Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on October 28, 2016, 02:50:42 PM
-
I think it has always been outside the central remit of religion and has always been a secular,temporal socio economic phenomena and still is.
-
I copied and edited this post from the 'Deity' thread on Christian discussion.
There is a wealth of information on the internet regarding translation and definition of the word, "Slave", as used in the Bible, giving background and context, if anyone cares to have a look. I was going to post extracts and links but there are so many of them I leave it up to fellow posters to decide if they are sufficiently interested.
Regarding slavery here and now:
There is slavery here in the UK, even though it is illegal. Young people 'shipped' here with the promise of work and made to work as prostitutes, badly treated if they object, closely guarded. Children brought to the UK from other countries to be servants to relatively well off people, again not well looked after, not allowed to go to school or go out and often cruelly punished for the slightest thing. These practices, and others, are outlawed but they happen.
-
fuck me now I AM lost
-
I copied and edited this post from the 'Deity' thread on Christian discussion.
There is a wealth of information on the internet regarding translation and definition of the word, "Slave", as used in the Bible, giving background and context, if anyone cares to have a look. I was going to post extracts and links but there are so many of them I leave it up to fellow posters to decide if they are sufficiently interested.
Regarding slavery here and now:
There is slavery here in the UK, even though it is illegal. Young people 'shipped' here with the promise of work and made to work as prostitutes, badly treated if they object, closely guarded. Children brought to the UK from other countries to be servants to relatively well off people, again not well looked after, not allowed to go to school or go out and often cruelly punished for the slightest thing. These practices, and others, are outlawed but they happen.
I would be interested in the links, Brownie, particularly anything that covers the idea of there being a 'right' amount of beating a slave as covered in the OT.
-
I would be interested in the links, Brownie, particularly anything that covers the idea of there being a 'right' amount of beating a slave as covered in the OT.
OT? OK hold it right there.
Gentiles are only bound to noachite laws aren't they. I don't believe the beating of slaves is included in that. Secondly we know that gentile Christians were excused Jewish observance in the NT so that's a double whammy on the innuendo here.
-
OT? OK hold it right there.
Gentiles are only bound to noachite laws aren't they. I don't believe the beating of slaves is included in that. Secondly we know that gentile Christians were excused Jewish observance in the NT so that's a double whammy on the innuendo here.
I need to have my gutters cleaned, can you pop round with your cherry picker?
-
I need to have my gutters cleaned, can you pop round with your cherry picker?
More innuendo.
I have acknowledged that there was no Christian socio economic revolution in the first century which abolished slavery...but there was one in the Eighteenth century.
Secondly someone who is prepared to ignore noachite law and the NT dispensation from Jewish observance to focus on a passage on how to beat a slave frankly isn't qualified to lecture on cherry picking.
-
More innuendo.
I have acknowledged that there was no Christian socio economic revolution in the first century which abolished slavery...but there was one in the Eighteenth century.
Secondly someone who is prepared to ignore noachite law and the NT dispensation from Jewish observance to focus on a passage on how to beat a slave frankly isn't qualified to lecture on cherry picking.
Is innuendo your new word to misuse? Was the beating of slaves OK for your god and then not? If he was chatting to Abraham and Moses, was he unable to say 'look lads, don't beat slaves, don't even have slaves, in fact drop the whole coveting asses stuff and I will give you some new tablets?'
-
St Paul urged slaves to honour their masters, so he can't have thought there was anything wrong with owning slaves, and therefore not frowned on by god.
-
Is innuendo your new word to misuse? Was the beating of slaves OK for yourgod and then not? If he was chatting to Abraham and Moses, was he unable to say 'look lads, don't beatvskaves, don't even have slaves, in fact drop the while covering asses stuff and I will give you some new tablets?'
Well he God did give a range of laws and some religions did major on commandment and book obedience. One of those religions figured that Gentiles were only subject to a handful of the rules.
One religion majored in the spirit of the law. That was Christianity Christianity has then the spirit of the law.
You've put your finger on the wrong religion through a singular contorted atheist conception of the story. The religion you need to be interrogating is Judaism. Unfortunately they, as far as this forum is concerned, seem to have voted with their feet.
Now that you have been disavowed of the notion of Christians being slave owners and beaters so commanded by God perhaps we can now focus on the fact that today slave owning and beating has secular provenance.
-
Well he God did give a range of laws and some religions did major on commandment and book obedience. One of those religions figured that Gentiles were only subject to a handful of the rules.
One religion majored in the spirit of the law. That was Christianity Christianity has then the spirit of the law.
You've put your finger on the wrong religion through a singular contorted atheist conception of the story. The religion you need to be interrogating is Judaism. Unfortunately they, as far as this forum is concerned, seem to have voted with their feet.
Now that you have been disavowed of the notion of Christians being slave owners and beaters so commanded by God perhaps we can now focus on the fact that today slave owning and beating has secular provenance.
Aw it's a tiny Marcionite, happy to claim JC as not a Jew, despite his not changing a tittle of the law, happy to throw out the 10 commandments, any prophesy claims in the NT because that would be cherry picking, happy to try a tu quoque.
-
St Paul urged slaves to honour their masters, so he can't have thought there was anything wrong with owning slaves, and therefore not frowned on by god.
I would say God,s prime aim was the demonstration of the new life in Jesus Christ rather than to stage another violent and futile slave rebellion, yes.
-
I would say God,s prime aim was the demonstration of the new life in Jesus Christ rather than to stage another violent and futile slave rebellion, yes.
So your boy, Wilberforce was wrong? Or was Paul wrong?
-
Aw it's a tiny Marcionite, happy to claim JC as not a Jew, despite his not changing a tittle of the law, happy to throw out the 10 commandments, any prophesy claims in the NT because that would be cherry picking, happy to try a tu quoque.
Not really. Where is the injunction from Jesus that Thou shall have slaves.Ive never had them, because of Wilberforce and I don't want em......some people have em now because of secular factors.
Will it stop or will life become so secularly awful that our approach to slaves will become a whistle and a walk quickly by and be relieved that for now it has nothing to do with us.
Look at the amount of internships for goodness sake.
-
So your boy, Wilberforce was wrong? Or was Paul wrong?
No, Wilberforce was right and being a slave in a hyper capitalist society must have been world apart from having a master spiritually and apostolic ally exhorted to treat a slave like a brother.
Unfortunately Paul and the leadership would have been given the responsibly of choosing between a Christian revolution of demonstrating the new life or trying to change society by force. They chose the former authentically Christian choice.
-
Not really. Where is the injunction from Jesus that Thou shall have slaves.Ive never had them, because of Wilberforce and I don't want em......some people have em now because of secular factors.
Will it stop or will life become so secularly awful that our approach to slaves will become a whistle and a walk quickly by and be relieved that for now it has nothing to do with us.
Look at the amount of internships for goodness sake.
BTW the title of the thread is a false dichotomy, and should be phenomenon.
-
NS,
BTW the title of the thread is a false dichotomy.
And ungrammatical too.
Surely though the whole misguided effort is just yer basic, common-or-garden post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy isn't it? We live in a secular society; there is evidence for some people living in slave conditions. Just put the words "secular" and "slavery" in the same sentence therefore and hope some are daft enough to see the former as causal of the latter.
Funnily enough he doesn't bother though with putting "secular" and "high literacy rates", or "secular" and "more than 50% of cancers are cured" together, or even for that matter "secular" and "I can post whatever bollocks I like on a public forum like this one".
Odd eh?
-
I would be interested in the links, Brownie, particularly anything that covers the idea of there being a 'right' amount of beating a slave as covered in the OT.
I'll try to oblige, NS. I'll do "slave" first and then get on to the beating :o, a bit at a time.
Easton's Bible Dictionary - Slave
Jeremiah 2:14 (A.V.), but not there found in the original. In Revelation 18:13 the word "slaves" is the rendering of a Greek word meaning "bodies." The Hebrew and Greek words for slave are usually rendered simply "servant," "bondman," or "bondservant." Slavery as it existed under the Mosaic law has no modern parallel. That law did not originate but only regulated the already existing custom of slavery ( Exodus 21:20 Exodus 21:21 Exodus 21:26 Exodus 21:27 ; Leviticus 25:44-46 ; Joshua 9:6-27 ). The gospel in its spirit and genius is hostile to slavery in every form, which under its influence is gradually disappearing from among men.
This one is long so I am just posting a link:-
http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/slave-slavery.html
Rational Wiki on slavery which looks interesting, I haven't read it all yet:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_Bible#Beating_slaves
------------
Here is an extract from "The Blue Study Bible"
6. (Exo 21:26-27) The law of retribution as it regards masters and servants.
"If a man strikes the eye of his male or female servant, and destroys it, he shall let him go free for the sake of his eye. And if he knocks out the tooth of his male or female servant, he shall let him go free for the sake of his tooth.
a. If a man strikes the eye of his male or female servant, and destroys it, he shall let him go free for the sake of his eye: The principle of eye for an eye has a different application for servants. The servant, if injured by the master, received something more precious than an eye - his freedom.
b. If he knocks out the tooth of his male or female servant, he shall let him go free: "If this did not teach them humanity, it taught them caution, as one rash blow might have deprived them of all right to the future services of the slave; and this self-interest obliged them to be cautious and circumspect." (Clarke)
---------
From Religious Tolerance site:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl2.htm
I was particularly interested in people who sold themselves or their families into slavery, because of debt and destitution. A comparison could be made to those people who used to take themselves, and children, to the Workhouse because they had no option. They worked there for little or nothing except a roof over their heads and food.
Another thought was the very poor in third world countries who sometimes "sell" a child to a master, in the belief that the child will have work and training and, ultimately, a better life. Yet they are sold a story and the child often ends up in another land, as a slave. Horrific.
-
post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy isn't it? We live in a secular society; there is evidence for some people living in slave conditions.
Yes but the point is whatever the causes they aren't to do with religion.....unless you take the Dawkins line of mischieviously suggesting that religion is the root of all evil.
