HR 535 – Year of the Bible Resolution (billboard)

[pokerfan]

HARRISBURG, PA, March 1 — PA Nonbelievers, Central Pennsylvania’s largest organization of atheists, agnostics and freethinkers, will jointly sponsor with American Atheists a new billboard to be posted in Harrisburg, PA. The billboard will be located at 13th and Paxton Streets.

The “HR 535 – Year of the Bible Resolution” declared by the PA House of Representatives asked us to “study and apply the teachings of the holy scriptures”. After considering the bill, we felt it necessary to highlight one of those teachings and share it with the public in the form of this billboard. It will be posted starting around March 5th for 28 days, and stay up throughout the month of March.



http://www.panonbelievers.org/2012/03/01/press-release-joint-billboard-with-american-atheists/

[rug]

1. A lesson in Biblical literalism brought to you by Americanatheists.org.

[greyl]

2. I bet you say that to all the direct Bible Quotes. ;) nt

[rug]

4. Only to the cute ones.

[greyl]

6. Feel free to interpret HR 535 literally.

Then realize atheists aren't the problem there.

[rug]

7. Oh, that doesn't need interpretation, it's plain enough.

The usual Republican divisive demagoguery.

Realize theists aren't the problem there.

[greyl]

8. lol

rug: Realize theists aren't the problem there.

lololol

[rug]

10. A thoughtful response.

Yes, theists are a greater threat than Republicans.

[greyl]

12. Are you saying the Republicans behind the bill aren't theists?

If you think the bill is a bad idea, let's hear why, and what billboard you'd rather see to make that point.

[rug]

14. I'm saying it's Republicans doing this but the target is not Republicans, but theists.

Former Pastor Ernie doesn't even allude to them.

HARRISBURG, Pa. (WHTM) - Two atheist groups will soon be putting up a billboard to protest a state House resolution proclaiming 2012 the "Year of the Bible."

Ernie Perce of American Atheists Inc. said the Bible is the most hateful book on Earth. His group and the organization Pa. Non-Believers are putting up a billboard that shows an African American man with a slave yoke around his neck. At the top of the billboard is a quote from the book of Colossians in the Bible that says, "slaves, obey your masters."

Perce says it's passages like that one that turned him against the Bible and persuaded him to quit his job as a minister and become an atheist.

"We believe the fastest way for any race of Christians to become an atheist is to just pour through the Bible," Perce said. "The Bible will drive you to atheism."

http://www.abc27.com/story/17061822/atheist-groups-plan-billboard-to-protest-year-of-the-bible-resolution

BTW, what is a "race of Christians"?

[greyl]

22. We both know those behind the bill identify more deeply with their religion

than with their political party.

[dmallind]

13. So - it's all the nonbelievers in the legislature who passed the bill?

[rug]

15. No, it's Republicans.

[deacon_sephiroth]

26. acting out of secular motivations?

or religious zealotry?

[rug]

32. Try political.

[deacon_sephiroth]

33. keep going...

and why does that wooooork?..... pandering tooooooo......

[rug]

34. Passed you,

For whose benefit . . . . ?

[deacon_sephiroth]

36. and off the cliff

and why does that work?

[rug]

37. I'll wait.

[deacon_sephiroth]

38. better yet, hold your breath ;)

[pokerfan]

3. It's metaphorical slavery

[rug]

5. I suppose you accept the literal truth of what follows as well.

22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. 23 Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, 24 since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. 25 Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for their wrongs, and there is no favoritism.

[pokerfan]

11. I will assume that you believe slavery is immoral

My question is why would you believe such a thing?

[rug]

16. It's self-evident.

[pokerfan]

17. oh well, then

[rug]

18. Do you think the immorality of slavery is not self-evident?

[pokerfan]

19. so self evident it apparently never existed

which must be why that not even God Himself bothered to condemn it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_commandments#Maimonides.27_list

[Thats my opinion]

9. How interesting that this group

Last edited Fri Mar 2, 2012, 10:29 PM - Edit history (1)

uses the exact same technique as the worst kind of fundamentalists.--proof texting out of context. It is wrong and stupid no matter who does it.

