I have been asking this question at UD and it is probably one of the reasons why I got banned…Exposing Christian hypocrisy was probably the nail in the coffin though…or so I see it. Am I right?
Well, who is a True Christian first of all? What qualities would someone have to have to meet the criteria of a True Christian?
I would like to hear atheists and agnostic first before those who think that they are True Christians, without taking anything from their dignity….
I personally enjoy watching movies about Jesus, and how he exposed the hypocrisies of the self-righteous, religious people…
What do you all think?
ROTFL!
Have you ever actually read the Hebrew scriptures?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanakh
Southern Baptists.
Actually many white Southern Baptists disagreed with their northern counterparts about deeming those who held slaves automatically unfit for missionary service
They also disagreed with hard-shelled baptists about the very idea of missionaries and independent baptists about the idea of getting together to talk about things like that in the first place.
baptists are nothing if not opinionated 😉
peace
It’s important to note that the Baptists who advocated a neutral stand toward slaveholders as missionaries were not only going against the Bible they were actually guilty of abandoning earlier baptist belief and teaching on the subject and accepting the morality of the surrounding culture.
quote:
Prior to the 1820s, many Baptists North and South were anti-slavery, reflective of larger views in the South at that time, a legacy of a pre-cotton economy. But by the mid-1840s Baptist sentiment in the South — at least as expressed in denominational leadership — largely perceived the enslavement of blacks as ordained of God.
end quote:
from here
also check this out
In case anyone is interested here is one of the many pamphlets printed by earlier Baptists claiming that slavery was condemned in both the old and new covenants
http://www.classicapologetics.com/b/Booth.Slavery.pdf
peace
I think that he should first concentrate on what he actually believes about God in general. Sometimes he acts like an atheist and other times he claims to be a follower of a god called Rumracket and to presuppose the truth of scripture.
I just think he needs to spend some time trying to get his theological ducks in a row.
peace
Finally these lectures should be required viewing for anyone who wants to discuss this stuff.
peace
J-Mac,
If I believed in your god then I’d hardly be likely to call out that mind-rapist would I, given the eternal damnation that awaits?
No, it’s clear to me that you slaver-as-deity does not exist. And if your deity did exist the only logical course of action to take would be to see if you could work how how to kill it. That, after all, would be the moral thing to do.
What sort of slavery do you think happened Mung? What sort of slavery is described in the Hebrew scriptures?
You get that this is like being asked if you are a racist and instead of simply saying “no”………
I assume those Baptists were familiar with the Biblical text. It seems the Bible supports diametrically opposed views on slavery.
And it seems that rather then face this head on they want to appear to say something without actually saying anything at all
Very amusing J-Mac but the fact remains that you support slavery, however you want to define it.
Slavery is good according to J-Mac. The reasons given in the bible as to why slavery is good were used to make slavery moral in the confederacy. And J-Mac has no problem with that!
If I recall correctly, the Southern apologists for slavery used Aristotle and Locke as much as (if not more than) the Bible. That’s not to deny that some of them also claimed a Scriptural basis for their practices as well.
Here’s the thing: Southerners were well aware of how brutal and dehumanizing chattel slavery was, which is why they went to such lengths to claim that enslaved Black people were not truly human in the first place. But the idea that there are sub-human beings, beings like fall short of full humanity and therefore not deserving of human rights, isn’t really in the Bible — Old or New Testaments.
Yes, there’s slavery in the Old Testament — and in the Iliad, and in Plato, and in every work of ancient civilization for thousands of years. As Stanley Diamond put it, “civilization starts with slavery at home and conquest abroad.” Slavery is indispensable to civilization and always has been. (And if you think it’s been abolished, just look at the lives of billions of people throughout the Global South. The color line is a global line.)
Chattel slavery really was a new thing in the Americas, and it was racially coded, from the start of the Transatlantic Slave Trade in the 1500s all the way through. It was already noted above that Southern Baptists became more pro-slavery in the 1840s. Why? Because of the huge amount of money to made in plantation slavery due to the invention of the mechanical cotton gin and the huge profits to be made in the cotton industry. Southern Baptists aligned their conscience to fit their wallet — just as people have done for a long time before and since. It takes an extraordinary strength of character to go against one’s own material self-interest.
The reason why chattel slavery really was a new thing in the Americas, compared to pre-modern and classical slavery, is that it was fueled by a new socio-economic system that the Hebrews and Greeks did not have & could not have imagined: capitalism.
nope it’s just that a properly motivated individual can make a text say things that it was never intended to say.
Witness the debate surrounding strict constitutionalism and a right to privacy in the US constitution.
peace
Amen
peace
But perfectly suited for the missionary position.
I understand what you’re getting at, but that still strikes me as a rather snide way of alluding to generations of mass rape and sexual slavery.
