Is the existence of Christianity better for this world

[stevevw]

While I knew you were making a claim about society in general, it does resemble the path out of religion that some people take.

No of course not. Individual experiences will vary. But socially and culturally these things evolve. The present paradigm is chipped away at until it changes. Even then there can be regressions and revivals that come and go.

But generally I think we have for the first time in a long time and perhaps ever have more people that reject God than believe and the Christain world view doesn't have much sway on social norms in the public square anymore.

Not me. I was forcibly baptized before I could hold up my own head.

OK its interesting that you see it as forced. I was also baptised but I don't see it as forced but rather it was the social thing to do back then.

Any decent historian of the American Enlightenment and Revolution will tell you otherwise.

I thought Deism believed there was a creator God. Even if that was through naturalistic processes. How did God endow people with rights. There must be some transcendent way besides random and purposeless nature that was factual and truthful because these rights were from God. They regarded Gods ability to endow humans with these rights as a fact that no human could deny.

That's not how deism works, which is what is implied in the Declaration.

If that was the case then they undermine the whole point of human rights being inalienable and can never be undermined or taken by human interpretations or beliefs about human worth. Its because these rights were endowed by God and not humans is what makes them untouchable.

Classic excusagetics. (We'll come back to this.)

I looked this word up. Is this something to do with excuses lol. I cannot find the meaning. But if so its not any excuse but fact. We know that any social change does not happen suddenly apart for say revolutions. But they also build over time.

All I am saying is that there is evidence of Christains working behind the scenes to change practices like slavery or todays child sex trafficking which take time to have an impact on the wider society.

of course there was a "but", there is always a "but" when we equvicate about progress to push an agenda.

Why does it always have to be an agenda. In some ways protesting that its always about agenda is an agenda. I was simply pointing out the balanced view. Yes science has brought great progress but we all know its also come with social and ethical problems ie the same tech that brings us comforts is also destroying the planet. The science and tech cannot always answer the social issues we face.

I have the feeling we have different ideas about moral progress and regress...

We probably do and isn't that a very relevant question if we are to talk about whether Christainity is better for the world. If we cannot even agree on the basis for morality and what is better then we won't be able to determine anything. All I know is one thing is that 'science' cannot tell us what is moral.

I mean the whole idea that we can make moral progress points to some moral objective truth to base that progress on. If we go by modern day secular morality being subjective and relative I cannot see how there is any objective basis of moral progress. Only opinions.

Is that somehow actually changing or new? Can it be demonstrated to being less religious as a society?

Well I think the overall general assumption would by that the increase in mental illness and substances abuse coincides with the decline in belief in God. Which sort of makes sense considering that its known that belief in God or a god keeps people in line to some degree. It also fullfilled the meaning void and is known to aleviate mental illness.

There is plenty of evidence that religion in general but more specifically belief in God is better for physical and mental health and is a stablising factor.

Science Says: Religion Is Good For Your Health
“Most studies have shown that religious involvement and spirituality are associated with better health outcomes, including greater longevity, coping skills, and health-related quality of life (even during terminal illness) and less anxiety, depression, and suicide. Several studies have shown that addressing the spiritual needs of the patient may enhance recovery from illness.”

Science Says: Religion Is Good For Your Health

Theologists, scientists and thought leaders have attempted for centuries to understand the impact that religion can have on human beings; both mentally and physically. And, there is ample reason to believe that faith in a higher power is associated with health, and in a positive way.

www.forbes.com

Spirituality, religiousness, and mental health: A review of the current scientific evidence
The findings reveal a large body of evidence across numerous psychiatric disorders. Although solid evidence is now available for depression, suicidality, and substance use, other diagnosis, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, psychosis, and anxiety, have also shown promising results. The effects of S/R on mental health are likely bidirectional, and the manner in which religious beliefs are used to cope with distress (i.e. negative and positive), may affect mental health outcomes.

Spirituality, religiousness, and mental health: A review of the current scientific evidence - PMC

Research in the field of “Spirituality and Health” has been growing, with spirituality/religiousness (S/R) being consistently related to both physical and mental health. The objective of this article is to provide an updated review of the current ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Brink of war? Wars have been going on somewhere for a very long time. What's any of this got to do with more secularism?

I mean world war. The possibility of a massive war. The world being more unstable now more than ever with more nukes and more crazy people willing to kill others in the world. Put it this way its not getting better.

Its the percieved anxiety and mental health that people are experiencing more than ever along with climate change and domestic issues. It seems a perfect storm for disaster and people feel that. Like theres no hope in this world.

It ain't western secularists to blame for that.

Its not so much who is to blame as some may just be the result of the human condition. Its more that these things are happening and there seems no hope for many so this is compounding the anxiety and causing flow on issues like mental illness.

But I think the rise of secularism has brought with it many problems. Studies show that modern life is making people sick. As you can see above how religion and belief are good for health. It follows that a lack of religious or spiritual belief is going to affect peoples wellbeing.

There is, but I do know what I am talking about and it isn't a good look for your scriptures.
I guess people weren't treated equally then.

For good reason. Are people in debt or who breach the legal code treated equal today. People lose rights when they commit crime or owe money.

Something about you may buy your slaves from the other nations.

