Is Slavery Moral?

[Dorothy Mae]

The abolition of slavery didn't come about because people decided that it was wrong. Rather it was the emergence of other forms of labor relations gave us the luxury of worrying about whether it was right or wrong. How easy it is to condemn slavery today - now that we have machines to do the work that slaves used to do!

You should read about the abolution of slavery in England. It came about because the Christians fought the government to end it. What you wrote never occured to anyone. "Other forms of labor relations" did not emerge that were not there before. There were always people who were not slaves, not self-employed, and nevertheless worked for a living. The Christians worked to end slavery. They knew it was morally wrong even if the atheists did not.

 

[Allandavid]

You should read about the abolution of slavery in England. It came about because the Christians fought the government to end it. What you wrote never occured to anyone. "Other forms of labor relations" did not emerge that were not there before. There were always people who were not slaves, not self-employed, and nevertheless worked for a living. The Christians worked to end slavery. They knew it was morally wrong even if the atheists did not.

So much wrong in there...

First, it’s “abolition”...weren’t you the one trying to lecture on English usage...?

Next, it wasn’t because they were Christians that they fought slavery...there were just as many Christians (more) who supported a continuation of slavery and who used the scriptures to justify it.

Finally, your throwaway line about atheists not seeing a moral wrong in slavery is incorrect. Find me the atheists who claim that slavery is morally acceptable...

 

[Dorothy Mae]

So much wrong in there...

First, it’s “abolition”...weren’t you the one trying to lecture on English usage...?

Ever heard of typos? Spelling errors? Not the same as ignoring the meaning of a word full stop.

Next, it wasn’t because they were Christians that they fought slavery...there were just as many Christians (more) who supported a continuation of slavery and who used the scriptures to justify it.

Yes it was. Those who fought to outlaw slavery in England were Christians and it was for that reason. The Christians in the US were more interested in their own material gain from the institution that loving Christ or God. The English were different. Hence England shed the arrangement without massive loss of life and property and the Americans did not. Those Christians paid for their unwillingness to live the teachings of the Bible.

Finally, your throwaway line about atheists not seeing a moral wrong in slavery is incorrect. Find me the atheists who claim that slavery is morally acceptable...

Find me an atheist who fought against slavery in England. That is the point. And I assure you, America in the 19th century (nor any other) was not filled 100% with Christians.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

We are just going in circles at this point. Please read the entire thread. It's very long. We keep going in circles here..... I'm not going to answer the same questions over and over. Please take the time to read the thread, if you are going to place a response. Please add something new.... Not what was already debunked 100 posts ago...

Stop using "condone" to mean the same as tolerate. But yes, since you will not concede nor test the meaning of your usage by telling someone who tolerated an act that they actually approved of it or condone it or supported it and there is no difference, that is, you refuse to test your position in real life, I will leave you to your evil accusation against God. One day you will answer to Him for accusing Him of evil and I hope I am elsewhere on that day.

 

[jardiniere]

tolerate: to allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.

condone: to accept and allow (behavior that is considered morally wrong or offensive) to continue. To approve or sanction (something), especially with reluctance.

(both from American Heritage Dictionary)

I'm not seeing the distinction you are trying to point out, could you try explaining in a different way?

In what way is it bad to point out some practices allowed in the Bible are immoral? I think it's useful, and lets us acknowledge that our morality is actually constructed not just from the Bible.

 

[Allandavid]

dbl

 

[Allandavid]

Ever heard of typos? Spelling errors? Not the same as ignoring the meaning of a word full stop.
Yes it was. Those who fought to outlaw slavery in England were Christians and it was for that reason. The Christians in the US were more interested in their own material gain from the institution that loving Christ or God. The English were different. Hence England shed the arrangement without massive loss of life and property and the Americans did not. Those Christians paid for their unwillingness to live the teachings of the Bible.
Find me an atheist who fought against slavery in England. That is the point. And I assure you, America in the 19th century (nor any other) was not filled 100% with Christians.

Just one atheist? Ok, how about Robert Ingersoll for size...

Oh...and if I understand you correctly, you concede that one group of Christians were against slavery and used their religious beliefs to justify their stance, while another group of Christians likewise supported slavery, using the same argument...

