Morality

[Mike Cl]

Some quotes I just have to share:
[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 of the Confederate States of America.

There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral.  -Rev. Alexander Campbell

The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example."
-Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina

So, according to a great number of Christians, there is nothing immoral about owning slaves.  So much for christian 'values'.  Or using the bible as any kind of authority for moral behavior.

[stromboli]

Right. As I have pointed out here, the Civil War was fought almost entirely by white people of European descent who believed in the same god, spoke the same language and read the same holy book. And both sides found moral justification for their actions in their religion. So much for objectivity.

[GSOgymrat]

Some quotes I just have to share:
[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 of the Confederate States of America.

There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral.  -Rev. Alexander Campbell

The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example."
-Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina

So, according to a great number of Christians, there is nothing immoral about owning slaves.  So much for christian 'values'.  Or using the bible as any kind of authority for moral behavior.

I don't understand criticizing the Bible as a moral guide if morality is subjective. Let's imagine Christians make up the overwhelming majority of the world, they agree the Bible is law and that slavery is acceptable then isn't slavery moral again?

[Mike Cl]

I don't understand criticizing the Bible as a moral guide if morality is subjective. Let's imagine Christians make up the overwhelming majority of the world, they agree the Bible is law and that slavery is acceptable then isn't slavery moral again?

It would be in their world.  But simply labeling something 'moral' does not make it such.  With that same line of reasoning, the Nazi killing of Jews was moral.  In Sparta, stealing was moral.  Morality is not objective, but subjective.  That means it changes with the society--and even within a society.  Morals are not static, unchanging.  Those who do not like to reason, who do not like to think want an 'authority' to tell them what a moral is.  That way they do not have to think about it.

[Solomon Zorn]

I don't understand criticizing the Bible as a moral guide if morality is subjective.

He's not criticizing it as a subjective guide, but showing it's faulty as an objective one.

Let's imagine Christians make up the overwhelming majority of the world, they agree the Bible is law and that slavery is acceptable then isn't slavery moral again?

Moral in whose eyes? The slaves'? Not in mine. It's not a majority rules kind of thing. Whatever's popular. That's not what I'm saying at all. But it's not a set of rules that fit every situation either. It's human. Growing and adapting as the circumstances of our lives change for whatever reason. But it is based in some pretty ancient principles like the golden rule.

[undercoverbrother]

Some quotes I just have to share:
[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 of the Confederate States of America.

There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral.  -Rev. Alexander Campbell

The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example."
-Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina

So, according to a great number of Christians, there is nothing immoral about owning slaves.  So much for christian 'values'.  Or using the bible as any kind of authority for moral behavior.

The slavery issue in the Bible is more of a grey issue than a black and white issue.

At least one of the reasons for sanctioned slavery was to provide a way for a person to pay back debt. A modern equivalent would be how we are required to pay our debt to our creditors. In some ways, the only difference is that we don't go work in the fields of our bank creditors these days. Husbandry was the economy back then an the monetary system was not as developed as we have today. Be careful of isogetic errors.

However, there are Biblical examples of what sorts of inhumane behaviors were allowed toward slaves.

Also, it would probably be better to take the moral claims of the Christian on a case by case way. To dismiss any moral value in Christianity due to its moral imperfections is close genetic fallacy.

[undercoverbrother]

Even the Bible represents, in part, a portion of the emergent consensus of human morality.

[Mike Cl]

The slavery issue in the Bible is more of a grey issue than a black and white issue.

At least one of the reasons for sanctioned slavery was to provide a way for a person to pay back debt. A modern equivalent would be how we are required to pay our debt to our creditors. In some ways, the only difference is that we don't go work in the fields of our bank creditors these days. Husbandry was the economy back then an the monetary system was not as developed as we have today. Be careful of isogetic errors.

However, there are Biblical examples of what sorts of inhumane behaviors were allowed toward slaves.

Also, it would probably be better to take the moral claims of the Christian on a case by case way. To dismiss any moral value in Christianity due to its moral imperfections is close genetic fallacy.

The entire bible is a grey--it can be, and has been interpreted in more than one way.  And it is quite true that one can just about prove any moral point by cherry picking verses and cobbling them together.  And it is also a fact that the bible is not the 'Bible'--what I mean is, which translation are you going to call the Bible?  Which version from among the 100's at your local bookstore are you going to call The Bible???  All versions are replete with differences.  And all versions are suspect since the primary documents all differ.  And it is beyond me how an all-knowing, all-seeing, god could not have taken history into account with his 'word' so that these sorts of grey areas did not occur. 