But fairs fair Hillside if you are suggesting that we live in a secular society where there just happens to be slavery going on but it has nothing to do with secularity can we also take it that the Early Christians happened to live in a society where there was
an unconnected slavery going on......or are you specially pleading?
-
Funnily enough he doesn't bother though with putting "secular" and "high literacy rates", or "secular" and "more than 50% of cancers are cured" together, or even for that matter "secular" and "I can post whatever bollocks I like on a public forum like this one".
Yeh.......... look at the NHS though and social security system in yer increasing secular society.
-
Yes but the point is whatever the causes they aren't to do with religion.....unless you take the Dawkins line of mischieviously suggesting that religion is the root of all evil.
If you're referring to the title of the TV show he featured in, as has been sadi many times that wasn't his preferred title, iit was that of the production company, and he made them add a ? to the end.
-
If you're referring to the title of the TV show he featured in, as has been sadi many times that wasn't his preferred title, iit was that of the production company, and he made them add a ? to the end.
Why didn't he get them to remove the Religion Root of all evil bit?
-
Yes but the point is whatever the causes they aren't to do with religion.....unless you take the Dawkins line of mischieviously suggesting that religion is the root of all evil.
But fairs fair Hillside if you are suggesting that we live in a secular society where there just happens to be slavery going on but it has nothing to do with secularity can we also take it that the Early Christians happened to live in a society where there was
an unconnected slavery going on......or are you specially pleading?
In which Vlad once again demonstrates his misunderstanding of the term "special pleading" by conflating theocracies that condoned slavery with secular societies that criminalise it.
-
Why didn't he get them to remove the Religion Root of all evil bit?
Because the producers insisted on it staying and it was their program. They wanted to create controversy and get attention - which worked.
-
In which Vlad once again demonstrates his misunderstanding of the term "special pleading" by conflating theocracies that condoned slavery with secular societies that criminalise it.
I understand it was Wilberforce a Christian who got Slavery criminalised not a secular state of the type which could allow and encourage an internship culture or expect work from people with no return. Therefore legislation made in more religious times is decaying because of lack of commitment in enforcement by the secular state.
By the way Hillside conflates the pastoral leadership of a minor sect obviously considering the position of slavery and whether it fits in with it's core teachings with a theocracy in his usual way.
-
I understand it was Wilberforce a Christian who got Slavery criminalised not a secular state of the type which could allow and encourage an internship culture or expect work from people with no return. Therefore legislation made in more religious times is decaying because of lack of commitment in enforcement by the secular state.
But you are linking the state being secular with an increase in modern slavery with no evidence to support that.
-
But you are linking the state being secular with an increase in modern slavery with no evidence to support that.
No.
To be fair the state is merely lacking in it's commitment to protecting it's citizenry from slavery.
But in doing so it fulfils Hillsides and Be Rational's definition of condoning. If they don't want to extend their definition to the states lack of enforcement then they are special pleading IMHO.
If Modern slavery rises with an increased secularism then any thesis which lays slavery at Gods or religions feet is clearly wrong. Hillside perpetuates the error by saying that Theocracies condone slavery He gussies up the definition of theocracy and condone in his normal way.
-
Does anyone know of any culture, modern or historical, that doesn't/didn't rely on slavery for their economic 'success'? Remember that slavery can take a whole host of formsd, and doesn't need to rely the importing of individuals from abroad.
-
No.
To be fair the state is merely lacking in it's commitment to protecting it's citizenry from slavery.
So, your assessment of the risk of being enslaved (as a proportion of the general population is)?
-
I understand it was Wilberforce a Christian who got Slavery criminalised not a secular state of the type which could allow and encourage an internship culture or expect work from people with no return. Therefore legislation made in more religious times is decaying because of lack of commitment in enforcement by the secular state.
By the way Hillside conflates the pastoral leadership of a minor sect obviously considering the position of slavery and whether it fits in with it's core teachings with a theocracy in his usual way.
In which Vlad:
1. Just ignores the rebuttal to his misunderstanding of "special pleading";
2. Mistakenly states that Wilberforce "got slavery abolished" whereas it was in fact a combination of religious and secular thinkers that overcame the resistance of the remaining anti-abolitionist religious and secular (ie, commercial) grouping that supported it;
3. (Grotesquely) conflates internships with slavery;
4. Wrongly states that legislation is "decaying" whereas what in fact is happening is that enforcement hasn't been agile enough to cope with the resurgence of behind closed doors (but still fully criminal) slavery;
5. Wrongly accuses the person who corrected his false conflation of condoning with criminalising, and then compounds his error by claiming that the clear injunctions of various books in the OT were just the house rules of a "minor sect" that contradicted some (non-existent at that time) supposed "core teachings" of his faith.
Desperate stuff indeed.
-
To be fair the state is merely lacking in it's commitment to protecting it's citizenry from slavery.
In which Vlad wrongly assumes the fact of a resurgence in slavery to mean a lack of commitment to apprehending and prosecuting those who do it rather than the fact that crime occurs despite the best efforts to prevent it, while all the while hoping that no-one notices that (either way) this has absolutely bugger all to do with the state being a secular one in any case.
-
So, your assessment of the risk of being enslaved (as a proportion of the general population is)?
Higher than what it was a few years ago.
-
No.
Yes, by referring constantly to the 'secular state' rather than just the state you are linking things which happen uunder the state to its being secular.
If Modern slavery rises with an increased secularism ...
No evidence that it does.
...then any thesis which lays slavery at Gods or religions feet is clearly wrong.
Has anyone actually blamed God or religion for slavery? Saying religion and the Bible appears to have condoned it isn't quite the same as it being to blame for its existence.
-
Higher than what it was a few years ago.
More precisely?
-
These links are about slavery as it exists now:
http://www.freetheslaves.net/about-slavery/slavery-today/
The following article of two years ago concerns slavery in the UK:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/29/13000-slaves-uk-four-times-higher-previously-thought
-
More precisely?
Figures are difficult to come by. However recently the Salvation army reported a fivefold increase in victims assisted.
-
Figures are difficult to come by. However recently the Salvation army reported a fivefold increase in victims assisted.
So, having raised the issue you're really not all that certain of the precise details.
Sounds to me like you were flying a kite.
-
Does anyone know of any culture, modern or historical, that doesn't/didn't rely on slavery for their economic 'success'? Remember that slavery can take a whole host of formsd, and doesn't need to rely the importing of individuals from abroad.
Depends on your definition of slavery, Hope.
The Greco-Roman idea was not a universal idea in the ancient world.
The concept of buying and selling is certainly not a well documented practice until relatively late in Greek society.
In Egypt, slaves were normally simply prisoners captured on military expeditions. If the power of the state was strong - as in the New Kingdom, there were many slaves used on public (i.e. religious and royal) building projects - but when the state was weak - as in the Davidic era and afterwards in the Old Testament - slaves were relatively few in number.
-
So, having raised the issue you're really not all that certain of the precise details.
Sounds to me like you were flying a kite.
Gordon, this whole topic was covered in a thread a year or so back, with several references to media and other websites. The problem that Vlad highlights - that details are difficult to come by - is very much true with figures based on what has already come to light, but recent court cases have shown Brits using other Brits as slave labour on farms and in other areas of life. The Evangelical Alliance website has a non-exhaustive list of anti-slavery groups, both religious and secular.
http://www.eauk.org/current-affairs/politics/modern-slavery/anti-slavery-groups.cfm
-
I see no-one has yet mentioned the Magdalene laundries.
A clear example of religious slavery.
-
I see no-one has yet mentioned the Magdalene laundries.
A clear example of religious slavery.
I think the thread was occupied in demonstrating to deniers of secular slavery that it does exist:
Be Rational.....There is no slavery in the UK.
Gordon on Vlad stating that slavery has risen in an increasingly secular UK....sounds like you are flying a Kite
Maeght on the same....No evidence.
I think the need to demonstrate increasing slavery in a society which clearly considers itself above that and has been shown not to be has been the focus of the thread.
I don't think anybody is denying the evidence that has come out of the Magdelene laundries and there has been a thread on it.
Here there has been from at least one poster denial of slavery in the UK.......
I would hazard that this is due to the fact that evidence of it belies the thesis that increased secularisation equals increased social improvement.
-
Gordon on Vlad stating that slavery has risen in an increasingly secular UK....sounds like you are flying a Kite
Maeght on the same....No evidence.
You misunderstand me, Vlad: my point was simply that you raised the issue of slavery without illustrating the scale of the problem, hence my query regarding this aspect (that you brushed off).
-
You misunderstand me, Vlad: my point was simply that you raised the issue of slavery without illustrating the scale of the problem, hence my query regarding this aspect (that you brushed off).
I beg your pardon. I have misunderstood you in that case.
-
In which Vlad wrongly assumes the fact of a resurgence in slavery to mean a lack of commitment to apprehending and prosecuting those who do it rather than the fact that crime occurs despite the best efforts to prevent it, while all the while hoping that no-one notices that (either way) this has absolutely bugger all to do with the state being a secular one in any case.
I don't completely. One knows that crime is tackled with resources. Now, a priority for the UK is that it should be seen as civilised. There is clearly a reduced commitment to that among the populace...from underclass culture, to treatment of foreigners. Criminals are secular too.
I think what I am saying is that slavery should be one of the big no no's in society yet here we are.
Finally I was responding to Be rational who states that We....presumably he is talking about UK society are more moral than God...he states then that there is no slavery in the UK so I seek to show him that there is slavery in the UK increased secularism not withstanding.
Now the million dolloar question is, is secularism responsible or is secularism more moral than God because ....secularism abolishes slavery. Clearly the latter thesis is disproved both on the grounds that we still have it and on the grounds that it's abolition was not a fully secular project which is why I have raised Wilberforce and Thomas Jefferson(The US founded on secular principles condoned slavery).
The position is that Christianity emerges in a slave economy, is comprised of slaves ...and believe me has been derided as a losers religion because of it, has debates about slavery, Roman Christian slavers clearly treated their slaves better and were exhorted to treat them as brothers as a result of their faith and others released theirs in the NT.