So it kind of looks like the support or condemnation of slavery is independent of religious belief...!

Oops...!

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Just one atheist? Ok, how about Robert Ingersoll for size...

Oh...and if I understand you correctly, you concede that one group of Christians were against slavery and used their religious beliefs to justify their stance, while another group of Christians likewise supported slavery, using the same argument...

So it kind of looks like the support or condemnation of slavery is independent of religious belief...!

Oops...!

You didn't read my post, again. I said an atheist who fought slavery in England. Ingersoll was an American. But thanks for the tip. Always ready to learn. Looked him up of course.

And I didn't say there were no abolitionists in the US. Far from it. But yes, there were those who claimed to be Christians and fought to keep slavery although they called is "states rights" which sounded a lot better and got more recruits.

Now, the recognition of humans, all humans, as having intrinsic value can be independent of religous thought just as it can be independent of a solid reason. Atheists can be moral and have a personal standard of behaviour that is superior to some Christians. No question. Their reasons, however, are personal preference on a par with liking bananas over oranges. It is based on their own personal choices. If the cause gets expensive, they can jettisone their moral standing. The Christians, however, have a stronger reason that is beyond personal choices. And they are not allowed to abandon their call even if it costs them their life. Here the atheist can abandon their mission. The Christian carries it out. Fortunately, most of us are not called to make that choice on either side of the matter.

I endeavor to love truth, whatever that may be. So yes, some atheists are morally better than some who claim to be Christians. Again, no question. I have found in general, that I am more likely to be treated with some respect from atheists than Calvinists. This is a broad statment, but it seems to be the case. Atheists are more likely to be fair and consider matters being discussed, even if they believe in evolution, than most Calvinists whose intolerance is beyond that of the average atheist. Calvinists tend to be vehement while atheists have sometimes only a passing interest in the discussion and therefore feel no complusion to be insulting but remain civil. In my experience, this occured most often in the older generation though. Younger atheists were trained in their growing years to filet their opponent. Civility has left the culture in many ways and touched all who do not consciously resist it.

Does my answer surprise you? I will admit when I am wrong and am fond of "I stand corrected" as I learn from those who enlighten me where I am indeed mistaken.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

tolerate: to allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.

condone: to accept and allow (behavior that is considered morally wrong or offensive) to continue. To approve or sanction (something), especially with reluctance.

(both from American Heritage Dictionary)

I'm not seeing the distinction you are trying to point out, could you try explaining in a different way?

In what way is it bad to point out some practices allowed in the Bible are immoral? I think it's useful, and lets us acknowledge that our morality is actually constructed not just from the Bible.

Fair enough, Jardiniere. Tolerate allows something but does not grant approval or sanction. Those words are not a part of that action. There is no interference to stop it. Condoning involves also approving or sanctioning the matter, albiet with reluctance. If I allow something but do not approve nor sanction it, I am tolerating it. If I approve of it and/or sanction it, I am condoning it. Do you see the difference?

Again, if you find someone who allowed behaviour in the office or home or group as they did not take action to prevent it (seeing it would do more harm that good, for example) and you accuse them of actually approving or sanctioning the action, they will not like the accusation and would strongly disagree feeling insulted.

Second question: it is not bad to point out that practices allowed in the Bible are immoral. The Bible is full of descriptions of what people did that God did not approve of, sanction, support but forbade. He nevertheless tolerated it because the tyranny of forcing everyone to do his will was worse.

 

[jardiniere]

Fair enough, Jardiniere. Tolerate allows something but does not grant approval or sanction. Those words are not a part of that action. There is no interference to stop it. Condoning involves also approving or sanctioning the matter, albiet with reluctance. If I allow something but do not approve nor sanction it, I am tolerating it. If I approve of it and/or sanction it, I am condoning it. Do you see the difference?

Again, if you find someone who allowed behaviour in the office or home or group as they did not take action to prevent it (seeing it would do more harm that good, for example) and you accuse them of actually approving or sanctioning the action, they will not like the accusation and would strongly disagree feeling insulted.

Second question: it is not bad to point out that practices allowed in the Bible are immoral. The Bible is full of descriptions of what people did that God did not approve of, sanction, support but forbade. He nevertheless tolerated it because the tyranny of forcing everyone to do his will was worse.

