National Geographic's Slavery article

[The Mad Linguist]

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.

No, that's not true. Let me say this again: the argument is that that Christians do not have a necessarily superior moral code. Full stop. At any time. Ever. This argument is supported by finding examples of things which we recognise today as being immoral which were practiced or not opposed by Christianity. Slavery is such an example.

The "lack of moral authority" does extend into this century. I would not be surprised at all if some of our practices today which are not opposed by Christianity are recognised as immoral by future generations. Obviously, that's something we can't know now (although I suspect that Christian (esp. Catholic) attitudes to homosexuality and contraception are likely candidates).

The point is this: the moral authority of us mere humans evolves and develops over time. This is understandable. But Christianity claims to have a hotline to God, the ultimate source of a divine, unchanging morality. If this is true they should be held to a higher standard than the rest of humanity (e.g. knowing that slavery is wrong before society at large works it out).

They have consistently failed to live up to this higher standard. This suggests that their moral code is not "straight from the horse's mouth", as they claim. It strongly suggests they are working it out as they go along, just like the rest of us.

Of course liberal Christians would agree that they are working it out as they are going along. The point of the argument is that this undermines a large number of claims commonly made about the teachings of Jesus and the Bible, the superior moral nature of Christians, etc.

Anyone who is a Christian who doesn't argue that Christians live by an objectively better moral code than others - fine! we agree! the argument from slavery doesn't apply to you!

 

[elliotfc]

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.

Could any human possibly be able to read or understand anything that a perfect being could write or say?

The Bible is a human book. The human character of the Bible is present on every single page. The Gospels are called the Gospel according to Mark, or Matthew, or Luke, or John. The Bible is the story of God as told by humans, so how could it be "perfect"

If God wanted to write a human book, surely he would have to use a human for the job, because only a human could write a human book, and a human could only read and understand a human book written by another human.

But man CANNOT produce a divine book either through his will alone. That is why we say the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God. It is not God's word only, or man's word only. It is God and man brought together. Sort of like the guy called Jesus.

Can God express thoughts which are beyond the capacity of man to understand? No. That is why Jesus taught in analogies. And that is why the Bible is a human book, yet divinely inspired. All analogies break down eventually, and the Bible can be broken down in many places as well. Yet God and man can be united, and we see that in the Bible and in the person of Jesus.

As always, I only speak for myself, yet I suspect that many Christians would agree with what I said above.

-Elliot

 

[The Mad Linguist]

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

And again, no one is saying they are the same thing. That's not the point.

Let me be very clear:

Religion is not the same thing as slavery

Religion does not cause slavery.

The argument is that if religion were really the hot shakes it claims to be, it would have done a lot more to stop slavery than it actually did do.

That's all.

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.

So did a lot of slave-owners. That's the point. If Jesus and God can be invoked on either side, with equal validity, then what d*mn good are they? If the Christian moral code doesn't tell you reliably whether slavery is good or bad, then what good is it as a moral code?

 

[elliotfc]

No, that's not true. Let me say this again: the argument is that that Christians do not have a necessarily superior moral code.

I agree with you ML. I am not a Christian because of the Christian moral code. I don't think the Christian moral code is inferior, superior, posterior, anterior, interior, whatever. Of course there is a Christian moral code, but I am a Christian for other reasons than how it speaks morally (and it certainly does speak morally).

This argument is supported by finding examples of things which we recognise today as being immoral which were practiced or not opposed by Christianity. Slavery is such an example.

It took way to long for Christians to realize that slavery did not fit with the fundmental Christian message. Yet eventually they did realize this. This happened in the 19th century. I am not aware of non-Christian humanists in the 19th century demanding the slavery be abolished. Lincoln was unfortunately non-committal on the slavery morality question.

The "lack of moral authority" does extend into this century. I would not be surprised at all if some of our practices today which are not opposed by Christianity are recognised as immoral by future generations.

I predict that eventually abortion will be decided by future generations as immoral. Only some Christians believe that abortion is immoral, similar to how only some Christians believed that slavery was immoral in the 19th century.

Obviously, that's something we can't know now (although I suspect that Christian (esp. Catholic) attitudes to homosexuality and contraception are likely candidates).

