every civilization in the world). I think the Bible is mostly a collection of parables designed to help guide people in their lives. Just like every other book of religion. In all honesty, while I believe that in most cases, some religion is probably good for people, what I do not like is how religion has been used through the ages to justify wars, conflicts, and other killings "in the name of God". But then men (and women at times) are good at taking almost any situation where power can be exerted, and using their wide influence to have people do stupid things - religion just gave them a larger conduit.

>
> > But Christian beliefs eventually won out over
> the
> > institutions that mankind had created long
> before
> > Christianity became the dominant religion.
>
> ??
>
> Does this mean 'Judaism' as the prior dominant
> religion?
>

No - the institution of slavery existed BEFORE Christianity and was widely accepted when the religion was formed. It was practiced by almost every civilization in existence at that time. The Romans had ways of becoming freed from slavery over time, but they embraced slavery as a way of life.

> > Not
> > that Christians weren't conflicted during the
> > process. Just didn't want to let that statement
> > stand as the truth of what happened. Slavery in
> > the US was more about economics as time went on
> -
> > and we know how folks can use such a strong
> > motivation (as money) to justify continuing bad
> > practices.
>
> You are simply incorrect. The Christians who
> fought against slavery did so IN SPITE of their
> religious teachings, not because of them.

They came to their beliefs that slavery was against what God wanted after they went through a lot re-examination of their beliefs. If you read back over relevant literature, many Christians at the time determined that while the Bible spoke of keeping slaves, and treating them with respect - that didn't mean the Bible said slavery was correct. The Bible was somewhat conflicted on the issue - but it didn't say you should go out and make people slaves through every passage - it also said you should treat slaves with respect. With all the teachings in the Bible that spoke to all men created in God's image, etc, etc the various reformation movements came to the realization that slavery was bad. The Bible says a lot of things that are subject to interpretation.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think MEN wrote the Bible (during a time when
> slavery was accepted as normal by almost every
> civilization in the world). I think the Bible is
> mostly a collection of parables designed to help
> guide people in their lives. Just like every other
> book of religion. In all honesty, while I believe
> that in most cases, some religion is probably good
> for people, what I do not like is how religion has
> been used through the ages to justify wars,
> conflicts, and other killings "in the name of
> God". But then men (and women at times) are good
> at taking almost any situation where power can be
> exerted, and using their wide influence to have
> people do stupid things - religion just gave them
> a larger conduit.

Yes, men wrote the bible - with the possible exception of a book or two of the old testament (at least, IIRC, there is debate over that point).

As to whether religion is beneficial or not, I'm not sure if you can put it in the either or camp - at least not easily. It seems to me that there are good arguments to be made either way. The tipping point, IMO, is that religion relies on a shaky foundational epistemology (ie, revelation).

> No - the institution of slavery existed BEFORE
> Christianity and was widely accepted when the
> religion was formed. It was practiced by almost
> every civilization in existence at that time. The
> Romans had ways of becoming freed from slavery
> over time, but they embraced slavery as a way of
> life.

Yes, I acknowledge that slavery existed prior to Christianity - but I'm curious if you are trying to make a distinction between Christianity and Judaism.

> They came to their beliefs that slavery was
> against what God wanted after they went through a
> lot re-examination of their beliefs. If you read
> back over relevant literature, many Christians at
> the time determined that while the Bible spoke of
> keeping slaves, and treating them with respect -
> that didn't mean the Bible said slavery was
> correct.

The change in their belief I think can be laid at the doorstep of the enlightenment, primarily. It is through those lenses that the Christians of the day re-examined their texts in order to strain any varied meaning they could from it to support the anti-slavery movements.

> The Bible was somewhat conflicted on the
> issue - but it didn't say you should go out and
> make people slaves through every passage - it also
> said you should treat slaves with respect.

I don't think this is true. The bible stipulates in Exodus

21:20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

21:21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

In other words, if you beat your slave and he dies, you are to be punished. If the slave makes it past two days, then the guy who did the beating shouldn't be punished.