[laconicsax]

20. Was Paul talking about metaphorical slavery?

[Thats my opinion]

21. Whoever wrote that verse

was speaking out of his own cultural bias. In authentic Paul he says, "there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free,male nor female". The implication spelled out elsewhere is that in Christ all these distinctions have passed away. There is to be born a new social order.

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. But such cultural bias is maintained by many Christian sects to this day

For instance, the majority of Christians belong to sects that insist there is a distinction between male and female, and therefore refuse to allow women to hold the highest offices of priesthood.

[Sal316]

24. Ahhh...more prooftexting.

You know what I never see?

People who condemn the Bible for slavery never seem to mention Exodus 21:16.

“Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession."

Yeah, the Bible so did not endorse the slave trade.

[deacon_sephiroth]

25. oo oo oo, are we doing bible contradictions?

oh pleeeeeease let's do bible contradictions! I've got those for daaaaaays.

Isn't it interesting how the sacred holy trext of the one true god doesn't make a lick of sense one page to the next?

[skepticscott]

27. What you've also never seen

Is God condemning slavery as a great moral evil anywhere in the Bible. Despite spending huge chunks of time dictating "thou shalts" and "thou shalt nots", nowhere does God condemn or forbid slavery. Nor does Jesus in the New Testament.

Gee..wonder why that is? Or why anyone would worship such a morally bankrupt deity?

[trotsky]

28. Sal, you're prooftexting!

Shall we look at the rest of Exodus 21? I mean, it's all about CONTEXT, right?

Verses 2-4: "If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free."

Verses 7-8: "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed..."

And this doesn't even begin to note that your out-of-context verse, 16, is right in the middle of all those other rules we laugh at, like "eye for an eye" and everything else that enlightened Christians like yourself tell us most certainly do not apply anymore.

[Goblinmonger]

29. Oooooh SNAP!

I like it more when you're here.

[trotsky]

30. I'll try some in small doses this time. ;-)

[cleanhippie]

35. Welcome back, trotsky, and what an entrance to boot!

Well done. You have been missed.

[2ndAmForComputers]

40. Post 31 shows just how much trotsky rocks.

[trotsky]

63. Aw shucks, I can't take credit for that.

But I do like a lot of the people here and missed the interaction with them.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

47. Now that was righteous.

[Sal316]

31. I quit.

I'm done.

I've had my fill of the bitterness, the anger, and the bile.

I'm done with condemnations of liberal believers as irrational, weak, and misguided.

The rationalization, justification, and approval of the patently offensive billboard depicting slavery was my final straw.

There are those here find it easy to condemn "others" for the same behaviors their own group(s) act out. These are the same group(s) that portray themselves as being more ethical, more moral than "those" when, in fact, they're residing in the same mudhole.

There are certain things that are wrong, period.

The true test is whether you're willing to speak out against those wrongful actions when they come from the group(s) you ally yourself with. There are those that failed this test in a spectacular fashion.

I harbor no ill will towards anyone in this community, one I've been a part of for over a decade now.

I'm just tired.

It's time to shower.

[laconicsax]

39. Good luck with your munitions R&D.

[trotsky]

62. Sorry to see you leave. No, really.

Because I had hope that you might begin to understand how hollow your accusations of prooftexting ring when you engage in the exact same behavior. You pick and choose the parts of the bible you like and that reinforce what you want to believe, just like every other Christian in existence. The sooner y'all realize this, the closer we might be to a breakthrough.

[laconicsax]

65. You don't understand, trotsky.

When Sal does it, it's Sophisticated Theology™.