Even in an extreme version of a pessimistic view of Christianity, rabid Christian slavers were brought to heel by tireless secularists and even Wilberforce against his own barbaric Christian urges to own slaves and slavery was abolished as part of the great secularisation of society........which now it seems is seeing increased slavery.....it doesn't look good for secularism as an invariably civilising and more moral force in respect to slavery does it?
So, no secularism did not get rid of slavery but for a while supported it's abolition but, in an increasingly secular backdrop, is now seeing it creep back in.
-
Maeght on the same....No evidence.
I have not denied the existence of slavery in the UK. My evidence point is regarding the link to secularism. I have made this quite clear so think you should acknowledge that please.
-
I have not denied the existence of slavery in the UK. My evidence point is regarding the link to secularism. I have made this quite clear so think you should acknowledge that please.
I think you will acknowledge that a graph of the population of those declaring themselves as having no religion and those of the number of slaves within said society would show a positive correlation. Are we entitled to draw that graph....I think we are.
-
I think you will acknowledge that a graph of the population of those declaring themselves as having no religion and those of the number of slaves within said society would show a positive correlation. Are we entitled to draw that graph....I think we are.
No, not without evidence of a link. And you haven't acknowledged that I have nopt denied the existence of slavery in the UK as you suggested.
-
No, not without evidence of a link. And you haven't acknowledged that I have nopt denied the existence of slavery in the UK as you suggested.
I acknowledge you have not denied the existence of slavery in the UK.
But those who say there is no evidence of bad things happening as a result of secularisation should be careful when suggesting that good things do come from it.
I disagree with your view that we cannot draw a graph between the increased lack of religious belief in a society against the number of slaves within that society, particularly within the context of a claim that that society is more moral in regards to slavery than a Christian society.
-
I think you will acknowledge that a graph of the population of those declaring themselves as having no religion and those of the number of slaves within said society would show a positive correlation. Are we entitled to draw that graph....I think we are.
Association isn't causation though: a graph would also show a positive correlation (leaving aside for now the statistical tests required to do this properly) between seasonal deaths from hypothermia and the increased used of power for home heating - how can that be? (clue: something else is going on).
-
Association isn't causation though: a graph would also show a positive correlation (leaving aside for now the statistical tests required to do this properly) between seasonal deaths from hypothermia and the increased used of power for home heating - how can that be? (clue: something else is going on).
association isn't necessarily causation. But Be Rational makes the thesis that We (the secular society) are more moral in regards to slavery. In the NT I think we find evidence of people in the early Christian community releasing slaves.......In today's increasingly secular society slavery increased.
That is the context.......are you suggesting that the increase is due to non secular reasons?
-
I understand it was Wilberforce a Christian who got Slavery criminalised not a secular state of the type which could allow and encourage an internship culture or expect work from people with no return.
Wrong.
Wilberforce did not get slavery criminalised, he got the slave trade criminalised (in 1807). There were still slaves after that until slavery itself was criminalised in 1833.
To claim that his work had anything to do with being a Christian is absurd. So called Christian values held sway in Europe for 1600 years prior to any Christians actually getting off their arses to stop slavery.
-
association isn't necessarily causation. But Be Rational makes the thesis that We (the secular society) are more moral in regards to slavery. In the NT I think we find evidence of people in the early Christian community releasing slaves.......In today's increasingly secular society slavery increased.
That is the context.......are you suggesting that the increase is due to non secular reasons?
I'm not suggesting anything, Vlad, just noting your simplistic use of correlation.
-
Wrong.
Wilberforce did not get slavery criminalised, he got the slave trade criminalised (in 1807). There were still slaves after that until slavery itself was criminalised in 1833.
To claim that his work had anything to do with being a Christian is absurd. So called Christian values held sway in Europe for 1600 years prior to any Christians actually getting off their arses to stop slavery.
So no Christians released slaves in the Roman period.
Didn't Augustine write on how appaling he found slavery.
That a society that called itself Christian let bad things happen is certainly regrettable although it is debatable that the rule of Kings in many places amounted to utter theocracy anywhere.
The picture Jeremy P paints is that it took secularism to persuade naturally rabid slave wanting christianity to get rid of slavery (see my earlier post on the likelihood of that).
Well Jezzer we now have an increasing secular society and slavery is making a come back. Do you think that's because secularists didn't get off their arses to stop it's reintroduction?
-
I'm not suggesting anything, Vlad, just noting your simplistic use of correlation.
If there is a proposal that a secular society stops slavery then I'm afraid theactual correlation needs to be flagged up. Be Rational is suggesting there is no slavery in the UK and ventures this is because we are more moral with regards to slavery than Christianity.
Jeremy P and Hillside are at pains to reduce the role of Christianity in the abolition.......which is all very well but merely acts as a distraction from the rise of slavery in an increasingly secular society.
-
If there is a proposal that a secular society stops slavery then I'm afraid theactual correlation needs to be flagged up.
Who has made this specific proposal? Since you support the use of correlation what variables do you envisage using?
Be Rational is suggesting there is no slavery in the UK and ventures this is because we are more moral with regards to slavery than Christianity.
I'm sure BR will confirm if that is his position.
Jeremy P and Hillside are at pains to reduce the role of Christianity in the abolition.......which is all very well but merely acts as a distraction from the rise of slavery in an increasingly secular society.
I think you are misrepresenting them, since it seems to me nobody disputes that Christianity has had a role in social changes in general given its historical influence but you've still to demonstrate the link you are asserting between secularism and slavery - such as how this has been measured (given you seem convinced there is an association).
-
So no Christians released slaves in the Roman period.
Didn't they? That strengthens my point, especially when you consider that the Romans frequently freed their slaves and even allowed them to buy themselves out of slavery. And here you are telling me that Christians stopped all that.
Didn't Augustine write on how appaling he found slavery.
One Christian: all the rest ignored him for 1600 years.
The picture Jeremy P paints is that it took secularism to persuade naturally rabid slave wanting christianity to get rid of slavery (see my earlier post on the likelihood of that).
I didn't paint that picture. I don't even mention the word secularism in my last post.
Well Jezzer we now have an increasing secular society and slavery is making a come back. Do you think that's because secularists didn't get off their arses to stop it's reintroduction?
Slavery is not making a come back, it's still very much illegal.
-
Jeremy P and Hillside are at pains to reduce the role of Christianity in the abolition.......which is all very well but merely acts as a distraction from the rise of slavery in an increasingly secular society.
This, from Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wilberforce)
The British campaign to abolish the slave trade is generally considered to have begun in the 1780s with the establishment of the Quakers' antislavery committees, and their presentation to Parliament of the first slave trade petition in 1783.
and on William Wilberforce:
Wilberforce's involvement in the abolition movement was motivated by a desire to put his Christian principles into action and to serve God in public life. He and other Evangelicals were horrified by what they perceived was a depraved and unchristian trade, and the greed and avarice of the owners and traders. Wilberforce sensed a call from God, writing in a journal entry in 1787 that "God Almighty has set before me two great objects, the suppression of the Slave Trade and the Reformation of Manners [moral values]"
-
This, from Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wilberforce)
and on William Wilberforce:
Wilberforce's involvement in the abolition movement was motivated by a desire to put his Christian principles into action and to serve God in public life.
Why did it take 1600 hundred years for Christianity to produce somebody who was prepared to act on his "Christian principles" to abolish the slave trade?
Do you not realise that the people Wilberforce was fighting against were also most likely Christians serving God in public life?
-
Why did it take 1600 hundred years for Christianity to produce somebody who was prepared to act on his "Christian principles" to abolish the slave trade?
Do you not realise that the people Wilberforce was fighting against were also most likely Christians serving God in public life?
This has no bearing on your claim in #50 about William Wilberforce (emphasis mine)
To claim that his work had anything to do with being a Christian is absurd.
The quotes on that Wikipedia article (and there are more) would suggest otherwise, and not just about William Wilberforce. The Quakers are Christians too.
-
This has no bearing on your claim in #50 about William Wilberforce (emphasis mine)The quotes on that Wikipedia article (and there are more) would suggest otherwise, and not just about William Wilberforce. The Quakers are Christians too.
And the fact that it took 1600 years for even some Christians to wake up to the immorality of slavery gives the lie to the idea that emancipation movement was some great Christian triumph.
Clearly, Wilberforce and Wikipedia are both wrong in ascribing his humanitarian principles to being a Christian. That should be obvious even to you.
-
I acknowledge you have not denied the existence of slavery in the UK.
Thanks.
But those who say there is no evidence of bad things happening as a result of secularisation should be careful when suggesting that good things do come from it.
Then point that out to them rather than making the same error - two wrongs don't make a right.
I disagree with your view that we cannot draw a graph between the increased lack of religious belief in a society against the number of slaves within that society,...
You may disagree but without evidence of a direct link then you are incorrect on this I'm afraid. As has been said - association is not causation.
... particularly within the context of a claim that that society is more moral in regards to slavery than a Christian society.
Just because someone claims one thing it is not correct to just claim the opposite. As above, two wrongs don't make a right so best debate the point being made rather than claim an unsupported counter view.
-
This has no bearing on your claim in #50 about William Wilberforce (emphasis mine)The quotes on that Wikipedia article (and there are more) would suggest otherwise, and not just about William Wilberforce. The Quakers are Christians too.
So was 'Bloody Mary' and also some Christians involved in the American Civil War.
In the 1860s, Southern preachers defending slavery also took the Bible literally. They asked who could question the Word of God when it said, "slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling" (Ephesians 6:5), or "tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect" (Titus 2:9). Christians who wanted to preserve slavery had the words of the Bible to back them up.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-02-28-column28_ST_N.htm
-
Didn't they? That strengthens my point, especially when you consider that the Romans frequently freed their slaves and even allowed them to buy themselves out of slavery. And here you are telling me that Christians stopped all that.
One Christian: all the rest ignored him for 1600 years.
I didn't paint that picture. I don't even mention the word secularism in my last post.
Slavery is not making a come back, it's still very much illegal.