Catholics ordain homosexuals to the priesthood, and the percentages of Catholics who use contraception coincide with the population at large (I speak only of the American population). Your prediction that these two items of Catholic teaching are likely candidates to *change* (am I reading you right?) is interesting. You might be right. It won't happen in our lifetimes.

The point is this: the moral authority of us mere humans evolves and develops over time. This is understandable.

Yes.

But Christianity claims to have a hotline to God, the ultimate source of a divine, unchanging morality.

All humans have a "hotline to God", it's called the soul. The Church is the dispenser of sacramental grace and doctrine (immaculate conception, etc.). Other Christian faiths believe that it is the Bible and nothing else. It is irresponsible to paint all Christain faith in one foul swoop, do you have any idea how many Christian denominations there are?

If this is true they should be held to a higher standard than the rest of humanity (e.g. knowing that slavery is wrong before society at large works it out).

I agree. I insist that Christianity be hold the highest standard possible.

Again, the abolitionists in the 19th century were Christians, so they were either ahead of the game or just the most vocal and influential. Theists like Thomas Jefferson weren't abolitionists. Yes many Christians were still pro-slavery. The important thing is that the anti-slavery Christians stirred the pot.

They have consistently failed to live up to this higher standard.

Yes we have. But the standard remains, and I will not relinquish the standard. Even if I fall short I will continue to try to achieve the standard. And I am confident that the world let Christians know when they fall short of the standard, for that you have my gratitude.

In my classes I try to "ace" everything. I don't, or rarely do ( ) but I feel it a worthy standard to have.

This suggests that their moral code is not "straight from the horse's mouth", as they claim.

Or it suggests that no human being is perfect and able to achieve continually the standards that they set.

It strongly suggests they are working it out as they go along, just like the rest of us.

I totally agree. We are all in this together, I am not better than anybody else, we are all at war with God, whether we believe in God or not.

The point of the argument is that this undermines a large number of claims commonly made about the teachings of Jesus and the Bible, the superior moral nature of Christians, etc.

I can't control what other people say. If you want me to agree with you that some Christians misunderstand things, you have my agreement. Yet my sympathy is with my fellow Christians, even if they have some ideas wrong. Because if they are sincere and love Jesus who am I to sever with people who share my spiritual yearnings?

Anyone who is a Christian who doesn't argue that Christians live by an objectively better moral code than others - fine! we agree! the argument from slavery doesn't apply to you!

Why didn't humanists inspire the 19th century abolitionist movement?

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

If the Christian moral code doesn't tell you reliably whether slavery is good or bad, then what good is it as a moral code?

A Christian is to see every human being as created in the image of God, is to treat every human being as created in the image of God, and is to attempt to emulate Jesus and the morality that Jesus taught.

Slavery is not compatible with Christianity. I am sorry that some Christians owned slaves, and thought that that was compatible with Christianity. I can't do anything about those people. I believe that if you treat everyone as created in the image of God you won't be anywhere near owning anyone as a slave.

If a scientist (a person who has a phD? a person employed to practice science?) conducts experiments where he fakes stuff or makes stuff up, do you blame the scientist or do you blame science?

I say blame the Christians, and not Christianity. If you can't see the difference, consider that many people blame guys like Pete Rose or Gaylord Perry but they don't blame baseball.

-Elliot

 

[ceo_esq]

It took way to long for Christians to realize that slavery did not fit with the fundmental Christian message. Yet eventually they did realize this. This happened in the 19th century.

The message may have taken a long time to be heeded, but the institutions primarily responsible for articulating the Christian message (in their day) were pointing out the incompatibility between Christianity and slavery in no uncertain terms well prior to the 19th century.

Pope Paul III, in his 1537 decree Sublimus Deus addressing the practice of enslavement of natives in the New World, wrote:

We define and declare … that, notwithstanding whatever may have been or may be said to the contrary, the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect.

