National Geographic's Slavery article

[Pahansiri]

Re: heh

"You are asking us to show you where Christianity claims to have a superior moral code?!? The whole bit about how Jesus is the one and only way to Heaven just didn't faze you a bit, eh?"

That is *your* interpretation of if. In fact, "Christianity" does not say specifically what you are claiming it does.

With respect T'ai Chi if I may ask and do so with respect what then is your interpretation of:
"I am the way the truth and the life; NO MAN cometh unto the Father BUT BY ME." -- Jesus Christ (John 14:6)

 

[T'ai Chi]

Re: Re: heh

With respect T'ai Chi if I may ask and do so with respect what then is your interpretation of:
"I am the way the truth and the life; NO MAN cometh unto the Father BUT BY ME." -- Jesus Christ (John 14:6)

Unless Jesus said "we have a superior moral code", then you are interpreting the Bible how you want to.

 

[The Mad Linguist]

Re: Re: Re: heh

Unless Jesus said "we have a superior moral code", then you are interpreting the Bible how you want to.

Now you're actually making a relevant point against the argument at hand, namely that one of its premises is incorrect, the premise that "Christianity claims to have a superior moral code" is incorrect.

However, it's not a very good point.

On what planet, exactly, do you live?

Have you never heard a Christian argue that without belief in God, there is nothing to stop an atheist thieving, raping and murdering?

Have you never heard the Christian right's pronouncements on Islam ("a very wicked religion" or somesuch, wasn't it?)

Have you never heard the Christian claim that "sin" (ie wrongdoing) is to be defined as disobedience to God's will?

Have you never heard Christians claim that the Ten Commandments are the basis of all morality and even of the Law?

In spite of the relative sanity of many individual Christians, Christianity as a whole has consistently claimed - in a million ways - that their morality is derived from God, and that it is therefore inherently superior to secular ethics.

Jesus didn't say "we have a superior moral code". It's his followers who say that, based on the notion that the moral code came from the mouth of Jesus who was God.

 

[Yahzi]

Re: Re: Re: Re: heh

Jesus didn't say "we have a superior moral code". It's his followers who say that, based on the notion that the moral code came from the mouth of Jesus who was God.

With all due respect, he most certainly did. It's not just an interpretation by his followers.

Now I agree that he did not utter the phrase, "superior moral code." But that's because the man didn't speak English.

When Jesus said, "I am the way the truth and the life; NO MAN cometh unto the Father BUT BY ME," (which of course he never actually said, since that phrase is in English, and he did not speak English), he made it clear that it was his way or the highway to hell. Now I agree that isn't quite the same sentiment as "our moral code is superior to yours." It's more of the sentiment of "our moral code is the only moral code, and everything else is gibberish and lies." But the second statement stands as a logical subset of the first, so I think it's fair to conclude that Jesus did say his moral code was superior.

If the meaning of a text cannot be translated into other words, then the idea of meaning itself becomes meaningless.

Edit: not to detract in any way from your point to Tai Chi. I particularly liked the "what planet" line.

 

[The Mad Linguist]

True Yahzi, I basically meant "he didn't say those specific words". You're dead right, it's certainly implicit in some of the things he's reported to have said.

 

[LeFevre]

So Christians (well, some anyway) don't think that they have a superior moral code. I cannot infer this from things they say or claim, they must state it flat out, word for word.

I am glad that is cleared up.

 

[ceo_esq]

I gather that the sola fide crowd (which is a lot of Christians) don't interpret Jesus' statement about "no man cometh unto the Father except by me" as being any sort of reference to a moral code, for the simple reason that they don't think anyone "cometh unto the Father" through following any such code. In fact, although one could interpret it in several ways, Jesus arguably seems to be saying in that passage that his new religion is not really about moral codes, it's about him personally.

 

[ceo_esq]

We've discussed many aspects of the relationship between religion and slavery in a thread entitled "The evolution of religious and secular morality".

Clearly, early Christians and early Christian institutions condoned slavery, and even in the 19th century some Christians resorted to Scriptural authority to resist abolition.

On the other hand, let's consider the overall picture:

- Christian theology began to develop antislavery doctrines soon after the fall of Rome, and these played a great role in the eventual disappearance (or close to it) of slavery in most of Christian Europe
- When the European secular powers later instituted slavery in the New World, they did so over vigorous objections from the Church.
- Abolition of European participation in the slave trade and the eventual abolition of slavery itself in the United States (and in other places in the New World) were initiated and largely accomplished by religious activists.

Christian moral philosophy was pretty much in the vanguard on the abolition issue, a point that was established in the other thread. While some denominations may have resisted U.S. abolition on religious grounds, so far as I can see the historical record suggests overwhelmingly that the net historical influence of the Christian "moral code" has been to accelerate the eradication of slavery.