Yes this is the favorite verse that is cited out of context. The following verse though contradicts this which skeptics ignore.

Leviticus 19:33–34 reads, “When an alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien. The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.”

Isrealite slave owners had to set their slaves free after 6 years and actually give them plenty of food and live stock from their own supplies to set them on their way. If they wanted to stay they were allowed and could become part of the Isrealites.

The fact is slavery was a common social norm. God did not condone it but worked with the Isrealites to regulate it which no other nation was doing.

But the bigger question is from whose morality are you using to make these moral judgements. Will someone 3,500 years from now say that our so called morals were actually immoral compared to their modern society.

It wasn't as different as you like to think. And it would seem that morals have improved. So much for the degradation of morals under non-Christian influence.

I think it was very different. Most slaves were endentured and happy to be slaves as it gave them a better life. Most slave owners at least within the Isrealites treated their slaves with love and treated them like family.

In that context I think todays morals are much worse. Slavery including sex trafficking has increased dramatically. What we call outsourcing labor to 3rd world nations and exploiting them is a form of slavery if you want to use such liberal morals.

Some people say as society has become more systematic and we are all slaves to the system. Certainly people feel like they are in a poverty trap and have to slave away to just live. Heck Woke DEI ideologues claim all whites are oppressors. So according to them we still enslave blacks lol.

I'm not sure you quite know what separation of religion and government actually means. It's not about social norms or even if people use their religious opinions when they decide on politicians to vote for. Violations are permitted to exist from time to time and they come and go (they are building now), but we have had effective separation of church and state from the beginning. Maybe you should read up on your own section 116 first.

Perhaps I know more about the realities of social life and how it actually works. Social norms are relevant because whatever social norms a society has is how they will see the world and treat legal and political matters.

Separation of Church and State Modern scholarship, along with secular politics, typically maintains a strict separation of church and state, religion and law. But this is strictly a post-enlightenment phenomenon. Even Thomas Jefferson crossed out the preceding word “eternal” in the draft of his Danbury letter when he coined the phrase “wall of separation.”38 The current categorical constructs of “church” and “state” did not exist two hundred years ago.
https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2125&context=lawreview

Even as recent as the 20th century we had States declaring "in God we trust" with God printed on dollar bills, laws that banned abortion, homosexuality, SSM, and abortion. So how can this be if the State and Chrurch were seperated. This is literally imposing Christainity.

What Christian/biblical belief were the commercial colonies founded on? which book is "the queen needs more gold" located?

So the Queen had no morals. Did her representatives have no morals. What were the moral norms and laws. Were their churches. Were people expected to attend church. Was adultery, homosexuality and abortion allowed. Assuming they had some morals.

It seems each of the 13 colonies were dominated by protestants. If the commercial colonies were dominated by Protestants what was their moral social norms and laws. Did they have any.

Even colonies like Virginia, which were planned as commercial ventures, were led by entrepreneurs who considered themselves "militant Protestants" and who worked diligently to promote the prosperity of the church.
https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel01.html

The US Constitution was formulated in the Summer of 1787 in a single room in Philadelphia and ratified by enough states to trigger elections by late 1788.

They had state religions (all Christian, most were Anglican) except Rhode Island and Pennsylvania, but that doesn't mean everyone participated or believed. (See modern European nations with state religions.)

I am not saying that. I am saying what was the basis for their norms and laws. Its about majority rule. If they were majority Christain and the Stae religion was Christain then they were based on Christain and biblical beliefs. That was their moral underpinning. Not Islam, no secular ideology or Hinduism. But Christainity.

What sudden dramitic change? All we have is some vague data spaced out over decades and generations. Things can move much faster than that without being "sudden".

No we have logic. If as you say the State religion was Christain and the majority were Christain then how could that go from majority Christain to 1 in 5 or 6 Christains in 1776 as your link states. Then go back to majority Christain within decades. What happened. Is this a mistake in the data or did something dramatic happened which dropped the Christain majority in a pretty short time.

I think it may be a mistake in the data of your link as most evidence shows there was no drop but rather the vast majority being CHristain even around mid 18th century. So if you link is correct then yes it logically means there was a sudden and massive drop in Christain beliefs by 1776.

Between 1700 and 1740, an estimated 75 to 80 percent of the population attended churches, which were being built at a headlong pace. Toward mid-century the country experienced its first major religious revival. The Great Awakening swept the American colonies in the 1730s and 1740s. They carried the Great Awakening into the southern colonies, igniting a series of the revivals that lasted well into the nineteenth century.
Religion in Eighteenth-Century America - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions (Library of Congress)

The Constitution of North Carolina in 1776 and other states excluded from office all nonbelievers in the Protestant religion or the divine authority of the Old or New Testament,107 and many early American cases held that biblical law was a part and parcel of the common law.

Thus, displaying a representation of the Ten Commandments on the wall of a courtroom or other public building is not, strictly speaking, simply a matter of church iconography; such a depiction simultaneously presents several underlying policies deeply ingrained in the character of American common law.108
https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2125&context=lawreview

What surveys from 1900?

The Pew article which stated that there was around 90% Christain belief in 1900. They must have based that on some evidence.