Even the Holy Inquisition weighed in on the matter in a ruling issued on March 20, 1686:

It is asked:

Whether it is permitted to capture by force and deceit Blacks and other natives who have harmed no one?
Answer: no.
Whether it is permitted to buy, sell or make contracts in their respect Blacks or other natives who have harmed no one and been made captives by force or deceit?
Answer: no.
Whether the possessors of Blacks and other natives who have harmed no one and been captured by force or deceit, are not held to set them free?
Answer: yes.
Whether the captors, buyers and possessors of Blacks and other natives who have harmed no one and who have been captured by force or deceit are not held to make compensation to them?
Answer: yes.

(Source: Joel S. Panzer, The Popes and Slavery (1996))

 

[Pahansiri]

Greetings elliotfc

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

Thank you for your kind words.

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?),

Desire, cravings cause sufferings.

The first teaching by the Buddha was the 4 noble truths.

The 1st Noble Truth: There are many dissatisfactions in our life.
The first impression people get from a statement like that is that is it is very pessimistic! It is important to note that the Buddha is not saying that there is only dissatisfaction in life. He is just describing what, precisely, is problematic.

The 2nd Noble Truth: There is a cause to these dissatisfactions.
The 2nd Noble Truth tells us about the causes of these dissatisfactions. Craving and Aversion (Greed and Hatred). It is the dissatisfaction with the present that we want to reach out for something else out of Ignorance. We are thus never truly at peace.

The 3rd Noble Truth: There is a way out of these dissatisfactions.
There is a way out of suffering- this is the reason why Buddhism exists! In Buddhism, we call this state, the complete end of suffering, Nirvana. It is the goal of all Buddhists. The next Noble Truth tell us how to reach this state,

The 4th Noble Truth: The Noble 8 Foldpath.
The 4th Noble Truth provides us with a path and teaches us what practical steps to take in order to attain Nirvana ( the end of suffering)


Buddhism teaches and points out that all things are illusions, nothing is and of itself, “self”, nothing.

As Einstein said "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."

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?

At the time of the Buddha / Siddhartha Gotama no religion called Hinduism existed, Brahminism did and evolved later into Hinduism.

But no Buddhism is not just a form of Hinduism. There are things similar in both as there are similar truths or things believed to be truths in all things.

The Buddha as I has said rejected the idea of a God or Gods, found it irrelevant and illogical, but would not say to someone who held the God idea or belief dear that he was wrong and lost. He was asked how best to serve God by a man who believed in God and the Buddha told him to best sever God love all he created. Clearly the Buddha did not believe in this God but his love and respect for this man was used to teach him a lesson in the way he could best understand.

There are many things rejected by the Buddha that is the belief of the Brahmans and now Hindus such as the cast system etc just to name a few.

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.

Yes I know what you mean, where ever we are we come to believe that is the center of the universe, that is of course illusion.

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?)

Sometimes as it is like a tool and I enjoy them. I was a elite athlete in several sports I did say perhaps hundreds of pushups and sit-ups etc, none of these pushups or sit-ups were the sport event.

The Buddha is very clear about ceremonies etc.
According to the Buddha, one should not cling to such practices for his spiritual development or mental purity or emotional satisfaction through religion.

Even to the teachings of Buddhism the Buddha Dharma the Buddha says not to carry it around like a raft on your shoulders, when it has been used to cross the river ( reach the goal) abandon it.


The rituals in Buddhism are really more to do with the many cultures.

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.

True for many.

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.

True to a point but a belief on a whole can not fully be based on how parts are in some cultures and in others.

For us as Buddhist there is one Buddha Dharma and all Buddhist regardless of sect will practice together.

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.

I agree in part and people may need things where they happen to be in their life, causes and conditions.

This is why Buddhist have never sought to convert and see no need to we seek not to judge other beliefs and see no need to, this is to say Buddhism does not, some Buddhist may. I still due to ego get caught up in it.

BUT, we due to belief of rebirth believe one will attain full awakening in “time” there is no need to “save” anyone because no one has that power.

"By oneself, indeed, is evil done; by oneself is one defiled. By oneself, indeed, is one purified. Purity and impurity depend on oneself. No one purifies another." (Dhammapada 165)

All we can do is plant the seeds of loving kindness, respect and compassion through our actions, these seeds like all seeds will take root, grow and flower when the causes and conditions are correct.

