Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Mannahnin wrote:GG: Defending slavery since at least 2012.

Really, it's not that bad, guys. And you have to free your slave after seven years. Oh wait, no, that's only if he's of your tribe. Oh, and the Bible doesn't condone beating slaves; oh no, wait, it totally says it's fine to do that unless the victim dies in less than a day or two. Then you overdid it.

The billboard was kind of a dick move, but it did provoke some discussion, at least.

why am I not surprised that you would not understand me.

GG

I think everyone is being a little unfair to GG. I don't think he's defending slavery, just showing that the moral rules of the bible are based in their time and place.

It's hard to find a ancient civilization that didn't have slavery in some form or another. Few civilizations ended slavery because it was a moral choice, it's just economically better to rely on cheap free labor, especially when encouraging entrepreneurship.

I think black people probably care more about having a job and the state of their communities than they do some billboard.
Just a thought.

Polonius wrote:I think everyone is being a little unfair to GG. I don't think he's defending slavery,

I'm pretty sure that he claimed that the Bible doesn't condone permanent slavery, that it didn't condone beating slaves, that it doesn't condone taking slaves (and implied that the only type of slavery practiced was indentured servitude). All of which are untrue.

...just showing that the moral rules of the bible are based in their time and place.

It's hard to find a ancient civilization that didn't have slavery in some form or another. Few civilizations ended slavery because it was a moral choice, it's just economically better to rely on cheap free labor, especially when encouraging entrepreneurship.

That's legimate, sure. But I don't think that's the kind of historical perspective being asked for by apologists who try to whitewash the content of a Bible they believe is inerrant.

Also, if the Bible were supposed to be handed down from God, then it would not contain the imperfections that would bind its relevancy to a specific time period and place.

Well, bear in mind that (IIRC) the New Testament does say that the Old Testament doesn't really apply anymore.

Christians don't consider themselves bound by the stuff in Leviticus, though some dishonest and/or ignorant ones will reference it in support of their prejudices (like some of them hating gay people).

The way a lot of people round where I live see it, is that the Old Testament is the Jewish Holy Book and has some decent bits in it, but the New Testament is the important bit.

Look the important thing is...and polonius nailed it. At the time the pentatuch was written, slavery was a fact of life, and laws were written to deal with these facts. It doesn't mean that God thinks slavery is A'OK.

GG

But the Bible is a book on how to live your life in order to get into Heaven. It is also God's will, it's his words...

mattyrm wrote: Its quoted from the bible!

An exact quote.

More like a third of a quote.

Paul slaves to buy their freedom if they can. However if they are slaves, do not rebel, accept your lot in life:

1 Corinthians 7:21
Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you--although if you can gain your freedom, do so.

This is about social conformity and non-dissent and is not pro-slavery. In the context of the time it was written slavery was a problem that was not going to go away, and those who wished it to go away normally got cracked down upon, hard. Paul suggests that slaves work within the system. Paul urged those who owned slaves to treat them fairly. Paul preached messages about slavery in Corinthians, Colossians and Ephesians. The message was consistent.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

LoneLictor wrote:Did they really think that was a good idea? And for all you people saying atheism is a religion it isn't. That's like saying abstinence is a sex position.

Its like saying abstinence is a choice of sexual behaviour.

No. LoneLictor's bumper sticker phrase is correct. Atheism cannot be a religion. As was discussed earlier in the thread, some people do make it into a creed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

generalgrog wrote:Look the important thing is...and polonius nailed it. At the time the pentatuch was written, slavery was a fact of life, and laws were written to deal with these facts. It doesn't mean that God thinks slavery is A'OK.

Slavery as an institution is evil. While it was a fact of life at the time, that just means it was an accepted evil. If the god of the Hebrews gave instructions allowing and perpetuating it, then that's a deity condoning evil. Either the book is written by men, or it's guided by a god who accepts and facilitates evil behavior.

Polonius wrote:the moral rules of the bible are based in their own time and place.

maybe Jesus will eventually put out an FAQ or a proper revised rulebook

Mannahnin wrote:No. LoneLictor's bumper sticker phrase is correct. Atheism cannot be a religion. As was discussed earlier in the thread, some people do make it into a creed.