That's not respect.

Also, Colossians 3:22
Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God.

If that's not a ringing endorsement of slavery, I don't know what is.

> With
> all the teachings in the Bible that spoke to all
> men created in God's image, etc, etc the various
> reformation movements came to the realization that
> slavery was bad. The Bible says a lot of things
> that are subject to interpretation.

This is engaging in cafeteria Christianity, which is great for mankind as it allows Christians to catch up to modern morality, but it's not very intellectually honest.

Men did not write the bible! GOD wrote it, and humans copied it. Hence, "WORD OF GOD"

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> This is engaging in cafeteria Christianity, which
> is great for mankind as it allows Christians to
> catch up to modern morality, but it's not very
> intellectually honest.

I am a Deist. How would it be cafeteria for ME exactly? I am just pointing out that it is a conflicted text, just like the Koran and others. Obviously "cafeteria Christianity" has worked throughout the ages hmm? I mean, it isn't like everyone is a Catholic. You can always pull a specific quote or phrase out of any place in the Bible and have it mean one thing - they are supposed to take it as a whole right? But, depending on the person leading the sermon, what it really MEANS is up for interpretation... no? :) If everyone was a satanist we would (most likely) still have slavery - they would have to keep the sacrifices flowing at a minimum.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 08/03/2009 12:32PM by Registered Voter.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am a Deist. How would it be cafeteria for ME
> exactly?

My apologies, I was speaking more generally. I have in my mind the mangling of the bible that has occurred over the millenia. If it can mean whatever one wants it to mean, that fundamentally means that it means nothing. It's just a hollow backing for one's viewpoints.

> I am just pointing out that it is a
> conflicted text, just like the Koran and others.
> Obviously "cafeteria Christianity" has worked
> throughout the ages hmm? I mean, it isn't like
> everyone is a Catholic.

Well, I didn't say it was great for fundamentalism, religion, or the purity of Christianity.

> You can always pull a
> specific quote or phrase out of any place in the
> Bible and have it mean one thing - they are
> supposed to take it as a whole right? But,
> depending on the person leading the sermon, what
> it really MEANS is up for interpretation... no? :)

Yes - and that's the problem.

Let's consider that it is a verbatim history as told by God (a personal *interested* God, that is). What does that say about the document AND about that God that there are so many different interpretations of it? It seems to me that what it says is that, that God is not very effective at...er...promoting itself.

How can that be with an omnipotent entity though?

> If everyone was a satanist we would (most likely)
> still have slavery - they would have to keep the
> sacrifices flowing at a minimum.


I'm guessing you don't mean a LaVeyian Satanist. I would actually go further and say that you could quasi justify slavery with pretty much an exclusivist religion, provided it viewed the 'non believers' as somehow less then equal to the believers.

Professor Pangloss,
   on your whole bit on slavery, slaves of the era/region were actually more like indentured servants, not property like in egypt.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Alex t Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Men did not write the bible! GOD wrote it, and
> humans copied it. Hence, "WORD OF GOD"


God wrote it? I think the best that can be claimed is that all the various authors were writing down ideas imparted to them by God, and of experiences and stories handed down to them of parts of Jesus's life and teachings.

I don't think anyone in their right mind with any sense of reason would claim that "the bible" was written by god. Maybe in one of those hick churches in some backwater, but anyone with an education beyond the 10th grade would not believe something so supernatural and mythical.

Oh, by the way, this comment is actually the WORD OF GOD. God actually borrowed my keyboard to write this.

]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/29/2012 10:14PM by Alias.

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss,
>    on your whole bit on slavery,
> slaves of the era/region were actually more like
> indentured servants, not property like in egypt.


Actually this is a modern Christian attempt to distort history. While you could indeed 'indenture' yourself, that wasn't always the case. Conquered people were almost always slaves, for example.

Check out the Bible's prescriptions for how badly you can *beat* your slaves, for instance.

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> HA!
> Of course, as a liberal, you have probably been
> the victim of all sorts of harassment.