I'm suggesting that Christians debated the rights and wrong of slave ownership, trading, and treatment at a time when other romans probably would not have.
I merely use Augustine as aninfluential exemplar.
-
Thanks.
Then point that out to them rather than making the same error - two wrongs don't make a right.
You may disagree but without evidence of a direct link then you are incorrect on this I'm afraid. As has been said - association is not causation.
Just because someone claims one thing it is not correct to just claim the opposite. As above, two wrongs don't make a right so best debate the point being made rather than claim an unsupported counter view.
Again you seem to be in denial of the correlation between an increasingly secular society and a society which has slaves. Have I mentioned a direct link? That has got to be proved. Is it valid? Yes since both axes refer to the same population. Is there causation? If slavery is to do with the morals and moral imperatives of a society and the society is secularist?
To go back to my OP Christianity emerges in a slave economy.
Modern slavery emerges in a secular society.
I merely point out that it goes against any statement that secularisation decreases slavery
-
And the fact that it took 1600 years for even some Christians to wake up to the immorality of slavery gives the lie to the idea that emancipation movement was some great Christian triumph.
Clearly, Wilberforce and Wikipedia are both wrong in ascribing his humanitarian principles to being a Christian. That should be obvious even to you.
But if you are ascribing humanitarian principles to secularism how come slavery is now increasing in an increasingly secular country?
-
And the fact that it took 1600 years for even some Christians to wake up to the immorality of slavery gives the lie to the idea that emancipation movement was some great Christian triumph.
But that is not the point being made. This was the point being made:
To claim that his work had anything to do with being a Christian is absurd.
and it has been shown to be wrong.
-
But that is not the point being made. This was the point being made:and it has been shown to be wrong.
Paul invented Christianity, imo, and urged slaves to honour their masters, so it must have something to do with the faith!
-
Again you seem to be in denial of the correlation between an increasingly secular society and a society which has slaves.
Which you've yet to demonstrate with some workings out (hint: strength of correlation is numeric).
Have I mentioned a direct link? That has got to be proved. Is it valid? Yes since both axes refer to the same population. Is there causation? If slavery is to do with the morals and moral imperatives of a society and the society is secularist?
Assertion (of the rambling variety).
I merely point out that it goes against any statement that secularisation decreases slavery
Who has stated this: have you been at the straw again?
-
Paul invented Christianity, imo, and urged slaves to honour their masters, so it must have something to do with the faith!
Can you provide references in the Bible where Paul did what you said? Thanks.
-
Paul invented Christianity, imo, and urged slaves to honour their masters, so it must have something to do with the faith!
You're entitled to your view, but history says otherwise, Floo. Perhaps the God you so despise is another of these fantasies? As for slavery having 'something to do with the faith' I supose you could equally say that Paul's references to the treatment of slaves by their masters would seem to dispel your thinking.
-
Paul invented Christianity, imo, and urged slaves to honour their masters, so it must have something to do with the faith!
You'd have had something to say if he had commanded slaves to slit their throats Floo....''werr werr ....Christians.....werr werr........murderous.......werr werr........''.
-
Which you've yet to demonstrate with some workings out (hint: strength of correlation is numeric).
Assertion (of the rambling variety).
Who has stated this: have you been at the straw again?
...And you Gordon seem to be in denial over Be Rational's declaration that there is no slavery in the UK and that that assertion forms the basis that secular society is more moral than Christianity. Even Floo has taken him to task over this one.
-
...And you Gordon seem to be in denial over Be Rational's declaration that there is no slavery in the UK and that that assertion forms the basis that secular society is more moral than Christianity. Even Floo has taken him to task over this one.
Find someone who is a slave and we can free them immediately.
-
My evidence point is regarding the link to secularism. I have made this quite clear so think you should acknowledge that please.
Maeght, I think you will find that there is as much evidence regarding the link between slavery and secularism as there is with religion, insofar as slavery has existed for just about as long as humanity has.
-
...And you Gordon seem to be in denial over Be Rational's declaration that there is no slavery in the UK and that that assertion forms the basis that secular society is more moral than Christianity. Even Floo has taken him to task over this one.
No I'm not - I made a point earlier on of not commenting on anything BR actually said, I just noted I'd leave it to BR to clarify your take on his comment.
-
Find someone who is a slave and we can free them immediately.
It is happening on a daily basis already, BR. Just look at the websites of the organisations I've laready provided a link to.
-
No I'm not - I made a point earlier on of not commenting on anything BR actually said, I just noted I'd leave it to BR to clarify your take on his comment.
But it seems to me you have taken it on yourself to clarify my take on his comment. Do you defend him by suggesting when he says there is no slavery in the UK he doesn't actually mean that?
-
It is happening on a daily basis already, BR. Just look at the websites of the organisations I've laready provided a link to.
Slavery is illegal.
Find a slave and they will not be a slave it's that simple!
Your God though condones slavery and sees nothing wrong with it.
We on the other hand made it illegal.
Who do you agree with, God or secular morality on the issue of slavery?
-
Again you seem to be in denial of the correlation between an increasingly secular society and a society which has slaves. Have I mentioned a direct link? That has got to be proved.
I haven't denied that either of those statements are true, but correlation does not imply causation.
Is it valid? Yes since both axes refer to the same population.
You can plat them but cannot conclude causation.
Is there causation? If slavery is to do with the morals and moral imperatives of a society and the society is secularist?
You would have to demonstrate that a secular society has different morals regarding slavery than a non-secular society in the same environment (geographical location, globalisation, movement of people, terrorism, war, famine etc). You haven't done this but have implied a causal link.
To go back to my OP Christianity emerges in a slave economy.
Modern slavery emerges in a secular society.
I merely point out that it goes against any statement that secularisation decreases slavery
Has anyone claimed that? I haven't.
-
Slavery is illegal.
Find a slave and they will not be a slave it's that simple!
Your God though condones slavery and sees nothing wrong with it.
We on the other hand made it illegal.
Who do you agree with, God or secular morality on the issue of slavery?
But the question is why is it increasing in an increasingly secular society? Why are people getting into it?
Christianity emerges in a slave economy. It is not the cause of it. The NT suggests that changes in attitudes towards this were discussed and carried out in the Early Christian community the lot of Christian slaves and slaves of Christians would have improved immensely. The witness of Christian slaves would no doubt have led to conversions among masters....Not that there weren't non Christians in Rome, nor that slaves had legal rights, nor that there was manumission.
Then comes the enlightenment and the will towards commerce, technology and things organised on industrial scale including the slave trade.
Even under your wildest ravings that the abolition of slavery was an atheist project from start to finish......how do you account for the fact that in an increasingly secular society slavery is making a comeback?
-
Slavery is illegal.
Find a slave and they will not be a slave it's that simple!
Your God though condones slavery and sees nothing wrong with it.
We on the other hand made it illegal.
Who do you agree with, God or secular morality on the issue of slavery?
But in an increasing secular society slavery has increased Be Rational.
You are mistaking national legislation for secular morality here.
-
Your God though condones slavery and sees nothing wrong with it.
Who then was concerned about the Israelites in Exodus 3?
7 The Lord said, “I have indeed seen the misery of my people in Egypt. I have heard them crying out because of their slave drivers, and I am concerned about their suffering. 8 So I have come down to rescue them from the hand of the Egyptians and to bring them up out of that land into a good and spacious land, a land flowing with milk and honey—the home of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. 9 And now the cry of the Israelites has reached me, and I have seen the way the Egyptians are oppressing them. 10 So now, go. I am sending you to Pharaoh to bring my people the Israelites out of Egypt.”
-
SotS: Your text is a very good argument for a retrospective editing of the Pentateuch at around the time of the Exile. The slavery described in it does not correspond with the practice in Egypt before the tenth century BC; and if we a;llow that 'Ramses' was Pi-ramesse, there is no evidence of a change in the content of mud brick construction in any of the dwellings excavated (The stone buildings having been relocated to Tjanet (Tanis) in dyn XXI Your example may be more theological than historical.
-
Slavery is illegal.
Hasn't always been, even in the enlightened West.
Find a slave and they will not be a slave it's that simple!
There were plenty of slaves in the Caribbean, the Southern States, and parts of the UK, and everyone knew where they were. That 'finding' didn't change their status.
Your God though condones slavery and sees nothing wrong with it.
Evidence of the blanket validity of this assertion is awaited, BR.
We on the other hand made it illegal.
'We' being who, BR? 'Bible-believing' activists?
Who do you agree with, God or secular morality on the issue of slavery?
From what I understand of the question, secular morality speaks out again it, but turns a blind eye to its existence; so I'd opt for God's stance, who acknowledges that it exists and seeks to both mitigate the problems it involves and works to get rid of it.
-
So we're gong to have to add "correlation" to the ever-growing list of words that Vlad either doesn't understand or has just re-defined to suit his purpose then:
"Correlation is any of a broad class of statistical relationships involving dependence, though in common usage it most often refers to the extent to which two variables have a linear relationship with each other. Familiar examples of dependent phenomena include the correlation between the physical statures of parents and their offspring, and the correlation between the demand for a product and its price."
(Wiki)
Secularism in the UK hasn't increased recently in any meaningful sense, and there's no linear relationship between it and slavery in any case. At most there's co-existence, but there's no more "secular slavery" than there is secular juggling or secular town planning.
Probably best too not to point out that the countries in which slavery is most common also tend to be the most theistic, not the most secular.
-
So we're gong to have to add "correlation" to the ever-growing list of words that Vlad either doesn't understand or has just re-defined to suit his purpose then:
"Correlation is any of a broad class of statistical relationships involving dependence, though in common usage it most often refers to the extent to which two variables have a linear relationship with each other. Familiar examples of dependent phenomena include the correlation between the physical statures of parents and their offspring, and the correlation between the demand for a product and its price."
(Wiki)
Secularism in the UK hasn't increased recently in any meaningful sense, and there's no linear relationship between it and slavery in any case. At most there's co-existence, but there's no more "secular slavery" than there is secular juggling or secular town planning.