 

[The Mad Linguist]

ceo_esq, I wasn't trying to redo that argument. I don't have a particularly strong opinion on the matter myself. I was just trying to explain the argument to T'ai Chi before he jumped in with both feet.

 

[thaiboxerken]

However, despite the actions of some individuals within Christianity, Christianity as a whole did not oppose it. The Bible was actually used to support the practice.

Not only that, but the bible contains within a set of rules on how to treat your slaves.

 

[Pahansiri]

Re: Re: Re: heh

Unless Jesus said "we have a superior moral code", then you are interpreting the Bible how you want to.

Greetings T'ai Chi.

My friend I believe one need not look any further then this very passage to disprove your position here.

"I am the way the truth and the life; NO MAN cometh unto the Father BUT BY ME." -- Jesus Christ (John 14:6)

1- it clearly says Christ is THE way to TRUTH and LIFE, this clearly meaning the ONLY way.
2- To support the belief that he is “the only way” we find in the words NO MAN cometh unto the Father BUT BY ME."
3- The highest goal by Christians is to be with God, only the most “ superior moral code" and belief would get one there.

It seems you may be playing word games as to "we have a superior moral code" meaning you are saying he never said they do but only but believing in Christ can you get to heaven.

This is believed by many Christians and is a extremely sad belief in that it clearly cast a light on their God that “he” is consumed with his ego, his self desires and indulgence.

This would make “him” an unfit father for all who look at him as the father of all people. To love a child that may do much wrong but worship him, massage his ego and then to harm a child that was loving to all other beings and did its best. That would be truly sad.

But, there are many holes in that belief lets look to the Judeo-Christianity, moral base, the 10 commandants.

ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'

TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'

THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'

FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'

The first 4 are all ego based, placing the fathers needs before that of the children’s wellbeing.

FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.'

SIX: 'You shall not murder.'

SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.'

EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'

NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'

TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.

A note here as to the religion slavery, in the 10 we find a condoning of slavery.

Now here in the Judeo-Christianity, moral base we find the first 4 of the 10 all to please God, now if the only way to God is through Christ
"I am the way the truth and the life; NO MAN cometh unto the Father BUT BY ME." -- Jesus Christ (John 14:6)

Then it seems clear that it is the belief of the Book that the highest moral code is the one from the highest/superior source, God.


Do you believe there is a superior being to your God or a source for a moral code that could be given by one more superior or equal to God?



Who do you consider to be part of the real Christianity? Many I would say most believe they do have the highest some do not I would assume so are they ones who do not as you do “real” Christians and the rest not?

As Yahzi, and The Mad Linguist point out “he” did not say or you can not find in the OT or NT the phrase "we have a superior moral code" so this is a word game.

Remember many Christian friends often say “ the Bible says love the sinner hate the sin” Well I have often offered a reward for that passage, after much searching and of course not finding it many will say well that is what he means or it is implied”

Here we have just the reverse belief.

 

[elliotfc]

The point isn't that the two are intrinsically linked. The point is that the fact that religion didn't see that slavery was wrong doesn't do much for religion's claims of moral authority.

Eventually it did. Religious ideas take time to develop. Slavery certainly existed before, say, the Jewish/Christian religions.

Humanism didn't start until centuries of the Jewish/Christian religions, and I think it can be said that without Judaism/Christianity there would be no humanistic movement.

What does that have to do with slavery? Probably nothing.

-Elliot

 

[Pahansiri]

Eventually it did. Religious ideas take time to develop. Slavery certainly existed before, say, the Jewish/Christian religions.

Humanism didn't start until centuries of the Jewish/Christian religions, and I think it can be said that without Judaism/Christianity there would be no humanistic movement.

What does that have to do with slavery? Probably nothing.

-Elliot

Greetings elliotfc .

I mean no disrespect but that is illogical, one need only look to Buddhism or Jainism etc to disprove that and I am sure many old beliefs and time where there no religion at all.

As to Buddhism the tipitaka (Skt. tripitaka): The Buddhist Canon is huge, 11 times larger then the OT and NT, there you will find:

1- Not one act of, call for , justification for taking the life of another.
2- Not one act of, call for , justification for taking what is not given.
3- Not one act of, call for , justification for lying. etc
4- The Buddha disbanded the cast system saying all beings were equal and slavery or the owning of another being was wrong.

You make 2 statements

1

Eventually it did. Religious ideas take time to develop. Slavery certainly existed before, say, the Jewish/Christian religions.

This statement would be mainly true.


2-

Humanism didn't start until centuries of the Jewish/Christian religions, and I think it can be said that without Judaism/Christianity there would be no humanistic movement.

This statement would contradict the first and your point.