A 'religion', no, a 'faith choice' or 'religious preference', certainly.

Mannahnin wrote:
Slavery as an institution is evil. While it was a fact of life at the time, that just means it was an accepted evil. If the god of the Hebrews gave instructions allowing and perpetuating it, then that's a deity condoning evil. Either the book is written by men, or it's guided by a god who accepts and facilitates evil behavior.

You ought to read the context before you make comments like the above. The 'instructions' are how to cope with it, as an individual believer. The epistles are very clear that freedom is better and to be achieved if legally possible. Therefore in an advanced culture based around a believing populace slavery should be phased out.

By the epistles, you're referring to part of the New Testament, are you not?

The Old Testament, seems to endorse making slaves of unbelievers, at least.

Orlanth wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:No. LoneLictor's bumper sticker phrase is correct. Atheism cannot be a religion. As was discussed earlier in the thread, some people do make it into a creed.

A 'religion', no, a 'faith choice' or 'religious preference', certainly.

Sure, just as choosing not to eat ice cream is an "ice cream choice".

If you bought billboard time proclaiming how you don't believe in ice cream and made up your own name for people who do not eat ice cream and insult anyone who does eat ice cream.

It should be noted that the context of the quoted verse on the billboard was aimed at Christians who were slaves during the early days of Christianity. The next couple verses after should make that clear.

Ie: the early church wouldn't survive rocking the boat of the dominant superpowers society of the time.

Mannahnin wrote:By the epistles, you're referring to part of the New Testament, are you not?

The Old Testament, seems to endorse making slaves of unbelievers, at least.

Manny what you are missing..and I don't think you are being malicious here, what you are missing is that just because God gave instructions on how to handle a thing, that doesn't mean He endorsed that thing. It's similar to divorce. This was allowed by the law but clearly not ideal. Jesus even said that Moses allowed it, because of the hard heartedness of men. (MT 19:1-12)

The point is... divorce, like slavery was allowed, but not endorsed.


GG

edit...also look back at what Manchu posted about the definition of slaves or "bond servant". It's not 100% clear that the term slave meant the same thing back then as it does today or at the very least such as the way it was used during the african slave trade/ or the Roman times...I.E. chattle. It's possible that slave meant servant.

NELS1031 wrote:It should be noted that the context of the quoted verse on the billboard was aimed at Christians who were slaves during the early days of Christianity. The next couple verses after should make that clear.

Why let that get in the way of kicking GG around? Can't wait for the next bullying thread so I can revel in the hypocrisy.

Having read the whole thread, his point is clear, and consistent, and doesn't really seem to defend slavery as much as say that slavery was a fact of life in Biblical times, which is hardly a uniquely Christian/Hebrew phenomenon. In addition, the idea of just riding out whatever hideous lot you've received in life with the promise that afterward things should be better, which is also a strong theme in the Bible, isn't a solely Christian trait either.

Oh, yeah, and not a big fan of the billboard. It's right up there with those "The World Is Going to End on X Date" signs from last year.

Polonius wrote:Of course that only applied to other hebrew slaves.

Leviticus 25:44-47
44Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

45Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

46And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour

there's a reason not a lot of christians look to leviticus for moral guidance.

Something about that Paul guy saying the old law was destroyed.

generalgrog wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:By the epistles, you're referring to part of the New Testament, are you not?

The Old Testament, seems to endorse making slaves of unbelievers, at least.

Manny what you are missing..and I don't think you are being malicious here, what you are missing is that just because God gave instructions on how to handle a thing, that doesn't mean He endorsed that thing. It's similar to divorce. This was allowed by the law but clearly not ideal. Jesus even said that Moses allowed it, because of the hard heartedness of men. (MT 19:1-12)

The point is... divorce, like slavery was allowed, but not endorsed.