If that is correct, then yes it is. (Note above almost all had state religions). And as we noted before, membership underestimates, surveys overestimate. That leaves a lot of flexibility to determine the number of "nominal Christians".

But it makes no sense and contradicts the whole idea of the seperation of church and State that was only 10 or so years away. In fact not much changed even after the constitution. Which goes to show what I said was correct that despite Enlightenment and the claims about early Americas seperation of church and State it was not the case and never really has been. Christainity was the State religion for a long time.

It doesn't exist. There was no Pew Research Center (the pubisher) until 1990. The funder (Pew Charitable Trusts) was founded in 1948 with money from an oil man that was a school boy in 1900.

Yes but the point is Pew would have based their figures on the best available evidence such as from historical records. In fact the same Pew articles says that 80% of US were Christain in recent times. So surely the US being more religious in the past than today were more than 80% Christain.

This article aslo says the US was around 90% Christain around 1900.

What Did American Religion Look Like Before Modern Surveys Began?

Using the General Social Survey to Estimate Religion in the Early 20th Century.

www.graphsaboutreligion.com

Today its around 62%. So if theres been any major drop its been in the last 25 years or so. But according to your link Christainity was even lower than today with only 18 or 20% which seems unreal in a time that was still very Christain in their social norms..

 

[Hans Blaster]

OK its interesting that you see it as forced. I was also baptised but I don't see it as forced but rather it was the social thing to do back then.

It happened without anyone asking me about whether I wanted or not. No one read the contract and fine print to me first. As far as the ceremony, it probably made me cry because I was a whiny little baby. It was no "social thing", but rather a religious act -- the result of a scared promise to do so before I was even conceived.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Honestly, I'm scratching my head trying to understand your epistemic implications here, Hans.
This compound statement seems too general to be saying anything of much substance, other than: "Yeah, this Christian thing----it's been going on for a while and..........well, it bothers me!"

It could be because I carefully "lawyered" the sentence to avoid disparaging Christianity directly. For example, I added the second "with" before writing "magical thinking" to avoid writing a sentence that could be interpreted as including Christianity as causing it. (In my paranoid moments, I think this thread is left open as a trap to catch non-Christians disparaging The Faith.)

The main reason is that we have what one of my professors called an "impedance mismatch" in that our modes of thinking. I have some experience with Christian thought, but even so many of the Christian thoughts expressed on this board are alien to me and it can take multiple interactions to come close to sorting out the meaning. (I still can't wrap my head around a "relationship with God" given that the other side of the "relationship" doesn't speak to most of those in such relationships.)

There are philosophical schools of thought on how to live and on morality. There are supernatural beliefs. When the two are merged into "religion" it becomes very "sticky". Good and bad ideas get "stuck" because they are now part of "religion". It's not just your religion, but all of them that have this impact.

I don't think it can be said that Christianity™ has done what you imply it has done to, and within, society. Rather, I'm tempted to say that your perception of this is somewhat, even if not wholly, specious.

The position of the USPTO notwithstanding, I think Christianity and Christian thinking distort the way we deal with repentance and forgiveness by making it about repenting to God for forgiveness. The ways it distorts our attitudes to death and grieving are fairly obvious. Then there are the bad things continually attributed to "demons" (from to disease) or as punishment for some collective "sin". (I'm looking at you televangelists with the "punishment hurricanes".) Then there are all of the end-time doomers who don't want to do anything to fix problems because the world will end soon. (This is one of those things I never understood.) We could also look at the promoters of unjustified hope from the "power of positive thinking" to current prosperity gospel preachrs like Revs. Olsteen and Dollar.

On the other hand, I do think that Scientism™ has distorted society and our ability to appreciate and value other modes of knowledge and well-being, particularly those that are claimed as being a part of Christianity™.

I hadn't mentioned anything about science, only naturalism by implication (the issues cause by supernaturalism). Naturalism doesn't imply that all that stuff you philosophy guys go on about should be handled by science. (I don't really know any *scientists* that think *that*.) There is plenty space to work out forms of government, moral philosophies, culture, etc., without deriving it from science.

I'm really not understanding your negative evaluation about how you think Jesus' teachings as "holy writ" is troublesome. How is this a problem?

If Jesus had been a wondering teacher sharing and developing a philosophy of life that got recorded by his followers, then when later some of his teachings were found to be "iffy" it is easier to retain the useful parts and discard the others than it is when the pronouncer is the almighty diety, judge of damnation, and creator of everything. It's that "stickyness" again.

And which "questionable and non-helpful ones" are you referring to?

I've got some issues with "obey your masters", "love your enemies", and "turn the other cheek". There are some on the "other side" as well, the roots of extremism and isolation are found in the admonitions to "hate" those that do not dedicate themselves to Christ and abandon their lives to follow him. Various strains of Christianity have dealt with these in various ways, but for me the most troubling teachings are those on salvation and end times. (I'm not sure we could get into those properly under the constraints of this board.)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It could be because I carefully "lawyered" the sentence to avoid disparaging Christianity directly. For example, I added the second "with" before writing "magical thinking" to avoid writing a sentence that could be interpreted as including Christianity as causing it. (In my paranoid moments, I think this thread is left open as a trap to catch non-Christians disparaging The Faith.)