Humanism is Buddhism, and Jainism etc but this started when the “first humans” or as beings evolved to the human state, when they found it was harmful to hurt another or take from them etc. When tribes lived mainly in peace, where their still battles etc, yes just like today.

Also as it has been pointed out the bibles are full of condoning slavery, beating slaves, killing slaves you can not say this Jewish/Christian religions are the base of the humanistic movement and say the humanistic movement is against and sees that slavery is wrong.

This would be to wish to bake a vanilla cake using only chocolate ingredients.

 

[elliotfc]

Humanism is Buddhism, and Jainism etc but this started when the “first humans” or as beings evolved to the human state, when they found it was harmful to hurt another or take from them etc. When tribes lived mainly in peace, where their still battles etc, yes just like today.

Apologies, I should have been more specific. I was thinking about western humanism.

Also as it has been pointed out the bibles are full of condoning slavery, beating slaves, killing slaves you can not say this Jewish/Christian religions are the base of the humanistic movement and say the humanistic movement is against and sees that slavery is wrong.

Yes you are right. I am a Christian, but my Christian ideas have evolved past the ideas of Jews/Christians who lived hundreds and thousand of years ago.

Western humanism did not arise until hundreds/thousands of years after the OT/NT.

The Western humanitic movement was in many ways, if not all ways, a response to the predominant Western religions. Heck, Voltaire was educated by Jesuits.

-Elliot

 

[Cleopatra]

I gather that the sola fide crowd (which is a lot of Christians) don't interpret Jesus' statement about "no man cometh unto the Father except by me" as being any sort of reference to a moral code, for the simple reason that they don't think anyone "cometh unto the Father" through following any such code. In fact, although one could interpret it in several ways, Jesus arguably seems to be saying in that passage that his new religion is not really about moral codes, it's about him personally.

( bold face mine)




If your last phrase were the case, the teachings of Jesus would be meaningless.

Since Jesus is the Truth and the Life and since he is the only way to reach God, it's His truth that you have to accept in order to achieve that.

Jesus taught his Truth during his journey on Earth, and those teachings were nothing but a moral code.

Now as to the question of the superiority I think that Jesus doesn't even get into that discussion. His truth is not just superior it is the ONLY one.

Just a note. I do not know what translation Panhasiri (I hope I spelled it right this time) who provided the quote uses, but I checked the Greek text and an AND that is quite important is missing.

" I am the way and the Truth and the Life"

John 14:6
legei autw o ihsouV egw eimi h odoV kai h alhqeia kai h zwh oudeiV ercetai proV ton patera ei mh di emou

BTW ceo-esq which edition of Bible do you use?

 

[Checkmite]

The claim is not "religion is slavery". The claim is not "religion caused slavery". The claim is "in the 19th Century religion did not work strongly for the abolition of slavery, which cast doubts on the claim of religion to be a moral authority".

The moral authority of 19th century religion, that is. Since we've decided that a discussion about slavery and religion is confined to the 19th century, then we must also agree that the "lack of moral authority" does not extend into this century.

 

[Pahansiri]

Greetings again elliotfc.

First please know I mean no disrespect to you or your beliefs and thank you for the response.. For what points that I made that you said I was “right” or agreed and mentioned you may have made a mistake in speaking to broadly I give you such great respect and applaud.

Many can not say they have made a mistake or perhaps that were mistaken or another is right, and you here have been very honest and that is to be applaud.

What I know for certain is there is certainly much I do not know and I am often wrong, it took me a long time stop personalizing being wrong or not knowing something.

Anyway, please allow me to comment on some parts of your post just as to my thoughts.

Yes you are right. I am a Christian, but my Christian ideas have evolved past the ideas of Jews/Christians who lived hundreds and thousand of years ago.

I respect that.

Western humanism did not arise until hundreds/thousands of years after the OT/NT.

There are some qualifications her, as in ‘western” etc, ( of course there is no west, no north or south top or bottom but that is another topic). Being that people migrate from all parts of the world one can not really say that say “Western humanism” is solely part of this or that or based in this or that.

In part you are right, as would I as a Buddhist saying my belief is found in “Western humanism” so would the secular humanist saying religion need play no part in humanism.


He may be perhaps most right and as to what would be pure humanism, the desire not to bring harm to any being. This is a base of Buddhism and say jainism etc placing what is know as priority.


For us Buddhism is and is not religion it does not really matter.

For me and what Buddhism believes is the topic of the God idea is irrelevant.

If I do what is good and right and does not cause suffering to myself or others for any other reason then it does not cause suffering to myself or others then it is not moral.

To do what is good and right and does not cause suffering to myself or others for any other to please a God is not moral, if done from fear of a God or punishment is not moral, to do so for a reward is not moral.