I'm not a liberal.

Nice attempt at stereotyping - I suppose if you reduce your opponent into simple minded archetypes they are easier for you to handle? That's just pathetic and intellectually bankrupt. Also, I notice that your scoffing doesn't actually refute anything I wrote.

> I worked in a building with almost five thousand
> people, people from every ethnic background and
> religion on earth.

Goodies for you.

> Yep, maybe there was a nut or two, but, give me a
> break with your bogus story of a Christian woman
> harassing you. What a crock of shit.

More scoffing and no substance. Alias, you used to provide at least attempts at intelligent refutations. Have you now just given up? Is intellectual laziness your last resort before flying off into naked name calling?

> You be lying, Mr. Professor. Now, I can no longer
> believe any word out of your weenie computer.

Why should I, or anyone, care about what you think or believe, or more to the point, do not believe. Seriously, back it up or back it down.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/04/2009 07:58AM by Professor Pangloss.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually this is a modern Christian attempt to
> distort history. While you could indeed
> 'indenture' yourself, that wasn't always the case.
> Conquered people were almost always slaves, for
> example.

yeah.


> Check out the Bible's prescriptions for how badly
> you can *beat* your slaves, for instance.

do you have any references for me to look at?


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Check out the Bible's prescriptions for how
> badly
> > you can *beat* your slaves, for instance.
>
> do you have any references for me to look at?


I listed some scripture earlier:

"Exodus 21:20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

Exodus 21:21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money. "

If you are looking for an alternative type of reference, you could see the blue letter bible commentary (http://www.blueletterbible.org/commentaries/comm_view.cfm?AuthorID=1&contentID=4745&commInfo=25&topic=Exodus&ar=Exd_21_20). It does indicate that there was a 'term limit' for Hebrew slaves (I didn't see any such limit for other slaves) - I should note, you could voluntarily submit to lifelong servitude. Here are some passages of interest:

"The slave had no rights at all, no rights of possession. Therefore, if you were sold as a slave, and while you were a slave your master gave you one of the other slave girls for your wife, and you've had a couple of children, now the seventh year is come; it's time for you to go free. You can go free, but you can't take your wife and children because she belongs to your master. And thus, the fruit that has come from your relationship also belongs to him, because you had no rights of your own of possession while you were working for him. You say, "Well, that seems very hard and cruel." Yes, it does. It's hard for us to even imagine such a thing."

The link is full of apologetic material, so keep that in mind. He also doesn't address the specific passage I brought up.

Here's another link (same site, different scholar): http://www.blueletterbible.org/commentaries/comm_view.cfm?AuthorID=4&contentID=699&commInfo=5&topic=Exodus&ar=Exd_21_20

"V. Direction is given what should be done if a servant died by his master’s correction. This servant must not be an Israelite, but a Gentile slave, as the negroes to our planters; and it is supposed that he smite him with a rod, and not with any thing that was likely to give a mortal wound; yet, if he died under his hand, he should be punished for his cruelty, at the discretion of the judges, upon consideration of circumstances, v. 20. But, if he continued a day or two after the correction given, the master was supposed to suffer enough by losing his servant, v. 21. Our law makes the death of a servant, by his master’s reasonable beating of him, but chance-medley. Yet let all masters take heed of tyrannizing over their servants; the gospel teaches them even to forbear and moderate threatenings (Eph. 6:9), considering with holy Job, What shall I do, when God riseth up? Job 31:13–15. "

"reasonable beating"...

I think there is only the one - that talks about the 2 day rule. Good thing they can focus on that one beating point to show that the entirety of the information in the Bible is bad.

Maybe PP will enlighten us with more of them.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think there is only the one - that talks about
> the 2 day rule. Good thing they can focus on that
> one beating point to show that the entirety of the
> information in the Bible is bad.

?

This seems to be a strawman. I've been attempting to back up my assertions of how the bible treats slavery. If you want me to back up the assertion that the bible is morally horrible, just say so, I can do that to (shoot, I could just ask your opinion on the Joshua Challenge) - but to attempt to shift the focus on what we have been discussing by throwing up a red herring is silly.