[humblebum]

41. The clear reason that the Bible does not condemn or endorse slavery

is because slavery was a very normal part of virtually all societies at that time. Many slaves were the spoils of war and many sold themselves into slavery as a matter of survival. And the PA Atheists are either absolutely ignorant or attempting to manipulate public opinion by posting the advertisement. Ridiculous, offensive, and shameful.

[laconicsax]

42. Yes, the fact that slavery isn't condemned by the Bible is ridiculous, offensive, and shameful. n/t

[humblebum]

43. Aristole's theory of slavery

is found in Book I, Chapters iii through vii of the Politics. and in Book VII of the Nicomachean Ethics

Aristotle raises the question of whether slavery is natural or conventional. He asserts that the former is the case. So, Aristotle's theory of slavery holds that some people are naturally slaves and others are naturally masters. Thus he says:

But is there any one thus intended by nature to be a slave, and for whom such a condition is expedient and right, or rather is not all slavery a violation of nature?

There is no difficulty in answering this question, on grounds both of reason and of fact. For that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but expedient; from the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule.

[laconicsax]

44. Did you seriously call slavery both necessary and expedient?

No one is naturally a slave and no one is naturally a slave-master. There is no inherent quality of a person that marks them as being best fit for slavery or otherwise.

To believe otherwise is to believe that the founding principle of this country, that all are born equal, is false and unnatural. It is a rejection of fundamental human rights that no place in modern society, let alone on a Democratic discussion board.

[humblebum]

49. No I didn't, but Aristotle did. And that demonstrates just how normal the social status

of slavery was 2000 or so years ago. In any writings from that period, it's existence is rarely questioned or given a second thought, therefore it not unusual for it not to be condemned in the Bible. Slaves were merely another class of individuals who were being addressed. This group of radical atheists is merely distorting reality for their own purposes.

[Warren Stupidity]

51. Aristotelians do not claim that his utterances were divine.

Quite the opposite, his views were all subject to debate.

[humblebum]

52. Who said they did? But, the study of any culture in that period

shows that slavery was a normal part of societies.

[Goblinmonger]

54. So the bible is just cultural and not divine?

You don't see any problems with that text as a basis for a religion and making decisions in life based on that religion?

[Bluenorthwest]

56. This is the key hypocrisy of those who deny what is really in the 'Scriptures'...

Anything they do not like they declare is 'historical material that no longer applies' while anything that they want to force on others is called 'the Word of God'. Thus, all the material regarding women and slavery 'no longer counts' while they take the next passage and claim it is 'inspired' and 'the law'. Those who will point at some Pauline passage to condemn gay people while they finger lick and edit the parts they simply reject and don't wish to follow are the worst people on the planet. Yes, the worst of all peoples on the planet, for they use that which they call holy as a tool of personal agenda. And they do so without any standing withing their Scriptures, none at all.
The Scripture itself says you can not cut any of it, nor add so much as a comma. So all that stuff they don't like is 'God's Word' if any of it is. They need to deal with that.

[Warren Stupidity]

58. again missing the difference. Obviously intentionally.

[laconicsax]

61. So the Bible isn't anything more than a product of it's time.

That's two unexpected revelations from you--that you agree with Aristotle's view on slavery and that the Bible isn't anything more than an old book of fables.

I see you're running away from the first part of that too.

[humblebum]

67. I agree with neither of your assertions and am running from nothing, however

you have created an enormous red herring for yourself. I merely quoted Aristotle to prove my point. How you care to spin it, I have no control over.

[laconicsax]

69. You can't have it both ways.

Either you were quoting Aristotle to prove that the Bible is a product of the times in which it was cobbled together or you weren't. You can't have it both ways.

If the Bible isn't the product of it's time, then you couldn't have been quoting Aristotle to prove that it was.

[humblebum]

70. I have clearly stated my case, and really don't have clue what you are driving at.

The Bible is many things. It documents historical attitudes and conditions at the time in which it was written and it declares certain truths which are timeless. So, to say that it was a product of the times - it is true that it was not written yesterday. It not only documents how things were 2000 years ago, but how they were centuries before that time.