The Western humanitic movement was in many ways, if not all ways, a response to the predominant Western religions. Heck, Voltaire was educated by Jesuits.

I respect your belief but do not really agree, but do see how there is some truth to the position.

As to Voltaire, I too was raised and schooled as a Christian but for me even as a small child believed what I do now it was only years later I found what I happened to believe was greatly so “Buddhism” .

Please do also remember this great quote by Voltaire.

The more I read, the more I meditate; and the more I acquire, the more
certain I am that I know nothing.". ... Voltaire

Again thank you for being so honest and may you be well and happy.

 

[elliotfc]

When I read Wilberforce and Frederick Douglas they constantly refer to Jesus and God.

How can this undisputable reality be apologized with the fact that religion and slavery/abolition are two different things?

All I can say for certain is the abolitionist propagandists of the 19th century constantly (maybe ad nauseum?) referred to Jesus and God. Draw whatever conclusions from that as you will.

-Elliot

 

[Pahansiri]

Greetings Cleopatra.

I almost always just the KJV when discussion the Bible so as to stay consistent.

It is my belief that if this book were to be perfect and written or the word of a perfect being there would be only one translation.

There are many languages and translations but a perfect all knowing being would have known this and any possible events in the future that would have arose and caused confusion..

When placing warning labels on something of danger I as just a person of limited intellect would look at all knowable problems that may arise as to people who may read it and seek to cover all bases.

I have many Christian friends who will on word go to the Greek text to fit their personal needs yet return to the Hebrew for others when the Greek text does not fit their personal needs.


Just what I believe.

 

[elliotfc]

Hi Pahansiri, I salute your even-handed and pleasantly direct tone.

I've been studying Hindu mythology this summer. I don't know much about the Buddha/Buddhism (desire is an illusion, is that at the core of Buddhism?), and I was told by someone a couple months back that Buddhism is just a form of Hinduism, similar to how Christianity is a form of Judaism. Would you care to comment on this paragraph? I must admit, again, that I know basically nothing about Buddhism besides the most basic introductory statements about the religion.

Back to the topic at hand.

There are some qualifications her, as in ‘western” etc, ( of course there is no west, no north or south top or bottom but that is another topic). Being that people migrate from all parts of the world one can not really say that say “Western humanism” is solely part of this or that or based in this or that.

Yes you are right. I am just following what is, from the...errr...educational systematic perspective. Even the most culturally diverse minds that I know use the parlance of Western, Eastern etc. I live in America, and I am guilty of assuming that everyone uses American lingo.


In part you are right, as would I as a Buddhist saying my belief is found in “Western humanism” so would the secular humanist saying religion need play no part in humanism.


He may be perhaps most right and as to what would be pure humanism, the desire not to bring harm to any being. This is a base of Buddhism and say jainism etc placing what is know as priority.

For us Buddhism is and is not religion it does not really matter.

Interesting. Do you practice Buddhist rituals? And do you have what you consider "Buddhist" beliefs (meaning the beliefs are recognizably distinct from, say, Hindu or Jewish beliefs?)

Religion is inherently communal, I've been studying anthropology and I can't escape that conclusion. The problem with the word "religion" today is that in many ways it has been transformed into a negative word that people want to distance themselves from. I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with religion. Nor inherently good for that matter. Rituals and beliefs within a community, that's how I define religion.

To do what is good and right and does not cause suffering to myself or others for any other to please a God is not moral, if done from fear of a God or punishment is not moral, to do so for a reward is not moral.

Agreed. The punishment/reward concepts are, I would say, immature. HOWEVER I do not fault others for having those concepts if it helps them on their own personal spiritual journey. If there are objective truths it would BE a self-imposed punishment to not achieve them and it would BE a self-imposed reward to achieve them. From that vantage point punishment/reward is helpful. Fixating on God as punisher/rewarder is not something I can accept, but I don't get too bothered by others who believe that as long as they are honest and sincere searchers for truth.

As to Voltaire, I too was raised and schooled as a Christian but for me even as a small child believed what I do now it was only years later I found what I happened to believe was greatly so “Buddhism”.

Yes, I don't think that "western" ideas and "eastern" ideas are inherently disconnected. Hindus remark that things in Christian theology sound familiar, and vice versa.

The point I tried to make (I'll try again) was simply that I could not conceive that the humanistic movement (beginning in the Renaissance and continuing to evolve) would have had anything interesting to say if not for what the religion of the time (Christianity) was saying and not saying. Perhaps we can imagine a Europe free from the shackles of Christianity (heh heh) and we can next imagine that this Europe could develop a religion similar to Hinduism, or even a form of humanism absent religion. This can be imagined of course, but I am only looking back at European history. The idea that humans had inherent worth was suggested by certain parts of Christian theology (and dare I say the Bible as well).

-Elliot