> Maybe PP will enlighten us with more of them.

More, what, exactly? Passages on slavery? Passages that show the bible is morally horrible?

What are you looking for?

Edited to add: If you are looking for more in specific regards to slavery, check out "1 Peter 2: 2:18 Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.

2:19 For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully.

2:20 For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God."

Slaves should do as the master says, whether the master is gentle or brutal. In fact, take all the punishment your master gives out, regardless of it's justification.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/04/2009 10:43AM by Professor Pangloss.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> ?
>
> This seems to be a strawman. I've been attempting
> to back up my assertions of how the bible treats
> slavery. If you want me to back up the assertion
> that the bible is morally horrible, just say so, I
> can do that to (shoot, I could just ask your
> opinion on the Joshua Challenge) - but to attempt
> to shift the focus on what we have been discussing
> by throwing up a red herring is silly.
>

It's not a strawman. I already pointed out that the Bible is conflicted. You use one example out of the entire book to show that beating slaves to within an inch of their life is acceptable.

> > Maybe PP will enlighten us with more of them.
>
> More, what, exactly? Passages on slavery? Passages
> that show the bible is morally horrible?

I already know the Bible allowed for slavery. I just noted that it also stipulate (for the most part it appears) to treat slaves decently. Are there other examples in the Bible where it says that (almost) killing your slave is an acceptable practice? I can understand that it says that if you are a slave (or indentured servant as was becoming more the practice during Roman times) you should accept your punishments - from the folks that wrote the Bible at that time, slavery was widely accepted as ok BEFORE the Bible was written.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's not a strawman. I already pointed out that
> the Bible is conflicted. You use one example out
> of the entire book to show that beating slaves to
> within an inch of their life is acceptable.

I'm not sure whether you are intending to do this or not, but now you are changing what you were talking about.

You initially stated this:

"Good thing they can focus on that one beating point to show that the entirety of the information in the Bible is bad. "

I stated that the intent of the slavery passages was not to show the entire bible was bad and to suggest otherwise would be to argue a strawman.

NOW you are changing the intent of what you said BACK to the issue at hand. As to your point about what is permitted or not permitted in the beating of slaves, the bible has a few (two?) passages on the matter - both indicate that it is acceptable, one from the beatie and the other the beater's perspective.

If you have a contradictory passage that pertains specifically to the treatment of slaves, then present it AND then you can make a case for the bible being conflicted.

Right now you are only ASSERTING that it's conflicted in this area. Please DEMONSTRATE that it is with some evidence to support your conclusion.

> I already know the Bible allowed for slavery. I
> just noted that it also stipulate (for the most
> part it appears) to treat slaves decently.

To the bible the treatment is decent, but to argue that it's decent in regards to modern sensibilities is a different kettle of fish. Unless you want to support the idea that you can treat people 'decently' by:

1. Beating them
2. Taking away their rights
3. Taking away their possessions (including their wife and child!)

Do you consider these acts decent?


> Are
> there other examples in the Bible where it says
> that (almost) killing your slave is an acceptable
> practice?

Yes, implicitly, the Peter passage does. Further, you are attempting to shift the burden of proof here (ie, arguing from ignorance). Please SUPPORT your claim that the bible is 'conflicted' in this matter. Simply requiring passage after passage from me does not constitute supporting your position. I hope you realize that.

> I can understand that it says that if
> you are a slave (or indentured servant as was
> becoming more the practice during Roman times) you
> should accept your punishments - from the folks
> that wrote the Bible at that time, slavery was
> widely accepted as ok BEFORE the Bible was
> written.