Nowhere in the Bible are Christians told to have slaves, nor are they condemned for not owning slaves. What it shows is that slavery existed in that time frame, period. And, Aristotle's quote adds to the evidence of that fact.

[deacon_sephiroth]

85. if that's your agruement then you eitehr miss the point, or it's a strawman

your arguement (time and time and tiem again) is that slavery existed, and that seems to be all you are saying.
SURPRISE! No one is arguing that, as it would be complete lunacy to do so.
Good, now that's out of the way,

Everyone else is arguing this:

The bible seems to endorse slavery, and even if we agree that it does not DIRECTLY endorse slavery it certainly does not condemn it. You've already stated yourself many times that it does not, so we're clear here and can move on again.

So what everyone is saying is THIS: Here's your bible, the moral guidebook to all humanity inspired by it's one and only creator/judge/jury/exicutioner. It's the only written set of instructions God's ever left us or ever will by the looks of it. So why DOESN'T it have a problem with slavery? Yes, people were doing it, in some ways people still are, and may yet in the future. It's clearly something humans are capable of, if not sickeningly predisposed to. So if the book is so wise, and so holy, and so right, then why omit this bit, it seems like a gimme.

Posting Aristotle, or any other regular old human author randomly talking about slavery doesn't prove anything exept for "slavery existed back then" something NO ONE IS ARGUEING, as we've established. Also it weakens your position by comparing your text, which is supposed to be derived from SUPREME MORAL AUTHORITY to other normal works of literature. That just begs the question, of "so what's the difference between the bible and Harry Potter?"

Let's review shall we (to avoid confusion)

1) - Slavery DID exist in biblical times
2) - The Bible does not condemn the practise
3) - The Bible is God's moral handbook
4) - God is perfectly fine with slavery?

[humblebum]

88. Well you are right "that slavery did exist exist." That's really all that needs to be said.

Anything else is mere speculation and subjectivity. Are you still going to spin it to agree with your personal opinion? Probably. Do I agree. No. You still seem to be trying to impose today's standards and morality on an ancient civilization.

[deacon_sephiroth]

89. Just telling you what eveeyone is "driving at"

you seemed lost so I was providing a map back to the topic. I see you've chosen not to go anywhere near it but instead to stay put at "slavery did exist"..... well done sir. You have thoroughly proven and successfully debated a point that no one ever contested... anywhere... ever.

[humblebum]

90. As I added to the last post:

You still seem to be trying to impose today's standards and morality on an ancient civilization.

[deacon_sephiroth]

91. not at all

ancient civilization was what it was.

(time to waste my time drawing the map so it can be ignored)

We're wondering why God seems to be sub-par in the light of today's standards. No point in judging ancient civilization, it's this diety fellow that's got some explaining to do.

[humblebum]

92. You just said that you were judging by today's standards.

Do I believe in evolution? yes. Did God guide that evolution? Yes, I believe that too. Has man and society evolved also? Yep. Has God guided that evolutionary process, too. Yep. Today we consider slavery to be a very evil thing. Thousands of years ago, that was not the case. In any case, you are still applying today's standards to events of the distant past.

The same things can be said about marriage, democracy, hygiene, and many other things. During OT times polygamy was normal. It served a purpose of propagation of the human race. One man, several wives = many more offspring. Achieving a level of stability to be able to form a democracy took a long time. The purpose of circumcision in ancient times was for hygienic purposes - a measure against disease. Today those conditions no longer exist universally, and circumcision is an option.

[deacon_sephiroth]

93. so slavery was a step in social evolution?

If I'm readying this correctly, we have evolved, as a people, race, society etc. I'm assuming your refering to a broader process than just biological, ok so far so good.

We've now evolved beyond slavery as a society... Well yes and no. We may have in Western civilization but human trafficing and the sex slave market still thrives elsewhere, I've seen it. Which itself begs the question that if god if guiding this social evolution why is he leaving some of his children behind?