Could you summarize the arguments for those of us who refuse to watch long lectures?
Same pathetic excuses
Recycling the trash in order to make trash.
Glen Davidson
“Shut up,” He explained.
Good thing for me that I don’t want to discuss this stuff. My time is limited and I waste enough of it as it is.
http://time.com/5171819/christianity-slavery-book-excerpt/
If you refuse to watch a 30 minute video with background information on a topic you are discussing. What does that say about your wiliness to understand where other people are coming from?
peace
I don’t care to discuss it either.
Funny how it keeps coming up here for some reason.
peace
fmm, people with knowledge of evidence-based medicine do not need to read, listen too, or watch the material advocated by alternative medicine claims of cancer cures in order to recognize that the claims are likely no different, and are equally baseless, as all of the claims that have preceded them in the past. It is a matter of pattern recognition and inference of intent based on prior experience.
Likewise, the same holds for christian apologetics. Why don’t you just provide the summary of why ‘your’ video is different from all the other positions that have preceded the claims….errr background information…in ‘your’ video. I doubt anything new, shines, or compelling is contained within the video but I’m willing to be surprised. Why not just give us the summary that might suggest that something new and compelling is in the video.
Failure to do so on your part makes a strong case that it will be just more of the same stick that everyone is quite familiar with and gleaned from past experiences with the subject matter.
Take your own advice, ignore it.
Those people don’t usually feel the need to endlessly debate the merits of alternative medicine with people on the internet.
If they do choose to debate endlessly the merits of alternative medicine for some unknown reason it would behoove them to educate themselves a little bit
Because like KN I’m really not interested in discussing this stuff.
And I’m especially not interested in spoon-feeding information to someone who has already made his mind up.
I rather let folks like that put their willful ignorance on display while occasionally pointing out how easy it would be for them to remedy that situation 😉
peace
The Southern Baptists disagreed with your interpretation.
One had slaveholders as authors , the other claims the Supreme Being.
peace
I was actually just trying to correct what I took to be a possible historical misunderstanding of the beliefs “Southern baptists” on your part.
I don’t lump you together with the peanut gallery. I would be happy to help you out if you asked 😉
peace
au contraire it is done all the time to educate those who do not have the knowledge, and the associated critical thinking skills, to evaluate where the bullshit shines in the proponents claims.
their educational and prior experience backgrounds with the subject matter provide the firm basis for their criticisms. for example, once you know the basic tenet of homeopathy any homeopathic claims of efficacy are easily dismissed. If the data presented happened to demonstrate any efficacy then contamination of the nostrum with a real chemical agent known to have physiological activity is the smart inference. You would never infer that the homeopathic nostrum is actually effective since the basic tenet of homeopathy is ridiculous.
Then don’t discuss it. Pretty simple solution.
However, once you throw out some reference you think is a critical hinge in the debate you’re involved up to your eyeballs. Failure to provide a summary of what is new and exciting in your reference suggests to me there is nothing new to be seen that hasn’t been seen before.
I wouldn’t characterize a summary of presented information as ‘spoon-feeding’ but more as an advancement of the discussion. A discussion you seem to be very interested in having despite your protestations to the contrary.
some might construe that to be a projection on your part.
Actually both texts were written by sinful men shaped by their culture.
One text just had the additional property of being divinely inspired.
The Southern Baptists who excused slavery disagreed with most everyone including their earlier selves .
Disagreeing is what baptists do.
I’ve had many disagreements with Southern Baptists over the years it’s practically a sign of endearment to them.
quote:
That we do not regard them [confessions] as complete statements of our faith, having any quality of finality or infallibility. As in the past so in the future, Baptists should hold themselves free to revise their statements of faith as may seem to them wise and expedient at any time.
That any group of Baptists, large or small, have the inherent right to draw up for themselves and publish to the world a confession of their faith whenever they may think it advisable to do so.
end quote:
Preamble to the 2000
Baptist Faith and Message
peace
Why does that surprise you??? Of course!!!
If it were between my family and I starving to death and becoming someone’s slave, I’d do it with no sweat… especially if we were to get off the hook in 6 years…
But you wouldn’t know anything about it… obviously…
I guess its time for you to move the goalposts… 😉
BTW: If you ever took on a loan, like a mortgage, you were a slave too… a slave to debt..
It’s the so-called modern world slavery; the very essence of the financial world…
But what if you knew that your new “owners” could beat you or any of your family whenever they wanted to, as long as they could get back on their feet within a couple days?
Your 12 year old son. Your 13 year old daughter? Your 60 year old mother?
Yup, slavery sounds like a day at Disney for those who are starving.
What delightful choices your all loving deity has given you.
Oh? What rule are you referring to here? The slaves of the confederacy were slaves for life, upon punishment of death. So you can’t be referring to them.