Yes, it was accepted before the bible. The bible just makes sure to add the qualifier that Hebrew slaves should be slaves only for a certain time period - ALL OTHER slaves are slaves for life.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
>
> > > CHRISTIAN nation founded on CHRISTIAN
> > principles
> > > by CHRISTIAN men.
> >
> > Ah, I was wondering where slavery and inequal
> > rights between the rights came from. Nice that
> > Christianity steps up to claim the prize.
> >
>
> I was glancing back through here and came upon
> this and just wanted to note - it is because of
> Christianity (more so than a lot of other reasons)
> that we DON'T have slavery today. While there are
> passages in the Bible that talk to holding slaves,
> there are also passages that speak of treating
> slaves as brothers, extended family, etc.
> Unfortunately the Bible itself was (re) written
> during a time when slavery was the normal way of
> life.
>
> ... <--- snip a quoted section from Wiki --->
>
>
> But Christian beliefs eventually won out over the
> institutions that mankind had created long before
> Christianity became the dominant religion. Not
> that Christians weren't conflicted during the
> process. Just didn't want to let that statement
> stand as the truth of what happened. Slavery in
> the US was more about economics as time went on -
> and we know how folks can use such a strong
> motivation (as money) to justify continuing bad
> practices.

This was how it started. You made the comment that Christianity was the cause for slavery and non-equal rights issues.

I made my response above, and have been consistent to that theme in my argument.

The Bible was written when slavery was an accepted practice, so it is understandable that there are passages in the Bible about slavery as the document was written by men during that time. It is obviously conflicted in so many ways, and you have already proven my point in that regard with your own quotes so why do I need to post anything else. At the end of my original point, I noted that in the end, slavery in the US was ultimately more about economics than anything else.

You made an additional point to bring out one passage that spoke to justifying beating slaves - I suppose to bolster your argument that Christianity (based on the Bible) was responsible for slavery here?

Just want to be clear. You are the one that was going off on some additional in-depth coverage (about beating slaves) to (dis)prove? my point.

1. Do you agree that the Bible is conflicted in its teachings on many topics?
2. Do you agree that the Bible is subject to interpretation by the person reading and presenting it?
3. Do you agree that the Bible was written by MEN during a time when slavery (and indentured servitude) and all the associated behaviors were acceptable?

If you agree with all of the above, then what is your issue?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/04/2009 12:27PM by Registered Voter.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This was how it started. You made the comment that
> Christianity was the cause for slavery and
> non-equal rights issues.

I'm sorry but this is rhetoric on your part. The part you clipped shows that I sarcastically wrote:

"> > Ah, I was wondering where slavery and inequal
> > rights between the rights came from. Nice that
> > Christianity steps up to claim the prize. "

Ie, I was interpreting what the poster had written as HIM saying that Christianity was stepping up to claim slavery and inequality for women.

However, as anyone can clearly read, I was not attempting to make the argument that Christianity WAS the actual origin of slavery.

> I made my response above, and have been consistent
> to that theme in my argument.

So you have consistently misinterpreted me - I'm curious, why haven't you responded to the incidents where I stated that I understood that slavery was around prior to Christianity?

> The Bible was written when slavery was an accepted
> practice, so it is understandable that there are
> passages in the Bible about slavery as the
> document was written by men during that time.

Yes, I haven't denied this at all.

> It
> is obviously conflicted in so many ways, and you
> have already proven my point in that regard with
> your own quotes so why do I need to post anything
> else. At the end of my original point,

It is conflicted, yes - but not in regards to slavery. You have to demonstrate this, not simply baselessly assert it. Now you are implying victory here by saying that I've proven your point.

If I have, then please demonstrate it - quit asserting it and start providing some evidence for it.

>I noted
> that in the end, slavery in the US was ultimately
> more about economics than anything else.

Which wasn't relevant to anything.

> You made an additional point to bring out one
> passage that spoke to justifying beating slaves -
> I suppose to bolster your argument that
> Christianity (based on the Bible) was responsible
> for slavery here?

?

I never made the argument that Christianity was responsible for slavery. This is a strawman. Either you misread my initial statement or you are being disingenuous. I will be charitable and assume that you misread it.

My point is this:

1. The bible supports slavery (note, I am NOT saying it started the practice)
2. The bible supports indecent treatment of slaves.