Nothing to fear, fear is an illusion a self limiting and self enslaving illusion..

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.

Perhaps helpful but not truth and moral. The reward must be the fact that it is good and right and causes no suffering to self or others. This means if there is more to come after death or not should not matter in how one acts, for that reason one who believes in nothing after this life yet does right and or gives up his life for another is a MOST moral being.

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.

Well said and to add that they respect others travels and seek not to stand in their way.

Gandhi said very well.


'The atheist who loves and seeks truth above all else is closer to God than those who love ideas they have of God and the definitions of God found in scripture, above truth no matter what truth reveals for truth is God' [Gandhi,]

 

[Pahansiri]

Hello elliotfc


I had written: 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.

You responded;

Could any human possibly be able to read or understand anything that a perfect being could write or say?

Yes, he could say hello, goodbye, the flower is red, it is dark etc out etc, do not steal or as Buddhist say do not take what is not given. Do not say what is not the truth etc.

A perfect being would have the ability to know how to say something that a human could understand, that is part of being perfect, the burden would be on him if it could not be done it would be his flaw not the lesser being.

A father does not tell a child not to hit the don then shoot the dog. He does not say, do not kill your brother then kill his other child.

The Bible is a human book. The human character of the Bible is present on every single page. The Gospels are called the Gospel according to Mark, or Matthew, or Luke, or John. The Bible is the story of God as told by humans, so how could it be "perfect"

I agree as to it is a book by humans as all such books are, I respect your belief it is about “God” and your belief in God I do not share that belief so the above question is not relevant to me.

There are people who and I would say the majority % of Christians, Jews etc that would not agree with you. I have to respect their belief also.

If God wanted to write a human book, surely he would have to use a human for the job, because only a human could write a human book, and a human could only read and understand a human book written by another human.

Some points here.

1-

because only a human could write a human book

Could not an all powerful perfect being do anything? You can not believe “he” could create humans but not write a human book.

2- Again I will say A perfect being would have the ability to know how to say something that a human could understand, that is part of being perfect, the burden would be on him if it could not be done it would be his flaw not the lesser being.

But man CANNOT produce a divine book either through his will alone. That is why we say the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God. It is not God's word only, or man's word only. It is God and man brought together. Sort of like the guy called Jesus.

All I will say here is I respect your beliefs.

Can God express thoughts which are beyond the capacity of man to understand?

Then you believe God is not all powerful, if he wished humans to be, X or Y then it is his fault if they are not X or Y.

Again a baker can not become angry at a cake because it did not come out of the oven a vanilla cake when the baker used chocolate to make it.


I will add a “perfect all knowing mind” is incapable of thought.

Thought means consideration, contemplation, deliberation, reflection to ponder. A mind that knows all has nothing to ponder.

No. That is why Jesus taught in analogies. And that is why the Bible is a human book, yet divinely inspired. All analogies break down eventually, and the Bible can be broken down in many places as well. Yet God and man can be united, and we see that in the Bible and in the person of Jesus.

Again to this I will just say I respect your beliefs.


May you be well and happy my friend.

 

[The Mad Linguist]

elliot,

I won't go into detail since essentially, we agree on this one.

If I read you correctly, you do not claim that Christianity gives you a better moral code than the next guy. (Especially since you say we all, not just Christians, have a hotline to God).

Fine - we agree.

The argument in question is directed at those who DO claim that.

I would point out that there is a significant difference, however, between some Christians failing to live up to the moral code of Christianity and therefore, endorsing slavery, and the moral code itself endorsing slavery. The former is to be expected, the latter, on the hotline-to-God theory, isn't.

I don't know whether or not humanism was involved in the attack on slavery in the C19. It's irrelevant to this argument, anyway, since humanism is a human moral code and is thus quite admittedly working it out as it goes along. I'm not a humanist, by the way.

The slavery argument is directed at those who claim that Christianity is doing something other than working morality out as it goes along, like the rest of us do.