The main reason is that we have what one of my professors called an "impedance mismatch" in that our modes of thinking. I have some experience with Christian thought, but even so many of the Christian thoughts expressed on this board are alien to me and it can take multiple interactions to come close to sorting out the meaning. (I still can't wrap my head around a "relationship with God" given that the other side of the "relationship" doesn't speak to most of those in such relationships.)

There are philosophical schools of thought on how to live and on morality. There are supernatural beliefs. When the two are merged into "religion" it becomes very "sticky". Good and bad ideas get "stuck" because they are now part of "religion". It's not just your religion, but all of them that have this impact.



The position of the USPTO notwithstanding, I think Christianity and Christian thinking distort the way we deal with repentance and forgiveness by making it about repenting to God for forgiveness. The ways it distorts our attitudes to death and grieving are fairly obvious. Then there are the bad things continually attributed to "demons" (from to disease) or as punishment for some collective "sin". (I'm looking at you televangelists with the "punishment hurricanes".) Then there are all of the end-time doomers who don't want to do anything to fix problems because the world will end soon. (This is one of those things I never understood.) We could also look at the promoters of unjustified hope from the "power of positive thinking" to current prosperity gospel preachrs like Revs. Olsteen and Dollar.

I hadn't mentioned anything about science, only naturalism by implication (the issues cause by supernaturalism). Naturalism doesn't imply that all that stuff you philosophy guys go on about should be handled by science. (I don't really know any *scientists* that think *that*.) There is plenty space to work out forms of government, moral philosophies, culture, etc., without deriving it from science.



If Jesus had been a wondering teacher sharing and developing a philosophy of life that got recorded by his followers, then when later some of his teachings were found to be "iffy" it is easier to retain the useful parts and discard the others than it is when the pronouncer is the almighty diety, judge of damnation, and creator of everything. It's that "stickyness" again.

I've got some issues with "obey your masters", "love your enemies", and "turn the other cheek". There are some on the "other side" as well, the roots of extremism and isolation are found in the admonitions to "hate" those that do not dedicate themselves to Christ and abandon their lives to follow him. Various strains of Christianity have dealt with these in various ways, but for me the most troubling teachings are those on salvation and end times. (I'm not sure we could get into those properly under the constraints of this board.)

.... Well, thanks for answering. I have a different approach to interpreting these issues you've alluded to, but being that I don't like to goad or gaslight, I'm not going to press you to look further on these things.

It's too bad that CF doesn't allow actual apologetics engagement any longer, because I think it's an important part of any Christian's life, even if for some it will be at a minimal level.

Alright. Have a blessed day, Hans!

 

[stevevw]

It happened without anyone asking me about whether I wanted or not. No one read the contract and fine print to me first. As far as the ceremony, it probably made me cry because I was a whiny little baby. It was no "social thing", but rather a religious act -- the result of a scared promise to do so before I was even conceived.

Well that would be natural to the belief and culture. Like I said in the past society was more Christain minded. Its the same for many things even outside religion. My dad use to take me to the footy to watch his beloved Bulldogs and guess what I became a Bulldogs supporter lol.

But the Bulldogs were supported by a section of Sydney siders in the western suburbs and other areas had similar followers of other teams. Just like different religions or denominations.

I am glag my parents gave me a religious upbringing as it gave me a taste of the spiritual side to life. I don't think I would have got that in an atheist upbringing. Which in some ways is also a belief and indoctrinating a child into a material metaphysics.

I had the choice when older to reject belief which I did. Or rather religion as I still believed in some sort of metaphysics beyond what we see. But having also experienced Christain religion I had something to compare. I was able to weigh up all options and realize that there was something in the religion of my parents generation.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Well that would be natural to the belief and culture. Like I said in the past society was more Christain minded.

No, you don't get it Steve. It wasn't about society and culture, it was 100% about religion. The society and culture around us when I was involuntarily baptised were certainly not pressuring then into doing it. Local society was very non-Catholic and the majority probably looked derisively on the Church, the Pope, and infant baptism.

Its the same for many things even outside religion. My dad use to take me to the footy to watch his beloved Bulldogs and guess what I became a Bulldogs supporter lol.

But the Bulldogs were supported by a section of Sydney siders in the western suburbs and other areas had similar followers of other teams. Just like different religions or denominations.

I too was introduced to the fandom of the local football team. They were bad at the time and I still follow them, but it was not the same. Not even close.

I am glag my parents gave me a religious upbringing as it gave me a taste of the spiritual side to life.

I got religious indoctrination with the implication (unseen) of a "spiritual side".

I don't think I would have got that in an atheist upbringing. Which in some ways is also a belief and indoctrinating a child into a material metaphysics.

Not indoctrinating into religion is not the same as "indoctrinating" into a "materialist metaphysics".

I had the choice when older to reject belief which I did. Or rather religion as I still believed in some sort of metaphysics beyond what we see. But having also experienced Christain religion I had something to compare. I was able to weigh up all options and realize that there was something in the religion of my parents generation.

Introduction to religion is fine, it is the indoctrination expected of believers that I object to.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I looked this word up. Is this something to do with excuses lol. I cannot find the meaning. But if so its not any excuse but fact. We know that any social change does not happen suddenly apart for say revolutions. But they also build over time.