Probably best too not to point out that the countries in which slavery is most common also tend to be the most theistic, not the most secular.
Yes but Hillside as people are reporting less christianity(people becoming more secularist) the amount of slavery is also rising. How does that point to zero correlation?
Also if there is no such thing as secular slavery (slaving by secularists) can there be a secular anything? can there be secular abolitionists as you assert. Following your logic a secular society seemingly can take credit for the good things happening in it but never responsibility for bad things.
You forget that Be Rational is making the assertion that Secularism not only reduces slavery but eliminates it. The only way he can go is that it is theists who are behind it all.
-
But it seems to me you have taken it on yourself to clarify my take on his comment.
No I haven't: I made no comment on BR's take and pointed this out to you later in the thread.
Do you defend him by suggesting when he says there is no slavery in the UK he doesn't actually mean that?
I'm leaving BR to speak for himself, which I see he has been doing in my absence.
-
SotS: Your text is a very good argument for a retrospective editing of the Pentateuch at around the time of the Exile. The slavery described in it does not correspond with the practice in Egypt before the tenth century BC; and if we a;llow that 'Ramses' was Pi-ramesse, there is no evidence of a change in the content of mud brick construction in any of the dwellings excavated (The stone buildings having been relocated to Tjanet (Tanis) in dyn XXI Your example may be more theological than historical.
I'm not sure what you mean by more theological than historical?
-
No I haven't: I made no comment on BR's take and pointed this out to you later in the thread.
I'm leaving BR to speak for himself, which I see he has been doing in my absence.
I think he has accepted that there is slavery in the UK after all.
-
Find someone who is a slave and we can free them immediately.
I have already given you the link, don't you believe this is slavery?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/29/13000-slaves-uk-four-times-higher-previously-thought
-
Yes but Hillside as people are reporting less christianity(people becoming more secularist) the amount of slavery is also rising. How does that point to zero correlation?
Also if there is no such thing as secular slavery (slaving by secularists) can there be a secular anything? can there be secular abolitionists as you assert. Following your logic a secular society seemingly can take credit for the good things happening in it but never responsibility for bad things.
You forget that Be Rational is making the assertion that Secularism not only reduces slavery but eliminates it. The only way he can go is that it is theists who are behind it all.
In which Vlad fails again to grasp that enforcement of legislation is a function of the apparatus of the state, and that the further decline in the already small number of practising Christians has no relationship whatever to that regardless of how much he hopes the slur of putting "secular" and "slavery" in the same sentence will stick.
The decline in practising Christians has also coincided with the decrease in murder rates. Should we ban evangelising therefore because more practising Christians would cause more murders?
-
I have already given you the link, don't you believe this is slavery?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/29/13000-slaves-uk-four-times-higher-previously-thought
Then simply report it and it will stop.
The point I am making is simple.
Slavery is illegal and condemned by our society.
The Christian God on the other hand CONDONES slavery and APPROVES of it.
-
Then simply report it and it will stop.
The point I am making is simple.
Slavery is illegal and condemned by our society.
The Christian God on the other hand CONDONES slavery and APPROVES of it.
Evidence?
-
The Christian God on the other hand CONDONES slavery and APPROVES of it.
Can you provide ANY evidence that he either condones or approves of it? Remember that Christianity was 'birthed' into a society where slavery was the only way that the society survived - no Roman citizen (at least in Rome) had to work. All the work was done by armies of slaves, who had either been captured during military campaigns or - as in some cases - were citizens who had been made slaves as a form of punishment - eg galley slaves.
Even the Old Testament acknowledges that it existed but generally required such people to be released after 7 years - unless they chose to remain as bonded-labourers. The Old Testament still required owners of bonded labourers to treat them with regard and kindness.
-
Writing in the most general terms, It seems to me that slavery is an ingrained human characteristic. This characteristic has been modified somewhat over the centuries by greater emphases on more humane values. E.g. the Declaration of Rights of Man, the influence of Wilberforce on making the slave trade illegal, to the 1948 UN Declaration of Human Rights, and right through to the 1976 law in India banning bonded labour and the UN sustainable development goals of 2015. These more humane values have come from people and organizations which are both religious and secular, and these continue right up to the present day.
However, on a personal level, the teachings of Jesus as exhibited in the NT, seem to suggest, at the very least, an ambiguity as to whether slavery was immoral or not. This might well be understandable when taking into account the historical context of his sayings, but if I am asked to judge his sayings as being the inspired word of God, then, because I think slavery is wrong, I have no alternative but to consider my personal morals on this particular point as being better than those that Jesus is reported to have conveyed/hinted at/ignored in the gospels. On this point, therefore, I am in general(but not total) agreement with Be Rational, who said:
I do not think slavery is moral, but your god does.
from Mess 63 'Who Created the Deity'.
-
In which Vlad fails again to grasp that enforcement of legislation is a function of the apparatus of the state, and that the further decline in the already small number of practising Christians has no relationship whatever to that regardless of how much he hopes the slur of putting "secular" and "slavery" in the same sentence will stick.
The decline in practising Christians has also coincided with the decrease in murder rates. Should we ban evangelising therefore because more practising Christians would cause more murders?
The schtick is all Be rational's since he linked Christianity with slavery in the attempt to slur Christianity....I notice you never try to pick people up on that slur and secularism with it's reduction.
With regard to murders in secular Britain the decline is from 2001 when there was a high of over 1000.
-
Writing in the most general terms, It seems to me that slavery is an ingrained human characteristic. This characteristic has been modified somewhat over the centuries by greater emphases on more humane values. E.g. the Declaration of Rights of Man, the influence of Wilberforce on making the slave trade illegal, to the 1948 UN Declaration of Human Rights, and right through to the 1976 law in India banning bonded labour and the UN sustainable development goals of 2015. These more humane values have come from people and organizations which are both religious and secular, and these continue right up to the present day.
However, on a personal level, the teachings of Jesus as exhibited in the NT, seem to suggest, at the very least, an ambiguity as to whether slavery was immoral or not. This might well be understandable when taking into account the historical context of his sayings, but if I am asked to judge his sayings as being the inspired word of God, then, because I think slavery is wrong, I have no alternative but to consider my personal morals on this particular point as being better than those that Jesus is reported to have conveyed/hinted at/ignored in the gospels. On this point, therefore, I am in general(but not total) agreement with Be Rational, who said: from Mess 63 'Who Created the Deity'.
Since I consider God to be absolute morality and secular people in general do not hold with moral realism in any case I have to confess to some amusement over a claim to be more moral than Jesus.
That aside you are but one view point in a line of those claiming Jesus moral shortcomings of which, historically the zealots would be the first.
Christ was not a zealot for the reason that his kingdom was not of this earth and his mission one of personal salvation for people. Practically speaking as well Jesus knew that the mission for personal salvation would not proceed through the immediate re establishment of the Jewish state. Paul knew that the mission of demonstrating the new life would be jeopardised if Christianity turned into a slave rebellion. People have found the mission of Jesus to be transformative and secular legislation often to be merely administrative bluster if the will for enforcement is not there.
Instead of saying ''boy isn't the sentiment of people like meself wonderful and better than Jesus'' perhaps we ought to be wondering how modern slavery could have happened in a secular society that is better than the one Jesus lived in.
-
However, on a personal level, the teachings of Jesus as exhibited in the NT, seem to suggest, at the very least, an ambiguity as to whether slavery was immoral or not. This might well be understandable when taking into account the historical context of his sayings, but if I am asked to judge his sayings as being the inspired word of God, then, because I think slavery is wrong, I have no alternative but to consider my personal morals on this particular point as being better than those that Jesus is reported to have conveyed/hinted at/ignored in the gospels. On this point, therefore, I am in general(but not total) agreement with Be Rational, who said: from Mess 63 'Who Created the Deity'.
And what do you base your assumption regarding Jesus' attitude to slavery on, enki? Apart from his apparent total silence on the matter - a state of affairs that applies to a number of other issues as well - what makes you feel that his moral stance is any less than yours?
-
But in an increasing secular society slavery has increased Be Rational.
In which Vlad:
1. Wrongly describes "decreasingly practising Christian" with "increasingly secular" as if in some way the Christians who stopped going to church then called their MPs to lobby for the non-enforcement of the criminal law;
2. Still fails to grasp that, even if we were "increasingly secular", that no more correlates to increased slavery than "decreasingly Christian" correlates to the reduction in murders.
You are mistaking national legislation for secular morality here.
In which Vlad invents a new concept of "secular morality" even though there is no such thing. Secularists can draw their morality from any number of sources, but the fact of their secularism isn't one of them.
-
Instead of saying ''boy isn't the sentiment of people like meself wonderful and better than Jesus'' perhaps we ought to be wondering how modern slavery could have happened in a secular society that is better than the one Jesus lived in.
In which Vlad spectacularly shoots himself in the foot by failing to notice that even by his own measurement of "incidence of slavery" our secular society is much better than "the one Jesus lived in" - not least because that society condoned it whereas ours criminalises it.
-
I'm not sure what you mean by more theological than historical?
One cannot regard the Pentateuch as accurate history.
The events of Exodus have been exaggerated and distorted by those who 'edited' it in the Exile period; its' historicity cannot be verified.
However it was written to confirm God's care for His people in straitened times - in that it is theologically valuable.
-
In which Vlad:
1. Wrongly describes "decreasingly practising Christian" with "increasingly secular" as if in some way the Christians who stopped going to church then called their MPs to lobby for the non-enforcement of the criminal law;
2. Still fails to grasp that, even if we were "increasingly secular", that no more correlates to increased slavery than "decreasingly Christian" correlates to the reduction in murders.
In which Vlad invents a new concept of "secular morality" even though there is no such thing. Secularists can draw their morality from any number of sources, but the fact of their secularism isn't one of them.
Again it is Be Rational who introduces the idea of Secular morality (in order to demonstrate that we are more moral than God.
Reduction of murders .....since 2001.
-
In which Vlad spectacularly shoots himself in the foot by failing to notice that even by his own measurement of "incidence of slavery" our secular society is much better than "the one Jesus lived in" - not least because that society condoned it whereas ours criminalises it.