 

[The Mad Linguist]

I'm going to quote the entirety of the following post from Yahzi in another thread, since I think it's relevant:

Yahzi said:
=============================================
Does this sound familiar?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_slav2.htm

1865: The 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States ended slavery.
1866: The Holy Office of the Vatican issued a statement in support of slavery. The document stated that "Slavery itself...is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law...The purchaser [of the slave] should carefully examine whether the slave who is put up for sale has been justly or unjustly deprived of his liberty, and that the vendor should do nothing which might endanger the life, virtue, or Catholic faith of the slave." Some commentators suggest that the statement was triggered by the passage of the 13th Amendment in the U.S. Others claim that the document referred only to a "particular situation in Africa to have slaves under certain conditions," and not necessarily to the situation in the U.S.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Hmm... the US government declares the oppression of a particular class of people to be wrong... the Vatican responds with statements supporting the continued oppression... can anybody think of a recent example of this?

 

[ceo_esq]

I'm going to quote the entirety of the following post from Yahzi in another thread, since I think it's relevant:

Yahzi said:
=============================================
Does this sound familiar?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_slav2.htm

1865: The 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States ended slavery.
1866: The Holy Office of the Vatican issued a statement in support of slavery. The document stated that "Slavery itself...is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law...The purchaser [of the slave] should carefully examine whether the slave who is put up for sale has been justly or unjustly deprived of his liberty, and that the vendor should do nothing which might endanger the life, virtue, or Catholic faith of the slave." Some commentators suggest that the statement was triggered by the passage of the 13th Amendment in the U.S. Others claim that the document referred only to a "particular situation in Africa to have slaves under certain conditions," and not necessarily to the situation in the U.S.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Hmm... the US government declares the oppression of a particular class of people to be wrong... the Vatican responds with statements supporting the continued oppression... can anybody think of a recent example of this?

As I see it, there are two reasonable ways of approaching this.

The first is to view the 1866 instruction as an anomaly in light of the unbroken line of Catholic authority unambiguously condemning slavery going back at least as far as Thomas Aquinas and continuing through pronouncements in 1435, 1493, 1497, 1537, 1591, 1639, 1686, 1741, 1839, 1888 and 1890.

The second is to consider that the 1866 instruction dealt with the very narrow context of penal servitude, contractual (indentured) servitude and servitude of prisoners captured in just wars (the instruction uses the term servitus, somewhat misleadingly rendered as "slavery" in English), which are obviously distinguishable from the phenomenon of slavery in the United States (as you rightly describe it, the oppression of a particular class of people). In this regard I note that the Thirteenth Amendment expressly did not abolish penal servitude.

Either way, it is a great deal more difficult than you seem to realize to base any sort of plausible general argument that the Church supported slavery upon the 1866 instruction.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Either way, it is a great deal more difficult than you seem to realize to base any sort of plausible general argument that the Church supported slavery upon the 1866 instruction.

 

[elliotfc]

Yes, he could say hello, goodbye, the flower is red, it is dark etc out etc, do not steal or as Buddhist say do not take what is not given. Do not say what is not the truth etc.

Hi Pahansiri.

You said the above in response to my statement that God could not write a human book.

I made that statement because I see no evidence that God has ever written a human book. If it could be proven to me that God has ever written a human book, then I would retract the statement. I do no wish to assign "omni" definitions to God. God is what God is. If he doesn't write perfect human books, he doesn't write perfect human books.

God has given every human a conscience/soul, and he became incarnate man and gave his life to reconcile humanity to himself. I ask for nothing more from God, I am satisfied that he has created me and thankful that he experienced human suffering to effect my salvation.

A perfect being would have the ability to know how to say something that a human could understand, that is part of being perfect, the burden would be on him if it could not be done it would be his flaw not the lesser being.

Why should a perfect being know how to write human books? Imperfect beings write human books. I define God by what I believe he has done, and what I reason his nature to me. My reason does not tell me that God is a writer of human books. God is the author of creative life, of creative creatures. If a person who makes space shuttles does not make paper airplanes that does not bother me in the least. Whether God has the ability to write human books or not does not matter to me I suppose. All I know is that God has yet to write human books, and that God as Jesus did not write human books. That leads me to believe that he is not interested in writing human books. However I believe that he is extremely interested in inspiring humans to write human books. Their flaws are not flaws if you think of them as intensely human books, as well as being divinely inspired. All books that I've ever read are intensely human. I've never read a purely divine book, so I reason that such books do not exist. It does no good to blame God, or discredit God, because divine books do not exist. He created me and I am content with that.