I think you need to give the people who say the Bible condones slavery the benefit of the doubt, and that they may just mean condoning in the sense of allowing it, rather than approving it-I don't really see condoning something as approving of it without a great deal of reluctance ("I approve of your lying to the Gestapo to save Jews. I don't approve of lying." sort of thing). I don't think the bible approves of slavery, but I do think it condones it, mostly because it addresses the ways slavery should function in society- with checks and balances. Just like many in this society don't approve smoking, but yet we allow it, and have laws regulating it.

 

[jardiniere]

"Tolerate is putting up with, condoning is giving permission". I really like the way my mother succinctly put it.

This may be our sticking point. The bible clearly gives permission to own slaves. This may be because slavery had to be tolerated at the time the bible was written.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I think you need to give the people who say the Bible condones slavery the benefit of the doubt, and that they may just mean condoning in the sense of allowing it, rather than approving it-I don't really see condoning something as approving of it without a great deal of reluctance

If you do not want to accept the definition that you gave me of the words, but think you can define them as you want, then we have a problem.

The whole of the accusation against the character of God lies in the choice of the word condone which means approve of. That is the dictionary definition you gave me. If you want to now reject that standard definition, how can one talk to you as you make up whatever meaning suits you?

And there is no doubt. The OP is meant to accuse God of evil and so "condone" which means approve of instead of "tolerate" which does not entail approving of the matter. If the OP had used "tolerate" it would carry nor moral complaint against God. The goal was to accuse God of moral evil and so it was important to use condone which entails moral evil that tolerate does not. No doubt of the intent. They are not the first to accuse God of evil. It started in the garden and continues to this day.

("I approve of your lying to the Gestapo to save Jews. I don't approve of lying." sort of thing).

That is not the situation. And no one gave their approval or tolerance to those who lied to the Gestapo. Irrelevant example.

I don't think the bible approves of slavery, but I do think it condones it, mostly because it addresses the ways slavery should function in society- with checks and balances. Just like many in this society don't approve smoking, but yet we allow it, and have laws regulating it.

You are contradicting yourself or simply refusing to admit the dictionary definition you gave me is true. You say the Bible does not approve of slavery but that you do think it approves (condones) it. The dictionary definition of condone includes approval. So you are contradicting yourself.

 

[cvanwey]

Stop using "condone" to mean the same as tolerate. But yes, since you will not concede nor test the meaning of your usage by telling someone who tolerated an act that they actually approved of it or condone it or supported it and there is no difference, that is, you refuse to test your position in real life, I will leave you to your evil accusation against God. One day you will answer to Him for accusing Him of evil and I hope I am elsewhere on that day.

Dear Dorothy,

Please read post #265, and the handful of other prior posts, within this thread, to demonstrate your failure (on more than one level).

And you are one of the many reasons Christians get a bad wrap. Most of my friends are Christian, and I'm sure glad they do not do what you are doing.... When you don't get your way, you try to scare the skeptic. Tisk tisk...

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Dear Dorothy,

Please read post #265, and the handful of other prior posts, within this thread, to demonstrate your failure (on more than one level).

Nah. I am not doing your homework for you. If you don't remember the details, it is doubtful your accursation is correct.

And you are one of the many reasons Christians get a bad wrap. Most of my friends are Christian, and I'm sure glad they do not do what you are doing.... When you don't get your way, you try to scare the skeptic. Tisk tisk...

Jesus got a bad wrap too. In fact the rap was so bad they killed him....and a lot of his followers too. But I can tell you that Jesus himself used "scare the skeptic" tactics. In fact, Jesus talked more about judgement and hell than all the others put together.

 

[cvanwey]

Nah. I am not doing your homework for you. If you don't remember the details, it is doubtful your accursation is correct.
Jesus got a bad wrap too. In fact the rap was so bad they killed him....and a lot of his followers too. But I can tell you that Jesus himself used "scare the skeptic" tactics. In fact, Jesus talked more about judgement and hell than all the others put together.