Either way, the other implication here is that if god is guiding our social evolution, and always has been... if the "slavery phase" was just a step in our evolution (which is still going on), then god guided us to it. So is the new stance: "God gave us slavery, so we could evolve past it"???

[humblebum]

94. Listen, I certainly don't have all of the answers, but according to the Bible

this present world is a very imperfect one with much evil in it, but good still exists in it, too.

[laconicsax]

95. What makes you think the Bible is a reliable guide to the present?

It's a collection of myths, superstition, long-rejected attitudes, and rituals for animal slaughter.

What part of that says, "guide for living in the 21st century" to you?

[humblebum]

96. Your opinion is yours, not mine.

"Myths, superstition, long-rejected attitudes" - subjective opinion and very debatable. Rituals for animal slaughter -very Old Testament.

[laconicsax]

100. And out come the fundamentalist views.

I revel in the opportunity to break it to you that the book of Genesis isn't a historical account. It's a collection of myths.

I also revel in the opportunity to break it to you that the explanation of where rainbows come from is superstition, not fact, especially since the story it comes from is one of those myths.

The Biblical attitudes towards reciprocal justice, women, children, homosexuality, and slavery are no longer accepted, (at least they shouldn't be by anyone on this board). You've spent much of this subthread pointing out that no one accepts the Biblical view on slavery anymore. Are you going back on that?

So, we have myths, superstition, and long-rejected attitudes.

[humblebum]

103. Your opinion is your opinion, not mine. Out come the militant atheist views.

We were probably so focused on slavery because that was the topic at hand.

[laconicsax]

104. Yes, those militant atheist views that the Bible isn't literally true.

[humblebum]

105. Where did I say that it was all literally true? I am merely stating that one of the POV

that I least accept is the atheist POV. It's that same old problem of the very narrow epistemology and methods used to arrive at your conclusion. IOW full of hot air. I think these latest billboard campaigns will cement many people's attitudes about radical atheism, as well they should.

[laconicsax]

106. So when you denied that the Bible isn't literally true, what were you implying?

I said of the Bible, that it was "a collection of myths, superstition, long-rejected attitudes, and rituals for animal slaughter."

You said that my assessment was a "subjective opinion and very debatable."

When I replied by naming the myths, superstition, and long-rejected attitudes (at least one of which you agree is long-rejected), you countered by calling this recitation of facts "militant atheist views."

I mocked your hilarious assertion that stating well-known historical facts is somehow an atheist view. You're now trying to change the subject to your favorite broken record about positivism.

So, there you have it. You twice rejected the notion that the Bible is not literally true, once by calling it "subjective opinion and very debatable" and by again by rejecting the facts offered in support as "militant atheist views." While you never explicitly said "the Bible is literally true," you certainly implied it by denying its negation.

[humblebum]

107. Quite the line of blather there. Are you sure you didn't confuse yourself?

Any broken record responses are in response to your broken record assertions. And these "well known historical facts" of which you speak, would you care to name them and elaborate. And if indeed they are facts, then of course, you can provide objective primary source data to support your facts.

[laconicsax]

108. There you go again! You're contesting the claim that the Bible isn't literally true.

Are you seriously insisting that I prove to you that the creation stories in Genesis, the expulsion from Eden, Noah's Ark, Tower of Babel narratives, etc. aren't literally true?

I do get a kick out of a word-for-word recap of our conversation is "blather."

[humblebum]

109. Then you should not be calling something historical fact, that isn't. Nowhere did

I say that the entire Bible was literally true. But many of the stories may have their basis in real events. The "fact" is that we really do not know the whole story. Some may be compilations of facts and legends. Some may have been told in a manner that ancient cultures would be more likely to understand.

[laconicsax]

110. You keep denying that the Bible isn't literally true!

Let's settle it.

Yes or no: Do you believe that the Bible is literally true?