It's a term created and primarily used as best I can tell by a single atheist YouTuber who once played a deity online. It is a term that reflects the evolution of my thinking on "apologetics". The first time I heard that word (thanks to apologetic links to debates and YouTube and the like from this very site), my first impression was that it was about making excuses or apologies for doctrine. Then I was told in that serious tone that "no, no, no, apologetics are about making serious arguments for positions, and I accepted that. But, I heard a lot of them, and so many, if not most, are just bad excuses for things that people know look bad, and Christian "slavery apologetics" really are indistinguishable from "excuseagetics".

All I am saying is that there is evidence of Christains working behind the scenes to change practices like slavery or todays child sex trafficking which take time to have an impact on the wider society.

You should look into the last Christian that was lionized for work to end human trafficking. I forget his name but one person involved in the film about it was Jim Caviezel, the actor who played Jesus in that violent crucifiction movie from Mel Gibson. (Or maybe you shouldn't.)

[megasnip]

Yes this is the favorite verse that is cited out of context. The following verse though contradicts this which skeptics ignore.

Leviticus 19:33–34 reads, “When an alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien. The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.”

This is about free strangers and nothing in that chapter is a slave code. It is ironic to accused of citing out of context when most biblical quotes from Christians are barely a sentence. (This one is long at 2-3 sentences.) The opening of that chapter is oddly familiar... The only reference to slaves in the whole thing is about those who had sex with a slave.

Isrealite slave owners had to set their slaves free after 6 years and actually give them plenty of food and live stock from their own supplies to set them on their way. If they wanted to stay they were allowed and could become part of the Isrealites.

A Hebrew slave. (This is not Lev 19, but Gen 21 the main slave code) That was my whole point, Hebrew slaves were treated better belying the notion that the book argues for general equality of nations, ethnic groups, or races. It's nice that other snippets (neither slave nor free) can be used by Christians to justify supporting equality, but it is not a consistent theme.

The text I referenced was from a few chapters later in Lev 25 in verses 44-46, "Slaves you may indeed posses provided you buy them from the neighboring nations or from those aliens that live among you" "Such slaves you may own as chattel" "which can be inherited as permanent property."

This renders any applogetic on biblical slavery being some how less "slavery" dead. (Read the verses around it to see how the Isrealites were favored as potential slaves, which is why I referenced this in the first place.)

The fact is slavery was a common social norm. God did not condone it but worked with the Isrealites to regulate it which no other nation was doing.

The Israelite slave code wasn't particularly different than other such codes in the region and period. (Perhaps it was a bit more restrictive on enslaving your own people.)

Who ever is responsible these books, whether that be the editors of the Torah ~2500 years ago, or Moses, or the deity dictating it to him could have demanded "Don't own slaves" or "Don't keep slaves" but they couldn't even bring themselves to "Don't keep your fellow Israelites in bondage for terms of service." That is either weakness to make such a pronouncement or a condoning of the whole practice. I leave it to you to decide which.

But the bigger question is from whose morality are you using to make these moral judgements.

That is a good question, and not one that any of us can cleanly answer. Why should it take anything out of the ordinary to find enslavement morally abhorent?

Will someone 3,500 years from now say that our so called morals were actually immoral compared to their modern society.

Probably, but so what? We'll all be dead.

I think it was very different. Most slaves were endentured and happy to be slaves as it gave them a better life. Most slave owners at least within the Isrealites treated their slaves with love and treated them like family.

Oh, Steve, not the "happy slave trope". This is straight from the Ante-bellum days of the gag order, just recyled for centuries.

In that context I think todays morals are much worse. Slavery including sex trafficking has increased dramatically. What we call outsourcing labor to 3rd world nations and exploiting them is a form of slavery if you want to use such liberal morals.

Another standard form of biblical slavery excusagetics: define other things as the same -- if you're willing go to "wage slaves". SMH.

Some people say as society has become more systematic and we are all slaves to the system. Certainly people feel like they are in a poverty trap and have to slave away to just live. Heck Woke DEI ideologues claim all whites are oppressors. So according to them we still enslave blacks lol.

It's not funny, Steve. Your excuse making is embarassing.

 

[stevevw]

No, you don't get it Steve. It wasn't about society and culture, it was 100% about religion. The society and culture around us when I was involuntarily baptised were certainly not pressuring then into doing it. Local society was very non-Catholic and the majority probably looked derisively on the Church, the Pope, and infant baptism.

I don't specifically know your circumstances so its hard to know all the factors. I can only go from your experience. It sounds like your saying in your particular situation it was religious dogma that caused people to force their beliefs on others like yourself against their own beliefs.

I don't know. All I know is that up until maybe 30 or 40 years ago society was majority Christain in their social norms. Though I am not saying that was just Catholic though Catholics were dominant in many areas. It may have been different for you and the Catholics looked down on.

I too was introduced to the fandom of the local football team. They were bad at the time and I still follow them, but it was not the same. Not even close.

Why.

I got religious indoctrination with the implication (unseen) of a "spiritual side".

I am not sure what you mean. If you feel it was indoctrination then obviously you didn't believe what was being said. I think we need to experience the spiritual aspect to be able to appreciated Christain belief.