If I give you rules of conduct regarding an activity, I am tacitly approving you engaging in that activity. The police department doesn't tell its officers "Taking bribes is bad, but here are some rules for how to do it." The Old Testament forbids a lot of things. It forbids working on the Sabbath. It forbids cutting your beard. It forbids cooking meat with milk. Slavery is far worse than any of those things.

generalgrog wrote:edit...also look back at what Manchu posted about the definition of slaves or "bond servant". It's not 100% clear that the term slave meant the same thing back then as it does today or at the very least such as the way it was used during the african slave trade/ or the Roman times...I.E. chattle. It's possible that slave meant servant.

No, I don't think that's really possible. One of the passages quoted specifically says it's fine to beat your slave, because they're your property. It's fine as long as it's not so badly that they die immediately.

Does anyone here believe that the transatlantic slavetrade was motivated by the Old Testament?

That poster is kinda offensive, but I take everything the athiests do to bash religion with a grain of salt.

Manchu wrote:Does anyone hear believe that the transatlantic slavetrade was motivated by the Old Testament?

Not unless sugar cane production is in the Tanakh.

Manchu wrote:Does anyone hear believe that the transatlantic slavetrade was motivated by the Old Testament?

I believe that the old testament was used to justify it, by people who took it out of context just like manny.

But bringing this around to the point of the thread and the billboard. It's very insulting to take an image of an African slave and use a misunderstood portion of the Bible to try and "make points" against a state house(edit). It's very demeaning to use/abuse black people that way.

GG

Fafnir wrote:Also, if the Bible were supposed to be handed down from God, then it would not contain the imperfections that would bind its relevancy to a specific time period and place.

Im roman catholic and i have pretty much given up on the bible. I live by a code of two rules. Try not to hurt other and try to help others when you can.
Like i said. If god wanted mindless followers we would have been made that way.
Also. My God, Why would naming 2012 the "Year Of The Bible" get peoples panties in such a twist. Atheists. This may be a nation that lets you practice any faith you want, But we are predominatly christian. This isnt a shock. This isnt like naming it "Year of the Quaran"(i would love to see that passed) its not a shocker.

Fafnir wrote:Also, if the Bible were supposed to be handed down from God, then it would not contain the imperfections that would bind its relevancy to a specific time period and place.

The only part of the bible handed down by God are the Ten Commandments. Everything else is a narrative written by and from various perspectives.

generalgrog wrote:

Manchu wrote:Does anyone hear believe that the transatlantic slavetrade was motivated by the Old Testament?

I believe that the old testament was used to justify it, by people who took it out of context...

Of course it wasn't motived by the Old Testament.

But as GG says, most of the people engaged in it were Christians who sincerely believed that slavery was part of the natural order, sanctioned by god, and used the OT to support their position.

[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts. -Jefferson Davis, President, Confederate States of America

Every hope of the existence of church and state, and of civilization itself, hangs upon our arduous effort to defeat the doctrine of Negro suffrage - Robert Dabney, a prominent 19th century Southern Presbyterian pastor

... the right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example.- Richard Furman, President, South Carolina Baptist Convention.

Of course there were a lot of Christian Abolitionists too. But let's not pretend that the texts are silent, or anti-slavery, or that they weren't used in its defense.

generalgrog wrote:[But bringing this around to the point of the thread and the billboard. It's very insulting to take an image of an African slave and use a misunderstood portion of the Bible to try and "make points" against a state house(edit). It's very demeaning to use/abuse black people that way.

What's more offensive? To remind people about the unpleasant parts of history and religion, or to have a religion promoted by the State, in violation of the principles of Separation specifically intended by Jefferson and the other founders? I agree that the billboard was a dick move, but it made a legitimate point.

AustonT wrote:

Fafnir wrote:Also, if the Bible were supposed to be handed down from God, then it would not contain the imperfections that would bind its relevancy to a specific time period and place.

The only part of the bible handed down by God are the Ten Commandments. Everything else is a narrative written by and from various perspectives.

Opinions are divided on that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

hotsauceman1 wrote:Also. My God, Why would naming 2012 the "Year Of The Bible" get peoples panties in such a twist. Atheists. This may be a nation that lets you practice any faith you want, But we are predominatly christian.