Do you happen to have the full rule set available for the sort of slavery you find morally acceptable?
6 Year ownership limit. Does that include the right to beat to death or just near death? Does the slave have to be the same religion as me or can they be a different religion? Does their religion affect my ability to beat them or rape their daughter?
Feel free to educate me as to why slavery is moral. You seem to know all about it, what are the rules as you see them?
It seems to me by conflating biblical slavery (presumably where you get your 6 years from) and the slavery in the confederacy you are the one shifting goalposts. So slavery is OK as long as it only lasts 6 years?
I feel the bank is unlikely to come around and beat me to death or rape my daughters.
So, to be clear, owning other human beings is fine because you can label other things slavery as well and they are not so bad?
Keep up the good work J-Mac. With you around each new generation that gets exposed to your “ideas” is less likely to believe a single word of your religions
Who is a true Christian? We can rule out apologists for slavery, modern or ancient for a start…
Having said that, it’s not as if we can find anywhere in the bible where Jesus condemned slavery so perhaps owning other people is in fact permitted by the big guy after all and I’ve been wrong all these years.
Perhaps J-Mac or FMM can show me where in the bible Jesus railed against the ownership of your fellow man?
I appreciate that , but your comment was directed at KN’s lack of interest. My comment was directed at that.
Thanks, but pretty sure that Christianity and slavery coexisted in the South. Just as I am aware that Christian Beliefs were central to the opposition to slavery. Religion is a human construct.
peace
fmm,
Actually a simple “no person shall own another person, no slaves allowed” would have been quite difficult to spin into “slavery is fine as long as you don’t kill them, just beat them up”. We could have had 11 commandants even.
There is no unambiguous denunciation of slavery in the bible, so when people use the bible to justify slavery they are not making the text say things it was never intended to say. It fully intended to be a guide on how to own slaves. And that’s how they used it!
If Jesus intended to say that slavery is bad, then where does he say it?
quote:
“So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them,”
(Mat 7:12a)
end quote:
peace
One of the interesting things I learned from the videos was that the concept of free citizens did not arise until ancient Greece.
Before that time everyone was considered to be a slave to someone the king if no one else.
peace
OMagain to fifth:
That verse about beating your slaves even makes it clear why you’re entitled to beat them to within an inch of their lives: because they’re your property.
Yahweh condoned slavery. Fifth is rightly ashamed of his God and trying to make excuses for him.
Hint: If you’re ashamed of your God, you might want to think twice about worshiping him.
Well, fifth? Quote me some Jesus saying that owing another person is a sin.
I guess that is what God intended. No culture ,no sin ,no sacred texts.
That is the story.
And yet most probably felt that they were True Christians.God created certain people to be slaves, it said so in a divinely inspired book. God was on their side.
I am sure slaves everywhere were comforted that Baptists had intellectual disagreements concerning their fate as property.
It seems even direct divine revelation is subject to inconsistency of interpretation. Do you find that strange?
quote:
I see , the encouragement of slavery a passing fad.
And each use revelation as the justification for the truth of their position?
peace
“So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them”
Easy out, only some people count as “ others”.
Acartia, to J-Mac:
That’s actually the “nice” translation of that verse (as it appears in the NIV, for instance). Other translations, including the King James Version, render it appallingly as “as long as they linger at least a day or two before dying”.
Here’s the KJV:
Here’s Young’s Literal Translation:
From the Keil-Delitzsch commentary on the Old Testament:
I was going to comment on PopoHummel’s post here but the comments are closed.
I’m not sure why a new blog would solve the same problems suffered here. IMO all that is needed to improve this place is for posters to ignore any offensive or over the top insulting comments.
To get back to the topic here, J-Mac, I think you would be interested in this video by Matthew T. Segall “Religion in Human and Cosmic Evolution: Whitehead’s Alternative Vision (with discussion)”. I know it’s not specific to Christianity but it does make some good points with regards to atheists and creationists as in the following excerpts. I know the video is quite long, about three quarters of an hour for the presentation and the same again for the following discussion but it shows that there are other points of view to be considered.
CharlieM:
I think PopoHummel was mocking J-Mac, Charlie.
J-Mac is the guy who keeps declaring TSZ dead, and who has promised to start his own blog:
keiths,
Well I would say that it is still a fact that this blog is littered with unnecessary, off-putting remarks that do nothing to further discussion. Comments like these are best ignored and this would be a better place without them. Do you agree?
Moved a comment to guano.
Come one newton, you know better than that. That idea did not come from the Bible.
compare this
quote:
The negro race is a species of men different from ours as the breed of spaniels is from that of greyhounds. The mucous membrane, or network, which nature has spread between the muscles and the skin, is white in us and black or copper-colored in them.
end quote:
Voltaire
from here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygenism
with this
quote:
And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place,
(Act 17:26)
end quote:
peace