[humblebum]

111. You seem to be using a double negative in your question.

When you said, "You keep denying that the Bible isn't literally true", are you really asking the question,"Are you denying the Bible is literally true?" In any case, I haven't denied anything. Some things I believe are literally true. Some things are metaphorical, I believe. And I imagine some parts are stories passed down verbally over generations before they were recorded. However, I do believe there is an element of truth to the entire Bible. I think the closer one gets to the New Testament the more likely there is a literal truth.

The truths about radical atheism are much more easy to validate, however. And, denials abound.

[laconicsax]

112. Yes or No: Do you believe the Bible is literally true?

You're clever enough to understand a double negative. I state that the Bible isn't literally true and you contest (deny) it. It's basic logic to understand that when you negate a negation, you confirm the proposition:

In this case, the proposition is "the Bible is literally true." Let's call that B. The negation of that is "not B" or ¬B. Negating a negation ¬(¬B) is logically equivalent to saying that B is true, and it can be explained easily as thus:

If B is true, then ¬B is false; the Bible is literally true.
If ¬B is true, then B is false; the Bible is not literally true.

I have consistently held that ¬B is a true statement. (the Bible is not literally true). You keep contesting that and each and every time you deny that ¬B is a true statement, you are logically saying that B is true, the Bible is literally true

Simple, straightforward logic.

[humblebum]

113. You are just kinda stumbling all over yourself trying

to pigeon hole every book of the Bible into one tidy yes or no. Do I believe every book and every story or parable to be literally true? I have already said no. Do I believe a great deal of it to be literally true? Yes. Do I believe it to be, in it's entirety, the word of God? Yes.

[laconicsax]

115. Thank you for admitting your fundamentalist views. n/t

[humblebum]

116. As well yours. nt

[laconicsax]

121. I don't think you understand what certain words mean.

But that's ok.

[humblebum]

123. I think we are both aware of what certain words mean.

[Arugula Latte]

130. So is it the word of God or the word of the dudes you said wrote it: Matthew, Mark, Luke et al.?

Having it both ways once again.

[pokerfan]

45. So you're saying that God pays attention to opinion polls?

That He must test the waters before issuing a commandment? Surely God is His omnipotence could have simply told the Hebrews, "Hey, don't do that anymore!" It could have been the 614th commandment:

http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm

Ridiculous, offensive, and shameful.

You see, I think the shameful thing is the actual practice of owning human beings as property.

[humblebum]

50. Then you should be talking to your own ancient ancestors who lived back then,

because strong chances are that they accepted slavery without question, too, as did all of our relatives. To apply today's standards to the times and events of 2000 years ago is foolish. Was slavery universally considered an evil back then? No, it was a normal state of existence in society. Black churches realize the fact and have every right to be offended by the PA Atheists.

[Bluenorthwest]

57. And yet the 'faith community' takes other parts of Scripture and demands that we

today adhere to them as 'the Word of God' while they claim the part next to it is 'just historical material which no longer applies'. How nice for them, that all the laws regulating their actions are 'historical' and the rules for others are 'The Word of God'.
That way, women who are in the Scripture told they must not speak in the gathering nor wear costly garments, nor question any man freely declare they are 'Ministers' and preach to churches filled with men, wearing fine silk suits, and they condemn gay people using the same authors who also say all she does is wrong.
It is a stark hypocrisy and a contradiction that the 'faith community' needs to own, needs to deal with honestly. Excuses do not cut it. You do not get to cite Paul as God in regard to others then reject Paul as a curiosity when when his words apply to you. No one outside that community will accept that as rational or decent.

[humblebum]

73. And not one word or complaint proves that there is no deity, and yet

some atheists persist in their condemnation and bigotry toward particular religious groups, when they, themselves have no case.

You are certainly entitled to your views, but I do not share them.

[pokerfan]

72. So much for divine revelation then

I agree with you then, the bible was written by human beings and simply reflects the culture of the time.