I think the church did become 'too religious' and it was more about control and while also being hypocritical and unreal. That turned a lot of people off. But the metasphysics, the spiritual aspect I think is intuitive for children and they can relate to the supernaturalism and it should not feel like indoctrination.

Not indoctrinating into religion is not the same as "indoctrinating" into a "materialist metaphysics".

In my experience it is as those who believe in material metaphysics treat it like its a belief rather than a scientific fact. In fact material metaphysics cannot be scientifically verified and is based on an unverifiable assumption.

We have seen how for example western ideas about science and rationalism has dominated and excluded other ways of knowing such as Indigenous knowledge. They treat these alternative knowledge and beliefs as myth and superstition. Whereas they are legitimate ways of knowing. So in that sense materialism can be a belief indoctrination which pushes a certain way of seeing the world over others.

Introduction to religion is fine, it is the indoctrination expected of believers that I object to.

I agree.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I don't specifically know your circumstances so its hard to know all the factors. I can only go from your experience. It sounds like your saying in your particular situation it was religious dogma that caused people to force their beliefs on others like yourself against their own beliefs.

I told you what they were. I you want more explicit about the religious dogma it was this: too be good Catholics they *HAD* to baptize me and 'teach' me the religion. (Indoctrinate me). I believe the protestants here call it "teaching up the child". I didn't say it was "against my beliefs" but "against my will". I had no beliefs on religions and gods and such (for or against) until some instructed me on the "truth" of it.

I don't know. All I know is that up until maybe 30 or 40 years ago society was majority Christain in their social norms. Though I am not saying that was just Catholic though Catholics were dominant in many areas. It may have been different for you and the Catholics looked down on.

I literally told you that the society my parents lived in when I was a baby was not only not very Catholic, but typically anti-Catholic. By the time I was old enough to form memories we'd moved back home where Catholics were common if not the majority everywhere, but we didn't stay Catholic because of societal pressure. (Family pressure, that's a bit different.)

Why.

Why is football fandom different than religion? Are you serious? No one is claiming you will go to Hell if you don't cheer for the [redacted]. My younger brother (when he was 3) defiantly cheered for the team the [redacted] were playing against one Sunday and all he got for that was to be held captive on the couch by my uncle. If he had refused to say grace at supper (or prayed for the other team) it would not have gone down so well. No one in my family ever said on Sunday afternoon "the [redacted] game is on, you have to watch" where as there was no choice about Sunday morning Mass.

I am not sure what you mean. If you feel it was indoctrination then obviously you didn't believe what was being said.

No, that was the point, Steve. I DID believe. Indoctrination works! My faith fell apart only when I was old enough to rent a car because that's all it ever was -- the authoritative assertions of other believers. Under that sort of "foundation" something was bound to knock it down, and so it crumbled.

I think we need to experience the spiritual aspect to be able to appreciated Christain belief.

What spiritual aspect? I have no experience of such.

I think the church did become 'too religious' and it was more about control and while also being hypocritical and unreal. That turned a lot of people off. But the metasphysics, the spiritual aspect I think is intuitive for children and they can relate to the supernaturalism and it should not feel like indoctrination.

It's a religion. I don't blame it for being "religious. As for "spiritual" the best I can determine what that is, is that it is something like the euphoria I get when my team scores the winning touchdown against the hated [redacted]. If only religion brought that feeling instead of boredom, guilt, shame, and the nagging feeling that none of it is true, I might have given it a chance.

In my experience it is as those who believe in material metaphysics treat it like its a belief rather than a scientific fact. In fact material metaphysics cannot be scientifically verified and is based on an unverifiable assumption.

We have seen how for example western ideas about science and rationalism has dominated and excluded other ways of knowing such as Indigenous knowledge. They treat these alternative knowledge and beliefs as myth and superstition. Whereas they are legitimate ways of knowing. So in that sense materialism can be a belief indoctrination which pushes a certain way of seeing the world over others.

This is not relevant to what I was saying or the thread.

I agree.

Good.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's a term created and primarily used as best I can tell by a single atheist YouTuber who once played a deity online. It is a term that reflects the evolution of my thinking on "apologetics". The first time I heard that word (thanks to apologetic links to debates and YouTube and the like from this very site), my first impression was that it was about making excuses or apologies for doctrine. Then I was told in that serious tone that "no, no, no, apologetics are about making serious arguments for positions, and I accepted that. But, I heard a lot of them, and so many, if not most, are just bad excuses for things that people know look bad, and Christian "slavery apologetics" really are indistinguishable from "excuseagetics".

You should look into the last Christian that was lionized for work to end human trafficking. I forget his name but one person involved in the film about it was Jim Caviezel, the actor who played Jesus in that violent crucifiction movie from Mel Gibson. (Or maybe you shouldn't.)

This is about free strangers and nothing in that chapter is a slave code. It is ironic to accused of citing out of context when most biblical quotes from Christians are barely a sentence. (This one is long at 2-3 sentences.) The opening of that chapter is oddly familiar... The only reference to slaves in the whole thing is about those who had sex with a slave.

A Hebrew slave. (This is not Lev 19, but Gen 21 the main slave code) That was my whole point, Hebrew slaves were treated better belying the notion that the book argues for general equality of nations, ethnic groups, or races. It's nice that other snippets (neither slave nor free) can be used by Christians to justify supporting equality, but it is not a consistent theme.