It was criminalised in 1833 was society then secular? I don't know?
Slavery is increasing society obviously got less vigilant and active against it? Is that condoning it? It is certainly a moral decline if you look at No slavery being a key stone of secular morality....which Be Rational does.
-
In which Vlad spectacularly shoots himself in the foot by failing to notice that even by his own measurement of "incidence of slavery" our secular society is much better than "the one Jesus lived in" - not least because that society condoned it whereas ours criminalises it.
Is it, blue. What was the incidence of slavery back then, compared to today (hint: I've seen figures suggesting a tenfold increase between then and now, albeit today's figures are lower than in the 1800s when Wilberforce and Shaftesbury fought to abolish the practice). I wonder what the incidence of child abuse was back then; or of the elderly being confined to homes for their particular age - away from family all too often.
Just because we may have improved some aspects of our lives, does it mean that we are overall a 'better society'? Does the fact that the larger society that Jesus lived in condoned slavery mean that Jewish society itself did? Finally, which is worse, criminalising something but allowing it to go on unchecked apart from in high visibility cases, or acknowledging its existence and (to an extent) necessary for the continuance of the society of the time and seeking to mitigate the impacts it had on people caught up in it by encouraging owners to treat theirs honestly and kindly.
-
Is it, blue. What was the incidence of slavery back then, compared to today (hint: I've seen figures suggesting a tenfold increase between then and now, albeit today's figures are lower than in the 1800s when Wilberforce and Shaftesbury fought to abolish the practice).
What figures? I suggest you cite them, and I do hope they account for a both variations in population and methods of record keeping.
I wonder what the incidence of child abuse was back then; or of the elderly being confined to homes for their particular age - away from family all too often.
Is your wonder supported by information?
Just because we may have improved some aspects of our lives, does it mean that we are overall a 'better society'?
It is a subjective view but I'd say so: for example in the part of the world I live in I'm glad that infant mortality has improved dramatically.
Does the fact that the larger society that Jesus lived in condoned slavery mean that Jewish society itself did?
No, but so what?
Finally, which is worse, criminalising something but allowing it to go on unchecked apart from in high visibility cases, or acknowledging its existence and (to an extent) necessary for the continuance of the society of the time and seeking to mitigate the impacts it had on people caught up in it by encouraging owners to treat theirs honestly and kindly.
Sounds like another of your bizarre tu quoque like suggestions.
-
Talking of Slavery in modern times......
This is from MY area of Lancashire ......
http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/14830039.Four_men_held_after_modern_slavery_raids_across_East_Lancashire/
See what you all think !
Nick in Nelson.
-
What figures? I suggest you cite them, and I do hope they account for a both variations in population and methods of record keeping.
Is your wonder supported by information?
It is a subjective view but I'd say so: for example in the part of the world I live in I'm glad that infant mortality has improved dramatically.
No, but so what?
Sounds like another of your bizarre tu quoque like suggestions.
Things we have now that we never had in the fifties and sixties.
Precarious employment.
Gig economy
Benefits going down
The Thatcherite underclass
No Go estates
Modern slavery
Impending economic doom.
possible end to the UK.
cybercrime.
The one party state.
-
Hope,
Is it, blue. What was the incidence of slavery back then, compared to today (hint: I've seen figures suggesting a tenfold increase between then and now, albeit today's figures are lower than in the 1800s when Wilberforce and Shaftesbury fought to abolish the practice).
“Back then” is the time of Jesus that Vlad referred to, and the incidence of slavery then was hugely greater then than it is now – endemic in fact, and condoned both by the Roman state and by the OT.
I wonder what the incidence of child abuse was back then; or of the elderly being confined to homes for their particular age - away from family all too often.
Wonder away, and while you’re at it wonder too at the incidence of capital punishment for petty crimes, of raping the women and girls of your defeated enemies, of pederasty, of…
Just because we may have improved some aspects of our lives, does it mean that we are overall a 'better society'?
If you think that our moral norms are better than those of the Jesus-era Roman empire, then yes.
Does the fact that the larger society that Jesus lived in condoned slavery mean that Jewish society itself did?
If “Jewish society” thought the Torah or the OT to be authoritative, then yes.
Finally, which is worse, criminalising something but allowing it to go on unchecked apart from in high visibility cases, or acknowledging its existence and (to an extent) necessary for the continuance of the society of the time and seeking to mitigate the impacts it had on people caught up in it by encouraging owners to treat theirs honestly and kindly.
Wow. You seriously think that Jesus-era slaves were treated “honestly and kindly”?
Seriously?
You (presumably) think slavery to be immoral regardless of how economically desirable it might have been, yet if the NT is to be believed Jesus said not a word against it. So much for core values eh?
-
Hope,
“Back then” is the time of Jesus that Vlad referred to, and the incidence of slavery then was hugely greater then than it is now – endemic in fact, and condoned both by the Roman state and by the OT.
Wonder away, and while you’re at it wonder too at the incidence of capital punishment for petty crimes, of raping the women and girls of your defeated enemies, of pederasty, of…
If you think that our moral norms are better than those of the Jesus-era Roman empire, then yes.
If “Jewish society” thought the Torah or the OT to be authoritative, then yes.
Wow. You seriously think that Jesus-era slaves were treated “honestly and kindly”?
Seriously?
You (presumably) think slavery to be immoral regardless of how economically desirable it might have been, yet if the NT is to be believed Jesus said not a word against it. So much for core values eh?
I think we should look at the two areas of the title here Religious and secular. Given that the secular has always existed and Christianity as portrayed in the Gospel is the basis of our moral culture then I'm afraid all ill can be put down to secular behaviour at the point where it repudiates the gospel.
Perfect, non religious morality as espoused by secular humanism has i'm afraid led to a less than critical moral review. The pressure of true goodness is evident in Secular Humanist self righteousness and in a certain desire to eradicate religion from the public realm so their is no comparator.
We are all in danger of going ''The full secular'' but we can also recognise the cultural importance of Christianity as Richard Dawkins does.
-
Hope,
“Back then” is the time of Jesus that Vlad referred to, and the incidence of slavery then was hugely greater then than it is now – endemic in fact, and condoned both by the Roman state and by the OT.
Wow. You seriously think that Jesus-era slaves were treated “honestly and kindly”?
Seriously?
Yes I think the Early Christian debates on slavery as reflected in the epistles would have improved the lot of many slaves and the release of some.
Slaves had legal rights and in some cases had better economic conditions than some free people. Some people became slaves for economic and career reasons and could be adopted or married by owners all in non Christian circumstances.
The treatment of commercial slaves post enlightenment was a bit different and there treatment was industrialised and brutal with no prospect other than hard labour, little prospect of manumission and regarded no further than as breeding stock. Altogether a more ghastly affair as is Modern slavery.
It is not that they had slavery then. It is because we had thought we had done away with it but obviously haven't.
Some people in the secular context have rationalised that it's OK to do this and the secular context has allowed it to happen.
-
I'm suggesting that Christians debated the rights and wrong of slave ownership, trading, and treatment at a time when other romans probably would not have.
And the result of their debate? Carry on.
-
But if you are ascribing humanitarian principles to secularism
Where did I do that?
how come slavery is now increasing in an increasingly secular country?
Which secular country are you talking about and what evidence do you have that slavery is increasing there?
-
And the result of their debate? Carry on.
One result is the epistolatory advice on slavery which has already been discussed.
This would have improved the lot of slaves with Christian masters up to and including manumission.
That the condition and treatment of slaves gets worse in post enlightenment industrial level slavery is a departure from the NT for secular reasons and nominal Christianity. The counter to this then occurs through the rise of Quakerism and evangelicalism. This was continued in the UK during increased secularisation but in the increased secularisation which marks the last three decades slavery has made a comeback due to acquisitive materialism and a complacent secular humanism which had it's moral compass disoriented by it's own beliefs about intrinsic goodness and the idea of natural moral progression.
-
Yes I think the Early Christian debates on slavery as reflected in the epistles would have improved the lot of many slaves and the release of some.
Slaves had legal rights and in some cases had better economic conditions than some free people. Some people became slaves for economic and career reasons and could be adopted or married by owners all in non Christian circumstances.
The treatment of commercial slaves post enlightenment was a bit different and there treatment was industrialised and brutal with no prospect other than hard labour, little prospect of manumission and regarded no further than as breeding stock. Altogether a more ghastly affair as is Modern slavery.
It is not that they had slavery then. It is because we had thought we had done away with it but obviously haven't.
Some people in the secular context have rationalised that it's OK to do this and the secular context has allowed it to happen.
In which a man who believes in moral absolutes and that his pick of the available faiths tells him what those absolutes are indulges in such fantastic casuistry that he also claims that slavery was fine provided the slave owners tried to be a bit nice about it.
Either Christianity has inviolable core values or it doesn't. Adjusting them retrospectively to suit the times is moral relativism.
Coming next: paedophilia is fine provided you give the kid a sweet afterwards.
Contemptible stuff, just contemptible.
-
And what do you base your assumption regarding Jesus' attitude to slavery on, enki? Apart from his apparent total silence on the matter - a state of affairs that applies to a number of other issues as well - what makes you feel that his moral stance is any less than yours?
Well, as you seem to agree, Hope, Jesus didn't really speak out against slavery, that is according to the gospels. It seems he was ready to take on authority in other ways though, and is often looked upon as being quite revolutionary in his moral stances. He even accepted that one might be persecuted for one's views. He had quite a lot to say about kosher food and what the sabbath should mean, but is silent on the evils of slavery. I consider that to be a strange omission from his avowed intentions to support the poor and downtrodden.
When he does allude to slavery, he seems to be particularly uncommital or even quite accepting of the practice, often using it to make a point. E.G. Luke 12:47-48, or Matthew 18:23-35 or Matthew 25:14-30 or Matthew 24:45-51.
And yet he is credited as saying that you should love your neighbour as yourself, which, on the face of it, seems to run contrary to this acceptance of slavery.