So, you are telling me that in order to fully understand the Bible I need to run it through the filter of what words and phrases meant when it was written, when we don't really know when it was written?  And then through the filter of whatever translation I am reading?  That in itself makes it suspect to me.  Is this the document that is often touted as The Word of God??  That it is infallible, never changing and constant.   This is the document that is what all morals flow from????

I don't know what a "close genetic fallacy" is, but I do condemn Christens for lack of morals.  The same as I condemn all religions with a rigid hierarchy of the same thing.  Christians have in the past, do now, and will in the future believe all sorts of crazy things and give the bible as the source of that belief. 

[undercoverbrother]

The entire bible is a grey--it can be, and has been interpreted in more than one way.  And it is quite true that one can just about prove any moral point by cherry picking verses and cobbling them together.  And it is also a fact that the bible is not the 'Bible'--what I mean is, which translation are you going to call the Bible?  Which version from among the 100's at your local bookstore are you going to call The Bible???  All versions are replete with differences.  And all versions are suspect since the primary documents all differ.  And it is beyond me how an all-knowing, all-seeing, god could not have taken history into account with his 'word' so that these sorts of grey areas did not occur. 

So, you are telling me that in order to fully understand the Bible I need to run it through the filter of what words and phrases meant when it was written, when we don't really know when it was written?  And then through the filter of whatever translation I am reading?  That in itself makes it suspect to me.  Is this the document that is often touted as The Word of God??  That it is infallible, never changing and constant.   This is the document that is what all morals flow from????

I don't know what a "close genetic fallacy" is, but I do condemn Christens for lack of morals.  The same as I condemn all religions with a rigid hierarchy of the same thing.  Christians have in the past, do now, and will in the future believe all sorts of crazy things and give the bible as the source of that belief.

I can relate to the sentiment of your outsider view of Christianity. I just don't think it is entirely accurate. No prob. I don't expect anything out of you.

[Mike Cl]

I can relate to the sentiment of your outsider view of Christianity. I just don't think it is entirely accurate. No prob. I don't expect anything out of you.

I expect even less than you.  And of course you don't think my view is accurate.  You simply do not want to be honest to yourself and do the appropriate study of the issue.  It is much easier to be spoon fed an opinion than to take the time and effort to find out for yourself.  And you know little to nothing of my background, so you can label me what you will, matters not to me.  But it is simply an example of your willingness to display willful ignorance.   

[Mr.Obvious]

By The way, i think we scared off our chewing toy.

[Solomon Zorn]

I don't think he was going to go beyond insisting that we say that holocaust was "not objectively wrong," so that he could demean subjective morality with shock-value. He probably read C.S.Lewis' book, The Abolition of Man. or some similar, and thought he found gold. Personally I never bought into C.S. Lewis that much, even when I was a Christian.

[Mike Cl]

It is good to have a chew toy every now and again.  My furry children seem to like them a lot.  I have always wondered about the christian suggestion that we study the bible in it's native language (as though that is an easy task to figure out all the time) to determine what various words mean.  I guess they mean to suggest that god could not figure out that there would be a historical line on people stretching on into the future and most would not read the original language.  Is god so dense that he could not figure out how to make sure all generations received the proper nuanced message?  Seems to me that god is kind of stupid in that he can't seem to deliverer  a clear message to much of anybody.

[undercoverbrother]

I expect even less than you.  And of course you don't think my view is accurate.  You simply do not want to be honest to yourself and do the appropriate study of the issue.  It is much easier to be spoon fed an opinion than to take the time and effort to find out for yourself.  And you know little to nothing of my background, so you can label me what you will, matters not to me.  But it is simply an example of your willingness to display willful ignorance.

I thought we were having an interesting conversation. I don't know why you're getting snarky.

[Mike Cl]

I can relate to the sentiment of your outsider view of Christianity. I just don't think it is entirely accurate. No prob. I don't expect anything out of you.

I would like to keep the conversation going.  But look at the above quote and tell me who was being 'snarky'.  You called me an 'outsider' which I took to mean that I could not possibly know what I'm talking about since I know nothing about being christian.  I will be happy to compare my bible study against you or any of your typical christians.  I have been to many churches and was the board president of one for a year and vp for another year. Your other comment--"I don't expect anything out of you." I took to mean that I was probably too dense or biased to understand anyway.  That quote above did not seem to be any kind of conversation starter or displaying a wish to continue. 

Since you don't think my comments were accurate, please tell me why.