> Just want to be clear. You are the one that was
> going off on some additional in-depth coverage
> (about beating slaves) to (dis)prove? my point.

You have misread what I've written from the start, that much is clear. I also take note that you didn't respond to the questions I specifically asked you in the last post.

You have avoided supporting your case; ie, that the bible is 'conflicted' in regards to slaves.

Do you retract that position?

> 1. Do you agree that the Bible is conflicted in
> its teachings on many topics?

Yes.

> 2. Do you agree that the Bible is subject to
> interpretation by the person reading and
> presenting it?

In some respects, yes.

> 3. Do you agree that the Bible was written by MEN
> during a time when slavery (and indentured
> servitude) and all the associated behaviors were
> acceptable?

More or less.

As to whether they were acceptable, if you mean at the time it was written - then yes, it was acceptable. So was killing babies and treating wives as property.

If you mean to say it's acceptable today, NO, it is not.

> If you agree with all of the above, then what is
> your issue?

It is clear that you are confused as to what I have been arguing. I have been arguing, from the start, that:

1. The bible is not 'conflicted' when it comes to slavery.
2. It is better that our leaders come to their decisions via reason as opposed to faith.
3. That Christianity was not the reason we do not have slaves today.


Point three was in rebuttal to your bald assertion:

"I was glancing back through here and came upon this and just wanted to note - it is because of Christianity (more so than a lot of other reasons) that we DON'T have slavery today."


You specifically stated that Christianity was the reason we don't have slavery.

I responded:

"It is because of Christians (not the tenants of the religion) that the abolish movement started/began to gain steam.

But let's remember that if those Christians had followed the tenants of their bible, we would still have slavery today. "


This is frustrating, RV, because you are clearly intelligent, but it seems as though you lost the train of thought that was going on in this thread. You are now arguing against a position I NEVER held and you are failing to back up a position YOU STATED.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/04/2009 12:51PM by Professor Pangloss.

PP - you may have been making a sarcastic comment - but it was to imply that Christianity was RESPONSIBLE for slavery.

I call BS.

You want to obfuscate with all this other "yeah but.." crap that is fine. But you took someone a statement someone else made on Christian values and twisted it into why slavery existed.

So please, enough already with the rhetoric BS. I didn't address some of your other questions/points because you already agreed with what was said.

Lol. I posted a relevant point (from Wiki - I know) that supported the statement I made. I am not a Bible thumper (for or against), I just accept that the Bible was written by men and move on. The beliefs that sprang from the Bible were used by other men to justify their actions in the world, good or bad, subject to their interpretation of the Bible.

You have made much more out of this mole hill.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> PP - you may have been making a sarcastic comment
> - but it was to imply that Christianity was
> RESPONSIBLE for slavery.
>
> I call BS.

Yes, the post was implying that the OP was saying that Christianity was responsible for slavery, not that I thought it was.

> You want to obfuscate with all this other "yeah
> but.." crap that is fine. But you took someone a
> statement someone else made on Christian values
> and twisted it into why slavery existed.

How on earth can you say I'm obfuscating?? EVEN if you take my statement at face value, I said that I 'was wondering' where slavery came from - the implication being that the OP had just told me, NOT that I was stating it came from there. You are grasping here.

> So please, enough already with the rhetoric BS. I
> didn't address some of your other questions/points
> because you already agreed with what was said.

I did not agree that slavery was decent.

1. Beating them
2. Taking away their rights
3. Taking away their possessions (including their wife and child!)

Do you consider these acts decent?

> Lol. I posted a relevant point (from Wiki - I
> know) that supported the statement I made.

How does it do so? At BEST it supports the idea that the people who started the movement were Christians, NOT that Christianity was the reason for the movement.

Let's remember that the discussion between you and I started with your bald assertion:

"it is because of Christianity (more so than a lot of other reasons) that we DON'T have slavery today."

You wrote this - do you deny it?

Do you retract this statement?