The text I referenced was from a few chapters later in Lev 25 in verses 44-46, "Slaves you may indeed posses provided you buy them from the neighboring nations or from those aliens that live among you" "Such slaves you may own as chattel" "which can be inherited as permanent property."

This renders any applogetic on biblical slavery being some how less "slavery" dead. (Read the verses around it to see how the Isrealites were favored as potential slaves, which is why I referenced this in the first place.)



The Israelite slave code wasn't particularly different than other such codes in the region and period. (Perhaps it was a bit more restrictive on enslaving your own people.)

Who ever is responsible these books, whether that be the editors of the Torah ~2500 years ago, or Moses, or the deity dictating it to him could have demanded "Don't own slaves" or "Don't keep slaves" but they couldn't even bring themselves to "Don't keep your fellow Israelites in bondage for terms of service." That is either weakness to make such a pronouncement or a condoning of the whole practice. I leave it to you to decide which.

That is a good question, and not one that any of us can cleanly answer. Why should it take anything out of the ordinary to find enslavement morally abhorent?

Probably, but so what? We'll all be dead.

Oh, Steve, not the "happy slave trope". This is straight from the Ante-bellum days of the gag order, just recyled for centuries.

Another standard form of biblical slavery excusagetics: define other things as the same -- if you're willing go to "wage slaves". SMH.

It's not funny, Steve. Your excuse making is embarassing.

"Excuseagetics"? Wow. I learned a new word today.

 

[Hans Blaster]

"Excuseagetics"? Wow. I learned a new word today.

It's a new word, a new coinage of limited distribution, but I think it is a perfectly cromulent word that fits a very specific usage -- when otherwise decent people defend the indefensible because an ideological commitment. Politics is a great source for this. Think of the dedicated conservative Republican defending Trump's "access hollywood tape"ing or an idealist marxist/socialist defending or minimizing the Hlodomor. (Clearly these three things are not on the same scale of evil being defended.)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's a new word, a new coinage of limited distribution, but I think it is a perfectly cromulent word that fits a very specific usage -- when otherwise decent people defend the indefensible because an ideological commitment. Politics is a great source for this. Think of the dedicated conservative Republican defending Trump's "access hollywood tape"ing or an idealist marxist/socialist defending or minimizing the Hlodomor. (Clearly these three things are not on the same scale of evil being defended.)

I sort of disagree because the term you've borrowed---or perhaps coined---skirts a number of significant nuances within not only the field of modern "apologetics," but also within Christian Philosophy as well as all of those that come up in the realm of Critical Biblical Studies and social studies.

So, in this case, I definitely have to use scare quotes when and where I see scarecrows instead of bonafide, comprehensive arguments given by atheists (or ex-Christians) such as yourself because using such terms as "excuseagetics" is essentially a form of stonewalling in rhetoric that is right down there with the other common pejorative, Mental Gymnastics.

...... and YES, I do think my counter assessment applies even to the nitty-gritty nasty topics that pertain to the Bible. To bad I can't flesh it all out for you here on CF like I use to do for an assortment of atheists nearly a decade ago ......

 

[Bradskii]

...but I think it is a perfectly cromulent word...

Now I've learned two new words today. And I haven't even finished breakfast.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I sort of disagree because the term you've borrowed---or perhaps coined---

Nope, borrowed, as I stated.

skirts a number of significant nuances within not only the field of modern "apologetics," but also within Christian Philosophy as well as all of those that come up in the realm of Critical Biblical Studies and social studies.

I thought I was relatively clear, I would only apply such a term to the most indefensible of excuse making. The rest of apologetics falls into the "existence of God" kind which I find weak, and the arguments for specific theological doctrines relative to others ("sola scriptura", "transubstantiation", etc.) about which I don't care.

So, in this case, I definitely have to use scare quotes when and where I see scarecrows instead of bonafide, comprehensive arguments given by atheists (or ex-Christians) such as yourself because using such terms as "excuseagetics" is essentially a form of stonewalling in rhetoric that is right down there with the other common pejorative, Mental Gymnastics.

what ever flips you require...

Our friend chose to defend with the worst sort of apologetics rather than modify a position he had already taken (See for example his odd insistence about the circumstances of my childhood contrary to the simple statements I had already made.) or an idea about the past he'd already internalized.

...... and YES, I do think my counter assessment applies even to the nitty-gritty nasty topics that pertain to the Bible. To bad I can't flesh it all out for you here on CF like I use to do for an assortment of atheists nearly a decade ago ......

ahh, the good old days.

 

[stevevw]

It's a term created and primarily used as best I can tell by a single atheist YouTuber who once played a deity online. It is a term that reflects the evolution of my thinking on "apologetics". The first time I heard that word (thanks to apologetic links to debates and YouTube and the like from this very site), my first impression was that it was about making excuses or apologies for doctrine. Then I was told in that serious tone that "no, no, no, apologetics are about making serious arguments for positions, and I accepted that. But, I heard a lot of them, and so many, if not most, are just bad excuses for things that people know look bad, and Christian "slavery apologetics" really are indistinguishable from "excuseagetics".