Most people in this country identify as various flavors of Christian, but certainly not all of us. Let me give you a famous Jefferson quote regarding why he would not declare a day of prayer (and a rationale I think also entirely appropriate for not declaring a "Year of the Bible"):

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.

hotsauceman1 wrote:This may be a nation that lets you practice any faith you want, But we are predominatly christian.

The Virginia legislature was predominantly Christian when they wrote the Virginia Act For Religious Freedom, too, and yet Jefferson had this comment in his autobiography:

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.

Being by Christian lights an Infidel of some other denomination, I have always taken comfort in these words.

Mannahnin wrote:

AustonT wrote:

Fafnir wrote:Also, if the Bible were supposed to be handed down from God, then it would not contain the imperfections that would bind its relevancy to a specific time period and place.

The only part of the bible handed down by God are the Ten Commandments. Everything else is a narrative written by and from various perspectives.

Opinions are divided on that.

\
You'll note that no mention is made of the Nag Hammadi library because it doesn't mesh well with that belief. Well, perhaps I should point out that SOME of the supporters of bible inerrancy point to Nag Hammadi but clearly don't comprehend the Gnostic and dischordant nature of it's apocryphal contents. You'll also find these people will not address the inconsistency between the various Gospels of the New Testament. Not to mention the well recognized belief that Josiah "found" Deuteronomy, which was pretty clearly written during his lifetime. Although some parts do predate the original portions of the book, those are recognized from other ancient Hebrew sources. In other words clearly authored for the benefit of a reformer king, that conveniently divenly supported legal reformation.

It would be prudent to point out that I am a subscriber to the Documentary Hypothesis of the Pentateuch, and that as such I recognize bible inerrancy as a fallacy.

If you ever want to have fun with one of these people play a game I like to call "have you actually read the bible?" Ask them whether man or woman was created first, and/or how woman came to be. The classic answer is man first then woman and some tit bits about a rib. Flip to GEN 1:27 were they are created at the same time on the 6th day and God speaks to THEM, giving them the dominion of the earth and all its creatures. Then work your way to GEN 2:19 where the dude is alone naming gak, gets told he can eat everything...just not to eat from that one tree, then gets konked out and a woman gets made. Depending on how big your font is the first two pages of the bible don't even jive. Inerrancy my fat ass. Clearly there are and have been many interpretations on the subject but in plain black and white in multiple translations the two chapters simply do not agree.

Having a Year of the Bible is just obnoxious. The answer isn't to post an obnoxious atheist billboard.

It's why I hate these debates. Everytime both sides end up arguing against pluralism more than anything. Seriously, you can be a happy, good Christian without having a year of the bible, and I can be a happy, good atheist without posting obnoxious billboards.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

generalgrog wrote:The U.S. Supreme Court cited Secular Humanism(I.E. Atheism) as a religion in the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins (367 U.S. 488).

Secular humanism isn't atheism, in the same way that Catholicism isn't Christianity.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

generalgrog wrote:So where does the Bible condone slavery again?
Where does the Bible say go out and get slaves?

Passages in the Bible explain what to do in regards to slaves. In fact slaves were to be released after 7 years. The problem is the misunderstanding of what slavery was in the past and how it was practiced in the past when trying to compare it to recent times. In fact the Bible explicitly forbad the "manstealing" type of slavery which we saw practiced during the african slave trade.

This is an interpretation of the bible, like any other.

You'd have to be kidding yourself to claim that people in history have never made simple, straightforward interpretations of the bible that their holding of slaves was endorsed by the good book, as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

generalgrog wrote:Slavery was part of the economic system of the times, often times the slaves were poor people that slavery was an option to keep them from starvation. I.E. it wasn't necessarily immoral, when you look at the context of the times.

There are poor and starving people today. I don't think making them slaves would improve things much.

But you're right it was part of the economic system of the times, that is to say, the book was the product of it's times.

What's more offensive? To remind people about the unpleasant parts of history and religion, or to have a religion promoted by the State, in violation of the principles of Separation specifically intended by Jefferson and the other founders? I agree that the billboard was a dick move, but it made a legitimate point.

When do we get to remind people about the wrongs that Atheism has done?

Seriously, you can be a happy, good Christian without having a year of the bible

At the cost of being discriminated against yeah.