Discussion in 'World News & Politics' started by NYC Poke, Mar 13, 2012.
Because certain individuals are polemics & partisans who are not interested in honest debate.
I believe Christianity's role in abolitionism is best viewed through the lens of the Enlightenment.
If it wasn't for the Enlightenment and Humanism, there would still be slavery. Might even be able to make an argument for democracy/republicanism, too.
Now, that's not to say that certain Christians didn't play a significant role, but historically we're got Christians using Scripture to make arguments on both sides of the slavery divide.
Couple of thoughts, hopefully they don't get too rambling, because dagnabit, it's late and I still have work to do.
The chief trouble I have with the doctrines of progressive/partial revelation ("the context in which Mosaic law was given and the advances of civilization" e.g. God couldn't or didn't reveal the entire truth or expectations of morality and/or mankind's understanding of God's expectations is still unfolding) and the division of Old Testament laws into legal(casuistic or case laws - if/then), moral, and ceremonial parts (an artificial theological & interpretive construct placed upon the texts that the laws themselves never reference - they exist as representative of YHWH's total governance to a theocratic polity) is these doctrines function, frankly, to let conservative Christians off the hook for more difficult passages to pick and choose what they like.
You are an educated and intelligent man, Rx, but often that manifests as an insufferable arrogance. Heaven forbid someone not reply to you in tones of hush reverence and solemnity.
God damn that attitude of yours.
Now, you've spent this thread explaining and not endorsing, Rx, so I haven't been able to pick up on your personal, endorsed perspective on this. So tell us, do you think it's ever moral to own another person as property?
It's not a matter of disagreement; it's a matter of respect and decency. One's disagreeing with me only fuels the fires of debate. The gross disrespect of a fast held peaceful belief that guides one's life (as best we will allow it) and ideology does little more that provide entertainment for those who enjoy to offend. There are several atheists/agnostics on this forum that I would not begin to put on ignore due to their thoughtful nature, so disagreement is not the issue.
There are simply some matters I will not see dragged through the mud.
160 years ago slavery was legal in this country and many other countries around the world. Fast Forward to today and it is one of the most abhorrent things anyone can think of. 40 years ago homosexuality was considered deviancy and 99% of folks would have said that it is completely inappropriate. Today, it is fast becoming the "norm" and those who would call it deviant behavior have dropped way below 50% (i'm guessing).
Will atheists bring up the same type of argument, about the Bible teaching that homosexuality is wrong, in the future to try and prove their point that it is out of touch and not relative for our life today.
The point is that times change, cultures change and we can't help but frame our present worldview onto any given time in the past and then make wholesale pronouncements.
You agree about the importance of context and then move forward completely disregarding it with this statement. You are framing this statement against the background of your worldview.....not the worldview of the Israelites under a theocracy.
You, and others, have cherry picked some verses, that could be interpreted as "politically charged" in today's terms because of the word slavery......to amp up your argument.
Look.... the Bible has been scrutinized by the greatest scholars over the course history. No offense, but by folks with a lot more on the ball than you guys. I'm pretty sure it's going to be OK going forward
BRAVO once again bleedin.
I've been following this shootout a bit, the first time in awhile, and it reminds me how much more pleasant it is in declining to argue with someone I disrespect or dislike. If it upsets me I bow out now and I was taught as a child that it takes two to argue.
True a lot of it is about common decency and respect or it should be. A bit different perhaps, but I gave up on 3, I don't see their posts anymore, I try and cut in half the time I spend on this board now and I feel a lot better about things.
I once thoughtlessly argued with a certain OSU professor who opined that God was a "murderer" offering up passages from the Pentateuch, Joshua and Judges as proof positive. Therein God ordered that certain captured territories be razed to the ground and every living thing killed if memory serves. If we believe what was written in the Bible, then it happened. I believe I know why it happened in those cases (that too is written) but I don't claim to be in a position to levy judgement on God as my professor friend seemed to smugly enjoy doing. "Who is he trying to convince," I always thought? There is another passage in Exodus, "I am that I am," meaning to me that God is saying that he is sovereign and I also believe that too.
There are things in the Bible I don't understand, to say the least they are open to interpretation, ask 10 Bible scholars and get 10 different opinions. Yet some secularists seem to take delight in knowing and in such things as trying to apply political correctness to God himself.