Hence there seems to be ambiguity in his message at the very least, and, as I can only go upon what he is supposed to have said, from my point of view I have two alternatives.
a) The Bible is the inspired word of God, and therefore slavery was not considered by God at that time to be of sufficient importance to denounce, clearly and unambiguously. I personally consider it to be a totally immoral activity, and therefore I would suggest that in this area my attitude runs contrary to that of the gospels.
b) Jesus was human and had some powerful things to say, many which have echoed through the centuries. However against the backcloth that slavery was an accepted practice in those times, he saw it as a normal activity. Of course, he isn't alone in this(e.g. Aristotle) and I certainly wouldn't simply condemn a human being for holding such views considering the time in which they lived. Rather would I try to pick out what I would consider to be the more enlightened messages that such people give, accepting that they are only human.
Obviously I greatly favour the second alternative.
-
In which a man who believes in moral absolutes and that his pick of the available faiths tells him what those absolutes are indulges in such fantastic casuistry that he also claims that slavery was fine provided the slave owners tried to be a bit nice about it.
Either Christianity has inviolable core values or it doesn't. Adjusting them retrospectively to suit the times is moral relativism.
Coming next: paedophilia is fine provided you give the kid a sweet afterwards.
Contemptible stuff, just contemptible.
Hillside. I can completely understand that you are pissed at the whole secular humanist/antitheist/atheist model of ''every day secular society just gets better and better'' unravelling before your eyes. But pissed enough to throw out accusations of supporting paedophilia? That is certainly the mark of a desperate man.
If one is a moral realist one can't fail to realise that as St Paul has said ''all are fallen short''. This is a fallen world.
Do I believe that Paul and Early Christianity was faced with a choice of a failing social revolution along the lines of Spartacus rebellion or an authentic Christian demonstration of the real power of God, Yes.
Do I feel the Early Christians including many, many slaves did the right thing by mainly staying put within there society and hence converting many, yes I do.
I guess Hillside sees himself as a time travelling moral crusader in which had he been there at the time he would have put a few people straight and no messing.....but that is wishful self righteous thinking and after all why would he rather see him as a first century atheist moral leader rather than in another role say a persecutor of Christians.......and we all know what they were like.
Whatever...Hillside you've lost your class in a pretty disgraceful way IMHO and it's going to take me a lot of persuading to hang about on a forum where that is the case.
-
Hillside. I can completely understand that you are pissed at the whole secular humanist/antitheist/atheist model of ''every day secular society just gets better and better'' unravelling before your eyes. But pissed enough to throw out accusations of supporting paedophilia? That is certainly the mark of a desperate man.
If one is a moral realist one can't fail to realise that as St Paul has said ''all are fallen short''. This is a fallen world.
Do I believe that Paul and Early Christianity was faced with a choice of a failing social revolution along the lines of Spartacus rebellion or an authentic Christian demonstration of the real power of God, Yes.
Do I feel the Early Christians including many, many slaves did the right thing by mainly staying put within there society and hence converting many, yes I do.
I guess Hillside sees himself as a time travelling moral crusader in which had he been there at the time he would have put a few people straight and no messing.....but that is wishful self righteous thinking and after all why would he rather see him as a first century atheist moral leader rather than in another role say a persecutor of Christians.......and we all know what they were like.
Whatever...Hillside you've lost your class in a pretty disgraceful way IMHO and it's going to take me a lot of persuading to hang about on a forum where that is the case.
In which Vlad not only fails to grasp that he wasn't accused of supporting paedophilia at all, but that instead he was "accused" of moral relativism. Moral relativism is of course fine by me as it reflects the way morality observably works, but it's a difficult spot for those who in the same breath claim moral absolutism ("slavery bad") and moral relativism ("slavery bad, except when the slave owners are a bit nice about it").
If the Vlads of this world think there to be moral certainties that are divinely ordained then changing their moral position according to the circumstances of the time is a no-no: for the absolutist, bad is bad and good is good.
-
In which Vlad not only fails to grasp that he wasn't accused of supporting paedophilia at all, but that instead he was "accused" of moral relativism. Moral relativism is of course fine by me as it reflects the way morality observably works, but it's a difficult spot for those who in the same breath claim moral absolutism ("slavery bad") and moral relativism ("slavery bad, except when the slave owners are a bit nice about it").
If the Vlads of this world think there to be moral certainties that are divinely ordained then changing their moral position according to the circumstances of the time is a no-no: for the absolutist, bad is bad and good is good.
No, I don't think Slavery is fine which is one of the things you accused me of.
I am not a moral relativist.
You on the other hand have resorted to hyperbole.....You've lost it Hillside and for the reasons I've already said.
Christianity emerges in a society where there is slavery. Your beloved secular society in which ''everything just gets better'' seems to have reinstigated it and that is something in a completely different order.
Christian thesis is this is a fallen world of greater and lesser evils that is the case.
Of course, following your logic the whole thing should be abolished. God permits many things but doesn't condone or approve of them.
-
Christianity emerges in a society where there is slavery. Your beloved secular society in which ''everything just gets better'' seems to have reinstigated it and that is something in a completely different order.
As far as I can see, Vlad, you still haven't established a causal link between increased secularism and increased slavery along with clarification of how both these states are defined and measured. Your personal conviction that they are associated isn't sufficient on that basis and since association isn't causation.
Christian thesis is this is a fallen world of greater and lesser evils that is the case.
Of course, following your logic the whole thing should be abolished. God permits many things but doesn't condone or approve of them.
A straw man, Vlad: pure and simple since you must know nobody here is campaigning for the abolition of Christianity.
-
God permits many things but doesn't condone or approve of them.
Indeed.
One may as well say, "God condones sin because He allows people to sin". So why did He send His Son to die on the cross for our sins then? (Romans 5 v 8)
Edit: Romans 5 v 8
-
As far as I can see, Vlad, you still haven't established a causal link between increased secularism and increased slavery along with clarification of how both these states are defined and measured. Your personal conviction that they are associated isn't sufficient on that basis and since association isn't causation.
A straw man, Vlad: pure and simple since you must know nobody here is campaigning for the abolition of Christianity.
My thesis is that people today become modern slavers for the secular reason of acquisitive materialism.
Secondly What do you mean abolish Christianity.....I wasn't talking about that. If Hillside believes that God should supernaturally abolish evil and the source of evil then logically he would have to abolish people.
-
No, I don't think Slavery is fine which is one of the things you accused me of.
In which Vlad tells us in consecutive posts that slavery is morally fine provided you're nice to your slaves, and then that it's morally not fine at all.
One wonders when this moral absolutist will make up his mind about which position is morally absolutely good and which absolutely morally bad.
-
In which Vlad tells us in consecutive posts that slavery is morally fine provided you're nice to your slaves, and then that it's morally not fine at all.
One wonders when this moral absolutist will make up his mind about which position is morally absolutely good and which absolutely morally bad.
Please quote with context when I have said that or used the words ''slavery was morally fine.'' You are putting words into my mouth Hillside just stop it will you?
-
My thesis is that people today become modern slavers for the secular reason of acquisitive materialism.
So it is since you've said so: having said so where is the data supporting your position? Without that this is just your opinion
Secondly What do you mean abolish Christianity.....I wasn't talking about that. If Hillside believes that God should supernaturally abolish evil and the source of evil then logically he would have to abolish people.
Try reading the last bit of your 117, where you seem to move effortlessly between 'Christian thesis in the first sentence of the last para to 'abolished'in the next sentence:
Christian thesis is this is a fallen world of greater and lesser evils that is the case.
Of course, following your logic the whole thing should be abolished. God permits many things but doesn't condone or approve of them.
-
There's a programme on Radio 4 at the moment, but I'm not listening to it.
-
So it is since you've said so: having said so where is the data supporting your position? Without that this is just your opinion
Try reading the last bit of your 117, where you seem to move effortlessly between 'Christian thesis in the first sentence of the last para to 'abolished'in the next sentence:
No my meaning Is quite plain the problem here is yours.
And if I can give you a bit of advice your constant pressing for evidence of people are today slaving for personal monetary gain makes you look as if you are denying that it is going on.
-
No my meaning Is quite plain the problem here is yours.
And if I can give you a bit of advice your constant pressing for evidence of people are today slaving for personal monetary gain makes you look as if you are denying that it is going on.
Which would be a humongous straw man, Vlad.
Must check my calendar - is it Fallacy Sunday by any chance?
-
One result is the epistolatory advice on slavery which has already been discussed.
That wasn't the result. None of the Christians with any vested interests in slavery took any notice.
This would have improved the lot of slaves with Christian masters up to and including manumission.
You mean it could have been even worse than being packed side by side in chains on a ship for the weeks it took to cross the Atlantic?
-
That wasn't the result. None of the Christians with any vested interests in slavery took any notice.
Evidence, please.
-
Indeed.
One may as well say, "God condones sin because He allows people to sin". So why did He send His Son to die on the cross for our sins then? (Romans 5 v 8)
Edit: Romans 5 v 8
There is no evidence it did!
-
Floo,
you could just say anything, he doesn't know what evidence is.
-
Floo,
you could just say anything, he doesn't know what evidence is.
The problem is, Walter, that I do know what evidence is - it's just that I understand it to have a wider remit than you do.
-
Response to Vlad's Post 96::
Since I consider God to be absolute morality and secular people in general do not hold with moral realism in any case I have to confess to some amusement over a claim to be more moral than Jesus.
Don't worry about it, Vlad. I occasionally am amused by your statements too, not often, but occasionally. Actually though I aren't claiming to be more moral than Jesus(according to the gospels, of course). I simply said that on this particular point, my personal view of slavery is that it is wrong. If I were then to accept that his sayings were the inspired word of God, He comes across as having nothing clear and unambiguous to say about slavery being wrong,(indeed, even at times seeming to condone it), therefore I have no recourse other than saying that my sense of morality (as appertaining to slavery) seems better than the one presented by the Jesus of the gospels. No absolute morality required.
That aside you are but one view point in a line of those claiming Jesus moral shortcomings of which, historically the zealots would be the first.