If not, then you have the intellectual obligation to support it if you want the position to be taken seriously.

> I am
> not a Bible thumper (for or against), I just
> accept that the Bible was written by men and move
> on.

You may not be a BT, but you are apparently wrong in what you are arguing here.

> The beliefs that sprang from the Bible were
> used by other men to justify their actions in the
> world, good or bad, subject to their
> interpretation of the Bible.

Yes - and on some things the bible is conflicted. On other things - such as slavery - it is not.

> You have made much more out of this mole hill.


You started this mess with your baseless assertion that you are now rhetorically running away from.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/04/2009 01:12PM by Professor Pangloss.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why NOt? Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Even making passing references to Christ would
> be
> > nice...just to show unity. Don't forget, we are
> a
> > CHRISTIAN nation founded on CHRISTIAN
> principles
> > by CHRISTIAN men.
>
> Ah, I was wondering where slavery and inequal
> rights between the rights came from. Nice that
> Christianity steps up to claim the prize.
>

PP - this was your point. YOU are the one that took off on a vector. Your original post on this came out of nowhere, and the OP said nothing about slavery - you were the one that injected it into the thread. Later, when I made a point that objected to your claim that Christianity was where slavery came from, you pulled a few references out of the Bible to show that it made references to slaves and how to treat them or not.

Slavery existed BEFORE Christianity, and IMHO it is as much gone because of Christianity as it was justified by Christianity - in particular since the Bible was subject to interpretation. Sorry I was not more specific - although I was a bit more specific when I was taking objection to your sudden leap from the OP to the justification of slavery.

Abolition - Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism

Age of Enlightenment - Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

You are the one that jumped in with your point about slavery. Great, you justified it. Nice job taking what the OP said and rolling it into a completely different issue.

Nice hijack. Lol
.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/04/2009 05:24PM by Registered Voter.
Attachments:

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually, troll, I doubt you could fit more than
> one cock up your ass, but, maybe you're just a
> gigantic asshole.


when you called that other guy a "troll" were you trying to be ironic?

\



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/29/2012 10:00PM by Alias.

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/29/2012 09:59PM by Alias.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> PP - this was your point. YOU are the one that
> took off on a vector. Your original post on this
> came out of nowhere, and the OP said nothing about
> slavery - you were the one that injected it into
> the thread.

Yes, my original post was off on a vector. However I think it's clear that you misinterpreted it as somehow being an assertion that Christianity started slavery. I've posted the evidence and you've ignored it.

Own up to it - admit that you misread my initial statement.

> Later, when I made a point that
> objected to your claim that Christianity was where
> slavery came from, you pulled a few references out
> of the Bible to show that it made references to
> slaves and how to treat them or not.

Okay, let's take this slowly since you seem to have trouble comprehending this. AT NO POINT did I state that slavery came from Christianity. EVEN a tortured reading of my sarcastic initial post would indicate AT BEST that I was accusing the OP of stating such.

GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD.

The references I've provided for the bible are in regards to the claim that the bible is 'conflicted' on slavery - it is not. You know this and you refuse to deal with it. Instead you are throwing up red herrings left and right and arguing against strawmen.

I've pointed this out multiple times now and you have refused to deal with what I've actually stated - instead you keep quoting OTHER POSTS from earlier in the thread. Please be honest in your discussion. If you are going to quote something, quote the post you are responding to. That way, it will be clear when you FAIL to address what I'm saying.

> Slavery existed BEFORE Christianity, and IMHO it
> is as much gone because of Christianity as it was
> justified by Christianity - in particular since
> the Bible was subject to interpretation.

1. No one has argued that slavery did not exist prior to Christianity - this is your strawman.
2. Christianity is not the reason slavery is gone. Christian people are the reason it's gone (or one of the reasons). You cannot justify getting rid of slavery with what is laid out in the bible. You may think you can, but those thoughts have been shown to be baseless - since you overwhelmingly fail to support them.

> Sorry I
> was not more specific - although I was a bit more
> specific when I was taking objection to your
> sudden leap from the OP to the justification of
> slavery.