-quote]A father does not tell a child not to hit the don then shoot the dog. He does not say, do not kill your brother then kill his other child.[/quote]

Some fathers do though. Perhaps you should say a *good* father does not do those things. Of course I have already said that I do not believe the Bible to be the purely divine perfect book, as others believe. However I do feel aligned with these "others" since I believe it better to see complete divinity in the Bible than to see zero divinity in the Bible.

There are people who and I would say the majority % of Christians, Jews etc that would not agree with you. I have to respect their belief also.

As far as I can tell, the majority of Christians/Jews are not literalist fundamentalists who believe the Bible is the purely divine voice of God. I base this on knowledge of people, and the reading of many books. This is a testable thesis Pahansiri. Tomorrow, encounter 10 Christians/Jews, and ask them if they feel the Bible is the purely divine voice of God, as opposed to a divinely inspired book written by humans. The next day ask 10 more. And then 10 more. After 10 days, I'd be very interested to hear a percentage of response. I will go ahead and conduct this experiment myself, and report back in a couple of weeks.

1- Could not an all powerful perfect being do anything? You can not believe “he” could create humans but not write a human book.

God, I suppose, could tell the funniest knock-knock joke of all time. Has he? When I say God cannot write a human book, I mean to say that he has shown no evidence that he has done so, and when he had the chance as Jesus he passed up the chance. Jesus didn't invent electricity either. I don't worry about what Jesus/God does not do. God doesn't write human books. As for God being perfect, he is by definition perfect, and God as the definition of perfect supercedes any other definition of perfect that would separate God from perfection. "All powerful" needs to be rethought. If God does not want to do something, or does not do something, that does not limit his power. That would be a consequence of his perfection. If God does not rape 1000 earth women every day, does that mean God is not all powerful? My religion forbids me from putting the Lord to the test.

2- Again I will say A perfect being would have the ability to know how to say something that a human could understand, that is part of being perfect, the burden would be on him if it could not be done it would be his flaw not the lesser being.

Now we agree. Jesus said many things that I can understand. Jesus, as far as I know, did not write any books.

Then you believe God is not all powerful, if he wished humans to be, X or Y then it is his fault if they are not X or Y.

He wishes the best for all of us. He did not create mindless automatons with the incapacity to choose contrary to his will. Rather, God felt it important to create creative creatures with the ability to choose evil, and the ability to choose love. Who am I to blame God for that decision? I am a creative being who is glad to be a creative being. I don't want to be a robot. I am not a robot. If you want to assign "fault" to God, that is OK, as long as you also fault the creative beings that we are for choosing evil. Spreading around fault is OK as long as you accept your share. And God did submit to human evil as Jesus, so he did not merely ignore the human problem of evil and suffering and fault.

If someone (man woman whoever) wishes that you, Pahansiri, loves them, and then you love them, how would you feel? If any person on the street makes the wish that you love them, and then you automatically love them, your choice has been taken from you. Your will has been taken over. That is not how God operates, and I would not have him operate that way.

Again a baker can not become angry at a cake because it did not come out of the oven a vanilla cake when the baker used chocolate to make it.

That is why he gave the gift of salvation to humanity. After we die and our sinful souls meet God he will cleanse them for us if we are willing. If we, as a vanilla cake as you put it, are content and adamant in remaining a vanilla cake, he will let us be a vanilla cake. You see permanence in temporary human existence. I think that the temporary human existence must be justified/rectified. So you cake analogy needs to be extended. The cake must be cognizant of itself and the standards of creation, and the cake must be able to choose itself, or the standards.

I will add a “perfect all knowing mind” is incapable of thought.

Thought means consideration, contemplation, deliberation, reflection to ponder. A mind that knows all has nothing to ponder.

How can you know how a perfect all knowing mind would think? Or that it would not think?