Knowing your feelings about homosexuality I find it interesting that you would make this comparison of the abolition of slavery over a century ago to the weakening of prejudices against homosexuality occurring today.
Regarding the "cherry picking of some verses," couldn't the same reasoning be used regarding the bible and homosexuality? That biblical argument is similarly amped up by a few "politically charged" versus too. How does a Christian decide which biblical teaching is important to still follow today and which are now to be considered only historical?
Slavery is abolished?
Not by a long shot.
sorry, but i can't stand it when people play stupid in order to purposefully misconstrue what I have said.
Of course it is morally reprehensible for one human to own another. If you take the whole council of scripture that is perfectly clear. It is also clear that it is reprehensible to God. Of course some Christians have cherry-picked scripture to justify slavery. But it is also clear that those who rested on the whole council of God about slavery have won the debate. Amazing Grace...
As to theological constructs... Casuistic law is a legal construct that isn't specifically defined in law, yet SCOTUS will use stare decisis when considering Obamacare. To throw out the entirety of theology because you don't like considering OT theology is incredibly narrow minded. Talk about cherry picking...
Please provide scripture that clearly shows that slavery was reprehensible in the mind of God. Most verses I'm familiar with that directly discuss slavery make it look like God is pretty indifferent to the practice.
He's not playing stupid. These people honestly believe there is a good enough chance that you support slavery that they are putting the question to you with a straight face. These kinds of questions and the manner in which they are posed are, as I said in another thread, terriftying in the level of bigotry they reveal.
You are clueless and wrong. You have no idea what "these" people "honestly" believe based on a few posts about ancient slavery. Nobody thinks Rx supports slavery and he knows that. Supporting slavery and trying to justify what is in an ancient book are two completely different things and everyone here but you is aware of that. Maybe you should spend three days here before you psychoanalyze people who have been having online discussions for years. Oh, but we should trust your opinion. After all, you are agnostic.
I'm clueless and wrong? I'm sorry, I must be illiterate, too, then, as it looks for all the world on my screen as though this is the exact question being asked. Why would anyone ask such a question if they didn't believe there was a strong chance they knew the answer to be the affirmative? They're not just asking him about scripture, they've put the question to him, specifically. You can read around it all you want, which is to be expected given your earlier comment indicating you actually found value in the flaming going on here.
Yes, I am agnostic. I point that out simply to head off the inevitable idiocy I see coming from you and others whereby if I did NOT point it out head of time I would be lumped in with these slavery-loving religious zealots. It saves everyone some time, and it informs you of an important facet of my own beliefs with regard to, you know, the topic of religion.
I've dealt with more than enough people like you in my time to know what you're doing, and I won't play your game of pretending to be an honest participant. My being agnostic has no bearing on whether you should "trust" my opinion, nor have I represented it as such. I know your ilk is accustomed to misrepresenting and miscasting what others say in order to attack them, but don't try it with me.
And if RX knows they weren't putting this question to him, why did he answer it as if they had? Is he clueless and wrong, too?
Sorry you don't like it when people stop trying to be above responding in kind to your ilk's browbeating, but you'll just have to deal with it. It's not going to stop as long as you folk behave the way you do.
Oh, and in the interest of additional disclosure, I've been reading this board for several years. You should give yourself a few minutes to calm down before you post next time. Of course, you had no way of knowing that, but then again it was an intellectually weak assumption for you to have made. Sorry your feelings were so hurt. You're usually not as bad as PF, OA and the like.
Now that right there is funny.
Because it's so true? Yeah, I'd climb down if I were you, too.
By the way, you don't have to quote an entire post and then bold the small portion to which you are replying. I can teach you how to quote just that portion if you like,
Pokealypse asked me the question straight up as if I needed to actually answer it.
Since after apparently years of lurking you have developed more message board arrogance than ability, let me explain:
You posted multiple, insulting, high-strung paragraphs about "my ilk" then at the bottom of the massive rant suggest I should calm down before posting. I quoted the entirety to show the irony. But, thanks for the offer of a lesson. I'll keep in mind that you are an expert at OP.com despite starting yesterday as well as an expert at other people's religion.
Your name is quite good though. Every post I have seen has been you flaming someone. Thanks for the compliment that I am not as bad the others in my "ilk." I wasn't even aware I was in an ilk around here.
Separate names with a comma.