The quantum leap is still your continued strawman and your unsupported position that Christian doctrine has anything AT ALL to do with the anti-slavery movement.

I have asked you repeatedly to provide biblical support for this - you have refused, instead you have focused on handwaving away objections. This is simply not rational at all.

> Abolition - Wiki:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism
>
> Age of Enlightenment - Wiki:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment
>
> You are the one that jumped in with your point
> about slavery. Great, you justified it. Nice job
> taking what the OP said and rolling it into a
> completely different issue.

I put in a sarcastic post and you took it seriously. I may not be funny, but at least I can tell the difference between a serious post and one that isn't.

> Nice hijack. Lol

You are more to blame than I, since you not only took my initial post seriously, you created a strawman that was NEVER argued.

My guess is that instead of dealing with anything I brought up in my last post you will either handwave the entire discussion away as being 'irrelevant' and 'off topic' or you will repeat your strawman, as though someone in this thread was arguing against it.

PP - less coffee, you are delusional this morning lol

.
Attachments:

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My guess is that instead of dealing with anything
> I brought up in my last post you will either
> handwave the entire discussion away as being
> 'irrelevant' and 'off topic' or you will repeat
> your strawman, as though someone in this thread
> was arguing against it.

PP - you made the statement. If you were arguing a sarcastic point it failed. You wanted to make the OP derail by accusing Christianity of being responsible for slavery in the US.

The only person who wanted to have an argument in this thread was you. All I did was point out the incorrect premise you presented, sarcastic or not. I didn't see slavery mentioned by the OP at all, so it was your fail, sorry.

You want to argue the Bible, do it with someone who really cares to argue what the bible means.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> PP - less coffee, you are delusional this morning
> lol
>
> .


I'll count this as a handwave.

I'll count you as obsessed over something only you want to discuss.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> PP - you made the statement. If you were arguing a
> sarcastic point it failed.

Have I denied making the statement? No. As to my sarcasm failing - sure, it wasn't funny, whatever.

>You wanted to make the
> OP derail by accusing Christianity of being
> responsible for slavery in the US.

I wanted to the OP to realize that the founding of this country was not all peaches and cream.

However since you are not a psychologist, and this is irrelevant to the discussion, I can only conclude that you are implicitly conceding that you cannot defend YOUR proposition that the bible can be used to support anti-slavery.

> The only person who wanted to have an argument in
> this thread was you. All I did was point out the
> incorrect premise you presented, sarcastic or not.

NONSENSE. You started this insane argument by putting words in my mouth (ie, a strawman) and by arguing a baseless assertion.

You are STILL continuing to try to justify your initial misunderstanding of my post. WHY? NO one is arguing it!

> I didn't see slavery mentioned by the OP at all,
> so it was your fail, sorry.

Did I say that slavery was mentioned in the OP?

No, this is a red herring - which is a fallacy of distraction.

> You want to argue the Bible, do it with someone
> who really cares to argue what the bible means.

You apparently did want to argue the bible since you blatantly made up the position that Christianity can be some how interpreted to mean that slavery is unacceptable.

This was your statement, remember? I've quoted it several times now and you continued to ignore it.

So this response of yours does EXACTLY what I predicted - you restate a premise that no one was arguing for (a strawman) and you ignore repeated challenges to the premise you EXPLICITLY stated.

Either concede or argue for one of the follow - otherwise the only reasonable conclusion is that you have problems arguing your point and following along in discussions:

1. Slavery is decent (whether American slavery or ancient Hebrew slavery).
2. The bible cannot be said to support the anti-slavery movement.

I have responded to EVERY point you have made and you have ducked the above two premises I have repeatedly point blank asked you. Man up and at least take a position.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'll count you as obsessed over something only you
> want to discuss.


Did you or did you not write the following:


"it is because of Christianity (more so than a lot of other reasons) that we DON'T have slavery today."

You are being intellectually dishonest RV. It is obvious.