Don't forget that only one moral aspect has been mentioned here, Vlad, and that is dependent on the view that the gospels are the inspired word of God. As I aren't a zealot in any historical or even in the modern sense of the word, this really has no significance to me.
Christ was not a zealot for the reason that his kingdom was not of this earth and his mission one of personal salvation for people. Practically speaking as well Jesus knew that the mission for personal salvation would not proceed through the immediate re establishment of the Jewish state. Paul knew that the mission of demonstrating the new life would be jeopardised if Christianity turned into a slave rebellion. People have found the mission of Jesus to be transformative and secular legislation often to be merely administrative bluster if the will for enforcement is not there.
This is God you're talking about. So He is prepared to ignore human suffering if it is brought about by other humans on the basis that this is the only way that the salvation aspect of Christianity may flourish. Yet He is able to do the most wonderful supernatural healing when He so chooses. Strange that this supernatural agent of yours is, as you say, so bound by the 'practical'. To me, what it does seem to suggest is that your God is unwilling/unable to have relieved the suffering of brought about by slavery.
Instead of saying ''boy isn't the sentiment of people like meself wonderful and better than Jesus'' perhaps we ought to be wondering how modern slavery could have happened in a secular society that is better than the one Jesus lived in.
You're making things up again, Vlad...presumably to present your case in a much better light, unless you are not referring to me at all when you say. 'boy isn't the sentiment of people like meself wonderful and better than Jesus'. If you are referring to me however, you couldn't be more wrong. I have never said that having any moral position or 'sentiment' is 'wonderful'. Indeed, I find many of my moral positions are very challenging and hard fought, often requiring a great deal of thought as well as emotion, but never, to my mind, 'wonderful' at all. Indeed, I so often fail to live up to my moral feelings because of my human weaknesses. 'Better than Jesus'? I very much doubt it. Again, if you are referring to me, try not to use the blunderbuss approach. It's beneath you, and it gets you nowhere. I am only saying that my sense of morality (as appertaining to slavery) seems better than the one presented by the Jesus of the gospels. No more. no less.
I have already suggested that the penchant for slavery is a quality ingrained in human beings. We should always be on guard to prevent it appearing as much as possible because it causes such distress to human beings. Unfortunately it can often be justified by a variety of pervasive and rigid ideologies. It seems to me that one of the first things to do is to criminalise it wherever it may occur, and then act with vigour upon such laws, hopefully reducing it to a minimum.
-
The problem is, Walter, that I do know what evidence is - it's just that I understand it to have a wider remit than you do.
so you will have a methodology that you can outline what evidence means for a supernatural claim? You know the one asked for hundreds of times, that you have never produced.
-
so you will have a methodology that you can outline what evidence means for a supernatural claim? You know the one asked for hundreds of times, that you have never produced.
sadly he can't , he won't, cos there is none. I wish he would stop pretending.
Trouble with that is he would have to evaluate his whole life of belief and admit to himself he was WRONG.
That would be unthinkable to him. The sudden realisation would cause untold upheaval, he knows that, so its easier and safer to keep pretending
-
It actually seems like an oxymoron to talk of evidence for the supernatural. Surely, evidence is normally framed within a naturalistic context, so how could one apply it to the non-existent or non-natural? I think people often infer it, for example, if someone recovers from an illness, against the odds, people might say, a miracle, but that is an inference, well, a guess.
-
It actually seems like an oxymoron to talk of evidence for the supernatural. Surely, evidence is normally framed within a naturalistic context, so how could one apply it to the non-existent or non-natural? I think people often infer it, for example, if someone recovers from an illness, against the odds, people might say, a miracle, but that is an inference, well, a guess.
I could do with a miracle right now Wiggs, my lumbar spine is crumbling, however I'm not expecting one. I'm putting my trust in an orthopaedic surgeon tomorrow.
-
sadly he can't , he won't, cos there is none. I wish he would stop pretending.
Trouble with that is he would have to evaluate his whole life of belief and admit to himself he was WRONG.
That would be unthinkable to him. The sudden realisation would cause untold upheaval, he knows that, so its easier and safer to keep pretending
I think, as wigginhall has frequently pointed out, that the attempt to add rationality to religion as if it is scientific is a huge category error. I suppose it arises out of a desire to give it a shiny gloss finish of respectability so that it would appear that we should listen to those who are religious. Those who make the most sense, however,from my point of view, are those who stress the emotional and experiential meaning they gain from their religion.
-
I think, as wigginhall has frequently pointed out, that the attempt to add rationality to religion as if it is scientific is a huge category error. I suppose it arises out of a desire to give it a shiny gloss finish of respectability so that it would appear that we should listen to those who are religious. Those who make the most sense, however,from my point of view, are those who stress the emotional and experiential meaning they gain from their religion.
that's very accommodating of you NS however I have no respect for their beliefs what so ever
-
that's very accommodating of you NS however I have no respect for their beliefs what so ever
The vast majority of what I care about cannot be shown to be correct in an evidential fashion so I am only accommodating my own experience of morality, beauty and love.
-
The vast majority of what I care about cannot be shown to be correct in an evidential fashion so I am only accommodating my own experience of morality, beauty and love.
as you were.....
-
I could do with a miracle right now Wiggs, my lumbar spine is crumbling, however I'm not expecting one. I'm putting my trust in an orthopaedic surgeon tomorrow.
Good luck with that.
-
I could do with a miracle right now Wiggs, my lumbar spine is crumbling, however I'm not expecting one. I'm putting my trust in an orthopaedic surgeon tomorrow.
On the assumption that this has to do with your increasing age, I'm not sure that God will provide a miracle just to help you feel younger. I hope the surgeon is able to use his (or her) God-given skills.
-
On the assumption that this has to do with your increasing age, I'm not sure that God will provide a miracle just to help you feel younger. I hope the surgeon is able to use his (or her) God-given skills.
your assumption is incorrect and I his skills are rumoured to be Allah-given
-
It actually seems like an oxymoron to talk of evidence for the supernatural. Surely, evidence is normally framed within a naturalistic context, so how could one apply it to the non-existent or non-natural? I think people often infer it, for example, if someone recovers from an illness, against the odds, people might say, a miracle, but that is an inference, well, a guess.
I think the trouble occurs when people come in and declare that it's all made up.....or made up shit....or the like...and i'm afraid that doesn't quite fit the bill.
Nearly Sane is about the only person who takes this kind of behaviour to task.
I am a big fan of methodological naturalism and it may have the loveliest methodology there is...but philosophical naturalism. It ain't.
-
I claim full house in Vlad-bingo! What's the prize? Two nights in Scunthorpe, I bet.
-
I claim full house in Vlad-bingo! What's the prize? Two nights in Scunthorpe, I bet.
Sorry. I missed the rebuttal to what Vlad said in your response.
The reason Vlad is incorrect because ...
-
your assumption is incorrect and I his skills are rumoured to be Allah-given
Don't forget that 'Allah' is just the Arabic word for 'God', Walter. It doesn't specify a particular deity, at least not linguistically.
-
Don't forget that 'Allah' is just the Arabic word for 'God', Walter. It doesn't specify a particular deity, at least not linguistically.
But to quote you from the other thread, you believe in a deity going by the name of Allah, that isn't your god
'To answer the second question, I believe that there are a variety of powers in existence which go by the names of Hanuman, Krishna, Allah, Buddha, etc - but I do not follow them or believe that they have ultimate power.'
-
But to quote you from the other thread, you believe in a deity going by the name of Allah, that isn't your god
'To answer the second question, I believe that there are a variety of powers in existence which go by the names of Hanuman, Krishna, Allah, Buddha, etc - but I do not follow them or believe that they have ultimate power.'
That's right because the wor 'Allah' has now got the sense of a Muslim deity, as opposed to its general sense as was - its rather like the the term 'gay'. It is still a word that means 'light-hearted and carefree' but that meaning has become less common as the sexuality issue has taken the word over.
-
That's right because the wor 'Allah' has now got the sense of a Muslim deity, as opposed to its general sense as was - its rather like the the term 'gay'. It is still a word that means 'light-hearted and carefree' but that meaning has become less common as the sexuality issue has taken the word over.
and you believe that Muslim deity exists, separately from your god
-
I claim full house in Vlad-bingo! What's the prize? Two nights in Scunthorpe, I bet.
Oh no we can't send you Wigginhall. Scunthorpe has one 'c*nt' in it already.
-
Oh no we can't send you Wigginhall. Scunthorpe has one 'c*nt' in it already.
Vlad
I love that joke, I tell it to myself every time I see the road sign
-
Sword,
Sorry. I missed the rebuttal to what Vlad said in your response.
The reason Vlad is incorrect because ...
...because it's a standard piece of Vladdery (ie, a straw man version of what people actually say - the same one you've attempted by the way) and his repeated personal re-definition of terms to suit his purpose. Call it "lying" for short if that helps.
-
Oh no we can't send you Wigginhall. Scunthorpe has one 'c*nt' in it already.
Gosh, Vlad is calling me a cunt. It's witty of course, and then, it sounds Christian, doesn't it?
-
There's nothing unChristian about a name for part of the female anatomy but I'm not sure it is very Christian to call you that, Wigginhall, because surely there is more to you than just one part, especially one which, unless I am mistaken, you don't have anyway.
Dear Vlad, you're not a prick so stop talking bollocks.
-
There's nothing unChristian about a name for part of the female anatomy but I'm not sure it is very Christian to call you that, Wigginhall, because surely there is more to you than just one part, especially one which, unless I am mistaken, you don't have anyway.
Dear Vlad, you're not a prick so stop talking bollocks.
Now that is sheer class in a post, Brownie - well said.
-
Now that is sheer class in a post, Brownie - well said.
Come on......the Scunthorpe joke was a belter.......are you a po faced atheist?
-
Come on......the Scunthorpe joke was a belter.......are you a po faced atheist?
Far from it: if I was that I'd have modded your post, and I didn't. We don't have rules against alleged jokes you see, even those that are neither funny nor witty.