[humblebum]

74. Partially you are correct, and much of it is also timeless. And that is why so many value it.

[pokerfan]

76. And lot of it is disgusting

But not surprising given that it's a work of men.

[Humanist_Activist]

81. Really, which parts are timeless, and which aren't?

How do you tell the difference between the two?

[humblebum]

86. Faith, hope, charity, compassion, love ...

[Goblinmonger]

98. Oh, the good stuff.

The asshole stuff is just tossed off because it is "of the time." How's that saying go...."How convenient."

[humblebum]

99. I think you are confusing it with 'The Atheist's Handbook,' which has all those

other things you are referring to and so much more recent and timely.

[Goblinmonger]

114. Yeah, but unlike you,

I don't argue that the shitty things atheists have done are just metaphoric or "of the times."

[humblebum]

127. You mean to say that radical atheist's actions are real and

they are still doing them? WOW!

[Goblinmonger]

131. Depends on what you are talking about.

I don't think we have a Stalin around. He was an atheist (though I would still contend did not do what he did because of his atheism), though some might argue that Dawkins is just like him.

[deacon_sephiroth]

84. much of it is timeless... in the context of it's time! n/t

[humblebum]

53. "the shameful thing is the actual practice of owning human beings as property."

Couldn't agree more, and that is why it is so shameful to even suggest that Christianity encourages slavery. No more so than Judaism encourages slavery. But 2000 years ago you would probably thought of slavery as a normal part of society.

[Goblinmonger]

55. So when did God figure out it was bad?

Because the Bible is touted as the word of God in most Christian religions.

[laconicsax]

64. You're only right if scripture isn't part of a religion.

The holy books of both Christianity and Judaism encourage slavery. The OT even has God telling the Hebrews to take slaves from their neighbors.

[humblebum]

66. Yes, and that was thousands of years ago, and that is my point.

back then it was a very common practice, which I have consistently stated. It was the norm of virtually all societies.

[laconicsax]

68. Try hundreds, not thousands.

You do know that the Church helped start the West African slave trade, right?

[humblebum]

71. Then, you also know that Christianity was a driving force in the abolition movement.nt

[Humanist_Activist]

80. Actually, very few of the abolitionists, particularly in the United Kingdom and United States...

used the Bible as justification for abolishing slavery. Usually they argued from an economic and/or from secular moral(Human rights) standpoint. Yes, many of them were Christian, and many of them were clergy, however, that doesn't mean their arguments was based on those criteria.

[humblebum]

101. I beg to differ. The Second Great Awakening spawned many new abolitionists -

tent meetings and bible thumpers.

"Abolitionism had a strong religious base including Quakers, and people converted by the revivalist fervor of the Second Great Awakening, led by Charles Finney in the North in the 1830s. Belief in abolition contributed to the breaking away of some small denominations, such as the Free Methodist Church.
Evangelical abolitionists founded some colleges, most notably Bates College in Maine and Oberlin College in Ohio." Wiki

Verses such as Mathew 25:40 was quite commonly used - "Whatever you do unto the least of my brethren, you do unto me?" History books are filled with firey anti-slavery speeches based on Scripture.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

48. You do know that you just acknowledged that the Bible was written by men, right?

[humblebum]

75. Yes, Mathew, Mark, Luke, John, Moses, Paul, etc., were men. Very perceptive of you. nt

[UnrepentantLiberal]

77. You left out the monks that added scripture

hundreds of years later.

[laconicsax]

87. OYG! You don't actually believe that the Gospels were written by their namesakes, do you?

...do you?

[Goblinmonger]

97. It just gets better and better, doesn't it? n/t

[humblebum]

102. Most likely they were. Too much duplicity and questionable, biased research by skeptics

and atheists.

[cleanhippie]

117. Careful, humblebum, you are letting your hatred show...

Or do you not know what "duplicity", "questionable" , and "biased" mean?

[humblebum]

118. Now that was uncalled for. nt

[cleanhippie]

119. "Too much duplicity and questionable, biased research by skeptics and atheists."