Jesus was capable of thought. Therefore God is capable of thought. God's thoughts are translated into creative action. That is my conceptualization of how God thinks. It is on a completely different level from our thinking. Humans ponder because we are confused, are prone to confusion. So I would agree that God does not ponder, or consider, contemplate, deliberate, etc. How he thinks is different from how we think.

It is a pleasure conversing with you. I disagree with your theological sentiments about God. Since you do not believe in God (correct?) I am curious why you are so forthright about your opinions about God. Is it possible to have opinions about what you believe does not exist? If so, then that means that your opinions of God do not exist. And I would agree completely. Pahansiri, your notion of God does not in fact exist. We can, at the very least, agree on that. The God you articulate does not exist.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

The slavery argument is directed at those who claim that Christianity is doing something other than working morality out as it goes along, like the rest of us do.

Fair enough ML.

If I may editorialize...

Any Christian who does not believe that Christian morality does not evolve needs to consider several points:

1) Jesus did not write any books, or, any extant books.
2) The ideas of Jesus were therefore filtered through others, either others who talked with Jesus (ie Peter) or others who talked with people who talked with Jesus (ie evangelists)
3) The concept of Trinity is not articulated in the N.T. I would argue that it can be *gleaned* from the N.T. but that is besides the point. What this means is that theology did evolve past the N.T., at the very least in the articulation of the concept of Trinity.
4) Many Christians are members of churches that were defined over 1500 years after the death of Christ. That these denominations were not defined in the first century AD proves that Christian theology evolves.

Yet I am sympathetic to even the most dogmatically annoying Christians. Actually I am sympathetic to everybody. But I've known some absolutely outstanding literalists, so I think there is something to what they are saying. They surely don't have everything wrong.

-Elliot

 

[jj]

That's a great link, but we are talking about modern religion, not religion in the 19th century and even further back.

The National Geographic article is current information.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Is that what you'd like, a new dark ages, mr. parsimony hater?

 

[elliotfc]

http://downloads.members.tripod.com/medicolegal/catholicsvslavery.htm

 

[Yahzi]

As I see it, there are two reasonable ways of approaching this.

There might well be, but you have presented neither of them.

I am sorry the Vatican archives do not say what you want them to say, but they don't. Your "unambigious condemnation" of slavery is everyone else's "complete acceptance of."

And then you go on to demonstrate that, by concluding that people captured in just wars and criminals can be enslaved. The obvious point that you have simply declined to notice is that their children were also slaves. Go on, tell me how that's just.

Oh and look: lets argue about what the words mean, too.

You have done an amazing job of arguing that the Catholic pronouncement does not mean what it says.

Might I once again draw attention to this spirited defense of the Catholic image, carried out with aplomb and disregard for history. Is this the action of a neutral observer?

If you think ceo_esq actually has a point, read the link I provided. He's counting on you not to.

 

[Yahzi]

http://downloads.members.tripod.com/medicolegal/catholicsvslavery.htm

I salute you, elliot! You have indeed found a group of theologians who think just like you. And with their amazing word taffee, they have simply reinterpreted the facts of history and the text of the Bible until it fits their case.

You can join ceo_esq in defending the Pope when he says, "Slavery itself...is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law." Never mind that it is against American law. Never mind that Americans are not allowed to incarcerate people and force them to work. Never mind that apparently even the American legal system is apparently a higher standard than God's law. All that matters is that a single word might be interpretable as something slightly different, and thus we can all rest easy.

 

[Yahzi]

After we die and our sinful souls meet God he will cleanse them for us if we are willing.

Remember when we talked about making things up? There is no justification for this view of after-death salvation in Christian theology. It does not exist anywhere in any document that is even remotely Christian. In fact, the exact, explicit, unquestionable opposite is asserted in the strongest possible terms.

Every Christian source ever known to man makes it clear that you choose in this life, not the next one. Absolutely every preacher of the Christian faith on this planet will tell you that waiting to embrace god until after you are dead is too late. This is a fundamental, inarguable tenet of the Christian faith. Even ceo_esq can't find a way around this one.

But you just toss it off, like a bit of used-up tinfoil.

You don't really have even a tiny clue, do you?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Is that what you'd like, a new dark ages, mr. parsimony hater?

Um.