And if hell does actually exist, who created it? And if the action of 'belief' cannot be controlled by free will; and if the action of 'belief' does not fall under the scope of morality/immorality; and yet, 'belief' is the defining attribute between heaven and hell (according to Jesus), what is the point of following any morals at all? There's a real question to ponder

So basically, believe or burn, right? Can you get yourself to believe something, without your own needed evidence? I pose a very simple test...

Make yourself believe you can fly (without artificial means), and try jumping off a very tall building. So I again ask, if beliefs are not controlled by free will, and one does not believe, does this individual deserve to burn for eternity?

I don't believe in the supernatural. So what proof do you have, of the supernatural.

Thanks

 

[Par5]

From the many posts from Christians on this thread, it would appear that they believe that slavery is not really slavery if it's biblical slavery. Much like they also seem to believe that a contradiction is not really a contradiction if it's a biblical contradiction and that genocide is not really genocide so long as it's carried out at the behest of the biblical god. Makes you wonder!

 

[Dorothy Mae]

And if hell does actually exist, who created it?

So do you blame your government for making jails instead of letting the guilty off? What kind of question is that?

And if the action of 'belief' cannot be controlled by free will;

The action of belief can be controlled by free will.

and if the action of 'belief' does not fall under the scope of morality/immorality; and yet, 'belief' is the defining attribute between heaven and hell (according to Jesus), what is the point of following any morals at all? There's a real question to ponder

The defining attribute between heaven and hell is between righteousness and sin. If you commit wrong, (same as committing a crime in nations), you will face the punishment. Belief is not the deciding point per se.

So basically, believe or burn, right? Can you get yourself to believe something, without your own needed evidence? I pose a very simple test...

No, repent or burn. Even human judges grant a lesser sentence if the guilty repents before judgement. And I have lots and lots of evidence. My belief is evidence based.

Make yourself believe you can fly (without artificial means), and try jumping off a very tall building.

I have no evidence that works and all evidence says one cannot do so. Ergo, I do not believe it. I go where the evidence leads. No evidence there.

So I again ask, if beliefs are not controlled by free will, and one does not believe, does this individual deserve to burn for eternity?

Beliefs are controlled by free will.

I don't believe in the supernatural. So what proof do you have, of the supernatural.

I have enough that convinced me decades ago. Everything I have seen since supports this.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

From the many posts from Christians on this thread, it would appear that they believe that slavery is not really slavery if it's biblical slavery. Much like they also seem to believe that a contradiction is not really a contradiction if it's a biblical contradiction and that genocide is not really genocide so long as it's carried out at the behest of the biblical god. Makes you wonder!

It makes me wonder what you are reading.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

You should read about the abolution of slavery in England.

Council of London 1102, called by Anslem, Archbishop of Canterbury. Prohibited slave trading, and slavery itself disappeared shortly afterwards. The feudal system established by the Norman conquest paved the way for it.

 

[cvanwey]

So do you blame your government for making jails instead of letting the guilty off? What kind of question is that?

A great one... Our government does not torture individuals for eternity, for lack in belief in the supernatural (i.e) a resurrection claim.

The action of belief can be controlled by free will.

Then when are you going to make yourself believe you can fly? Since believe is controlled by free will, and free will is the ability to control your thoughts.

The defining attribute between heaven and hell is between righteousness and sin.

Wrong again my friend...

18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

(and..)

15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

You, my friend, are inventing your own morality (which is better than the one asserted from the Bible

If you commit wrong, (same as committing a crime in nations), you will face the punishment. Belief is not the deciding point per se.

No, repent or burn. Even human judges grant a lesser sentence if the guilty repents before judgement. And I have lots and lots of evidence. My belief is evidence based.

I have two specific pieces of 'evidence.' The two verses above Believe or be condemned. What is your definition of condemned? I know what the Bible's definition is BTW, I like how you slipped in 'per se' You are funny.

I have no evidence that works and all evidence says one cannot do so. Ergo, I do not believe it. I go where the evidence leads. No evidence there.

Beliefs are controlled by free will.
I have enough that convinced me decades ago. Everything I have seen since supports this.

You have drastically missed my point... I do not believe, because I do not believe in the supernatural. For that, do I deserve to burn forever in a lake of fire? Simple yes or no question...