You're right, it wasn't called for, you screamed for it.



Or do you not know what "duplicity", "questionable" , and "biased" mean?

[laconicsax]

122. C'mon cleanhippie.

Everyone knows that theologians and Biblical scholars are all atheists trying to dupe faithful Christians into doubting that the Bible is the literal word of God.

[Aerows]

134. Oh My.

My attention to this thread was brought upon by Jury service. I couldn't believe what I was reading. Didn't you know that EVERYONE is trying to dupe faithful Christians? Didn't you know that everyone who picks up the Book understands the WORD OF GOD better than everyone else?

You "people" are horrible Christians for believing that the "Word of God" could be interpreted any way except how the person you are railing against means it! God's word is sacrosanct, and this person is the TRUE BELIEVER and INTERPRETER of Christ's message.

I didn't say any of that with a straight face, and I'm fleeing the Religion forum because it scares the shit out of me.

[humblebum]

125. And just which one of those is synonymous with hatred? nt

[cleanhippie]

126. Used in conjunction to smear and demean all atheists, you expose your hatred.

[humblebum]

128. And just where did I ever smear and demean all atheists? And there you go

making that accusation again. Highly unnecessary. You act as though criticism of atheism is automatically hatred, or not to be allowed here. Who was it that told me that I have no right not to be offended? Just because I criticized certain research methods and opinions hardly equates to hatred. Nonetheless, I still hold that opinion about the methods and findings.

[cleanhippie]

129. "Too much duplicity and questionable, biased research by skeptics and atheists."

Why do you hate atheists so much?

[laconicsax]

120. LOL!

Cite your sources.

[cleanhippie]

124. He can't do that, as his "sources" are those "other ways of knowing."

[humblebum]

132. I hate to tell you, but much of your evidence against the Bible is drawn from"other ways of knowing"

[cleanhippie]

133. Yeah, you keep telling yourself that.

When reality becomes an "other way of knowing", let's talk. Until then, you are only perpetuating a delusion.

[Bluenorthwest]

59. The OT and NT each contain many rules as to how slaves are to get sold or purchased

as well as much material regarding the slave's attitude toward the master. Many people would say that any source which codifies slave trade and regulates the how and who and why of slavery does in fact endorse that institution. The fact is, it says there is a 'right way' and a 'wrong way' to do slavery. The same God at the same time ordered his followers to cease worship of idols instantly. Idol worship was a normal part of virtually all societies at that time. God did not tell them how to worship idols and how not to, he just commanded that they stop it, now. Tell me why idol worship was condemned in an instant, flying in the face of all cultural norms, while slavery was codified, they were taught a 'right way to trade in humans'.

[humblebum]

79. Yes, slavery was a normal part of virtually all cultures at that time. nt

[deacon_sephiroth]

82. which as you've worked so hard to establish...

makes it alright! yaaaaaaaay!

[Bluenorthwest]

60. Then why does it condemn many dietary practices that were normal parts of society at

the time? Also sartorial and tonsorial practices, farming methods. The Scripture is filled with many,many things which God commands his own not to do which were the norm in all society at the time. A huge element of the early story is how God 'set apart' the Children of Israel, commanding them to actions no other group took at the time. In fact, the idea of a single God, one that is not seen was in itself against the entire norm of society at the time. Did God say 'stop worshiping idols when it goes out of style, and when others stop eating shell fish, you should too.'? No, he said 'I command you'.
Note that he did not command an end to human slavery. He did command an end to worshiping idols, eating pork, many hair cuts, styles of clothing, holidays, marriage rules, you name it, God changed it all on the Mountain with Moses. He did not address slavery. He did address many things. Just not slavery.

[humblebum]

78. The NT condemns no diet. nt

[deacon_sephiroth]

83. nor slavery n/t

[The Straight Story]

46. This lesson brought to you by the US govt and it's constitution (nt)