Ok well it seems to me your understanding is skewed based on one video of another skeptic who is biased in the first place. Any reasonable assessment including from biblical scholars will acknowledge that not all slavery is deemed the same.

But there is no room for nuance in the skeptics rule book. Its all negative and aimed to bring down God and the bible.

Heres a simple question. Do you think there were indentured slaves or economic slaves so to speak. Or that people willingly and happily became servants. That is apart from other slaves at that time throughout nations such as in Egypt and Babylon who had a more inhumane slavery. Was there any destinction between these forms.

You should look into the last Christian that was lionized for work to end human trafficking. I forget his name but one person involved in the film about it was Jim Caviezel, the actor who played Jesus in that violent crucifiction movie from Mel Gibson. (Or maybe you shouldn't.)

Do you mean Tom Ballard. But the film I think is a good example of Christainity at work in shining Christs truth and light into the hidden and dark secrets and evils of this world. I think this type of behaving has thrived in a modern Godless world. The church may have their skeletons but I think that pales into insignificance if we knew the truth of what is happening.

This is about free strangers and nothing in that chapter is a slave code.

The heading of that section in Leviticus says 'The Law Concerning Slavery' so it contains rules about slave owning. You also have to realise that Leviticus is not the only book that deals with slavery. There is also Exodus and Deuteronomy.

It is ironic to accused of citing out of context when most biblical quotes from Christians are barely a sentence. (This one is long at 2-3 sentences.) The opening of that chapter is oddly familiar... The only reference to slaves in the whole thing is about those who had sex with a slave.

I was talking about the other laws about how to treat strangers and aliens in general which formed the basis for how they treated others including slaves and servants.

Skeptics take one verse and forget about all the others that contradict this. When the full text is read it overwhelmingly supports the truth that God through the Isrealites began to regulate and change the practice of slavery which included not abusing slaves.

A Hebrew slave. (This is not Lev 19, but Gen 21 the main slave code)

Its mentioned in Leviticus 25:40 … He shall serve with you until the year of the jubilee. The slave code still applies.

That was my whole point, Hebrew slaves were treated better

This was a Covenant between God and the Isrealites made well before the Isrealites formed a nation. God said he would not enslave the Isrealites again in that way. They were to have a higher standard to prepare the way as Gods people and the fullfillment of prophesy of the coming Messiah.

belying the notion that the book argues for general equality of nations, ethnic groups, or races. It's nice that other snippets (neither slave nor free) can be used by Christians to justify supporting equality, but it is not a consistent theme.

The truth principle that we are all made in Gods image applies to all. But God made a Covenant with the Isrealites. He chose one people to bring about his plan for all humankind.

You could say that this was actually a negative for the Isrealites as they have been the most mistreated people in history. But you choose to only see certain benefits according to your own beliefs and worldview.

The text I referenced was from a few chapters later in Lev 25 in verses 44-46, "Slaves you may indeed posses provided you buy them from the neighboring nations or from those aliens that live among you" "Such slaves you may own as chattel" "which can be inherited as permanent property."

This renders any applogetic on biblical slavery being some how less "slavery" dead. (Read the verses around it to see how the Isrealites were favored as potential slaves, which is why I referenced this in the first place.)

Not necessarily and not if the skeptic is basing this on a false assumption. For starters the the Hebrew word 'Ebed' does not mean 'slave' but 'servant or worker' in many cases. This is way different from what people today think of when we hear the term “slave” being about the Antebellum South with all of its brutality and dehumanization. Its a logical fallacy of false equivelance.

Second if you look at what it says about the slaves from other nations or aliens living within the Hebrew nation you will see that ultimately these people were treated the same as Hebrew servants as far as being humane.

A slave could work their way to becoming free and that any escaped slave from another nation also gained freedom as the Hebrews could not own them nor send them back to their masters thus giving them freedom (Deuteronomy 23:15-16 ).

God reminds the Israelites three dozen times to care for the “alien,” and no doubt this includes foreign servants ie “So show your love for the alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt” (Deuteronomy 10:19) and (Deuteronomy 23:15-16) "If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. Let them live among you wherever they like and in whatever town they choose. Do not oppress them".

Also notice the language of Lev 25 verse 45: “the sojourners who live as aliens among you” who can be “acquired” as servants. Now note the verse I quoted earlier in Leviticus 19 the Israelites are called to love the alien and treat him as they would a native in Israel (Leviticus 19:34), We don’t suddenly have justification for mistreating aliens in chapter Leviticus 25 even when they are servants.

Also the verse says Isrealites “may acquire” foreigners as servants (verse 44). So its not a commandment. To acquire a foreign servant involved an official agreement. It may have been for debt or in poverty and volunteered. Since foreigners could not acquire property they would have to link up with Hebrew households to live which can be a good arrangement. Then they could later assimilate into the wider Isrealite culture (e.g., 1 Chronicles 2:34-35)

So we see there was a lot of difference in how the Isrealites approached slavery compared to surrounding nations and was certainly not the same as the American slavery as skeptics try to conflate. So yes this shows the Hebrew version of slavery and servants was less inhumane.

The Israelite slave code wasn't particularly different than other such codes in the region and period. (Perhaps it was a bit more restrictive on enslaving your own people.)

Hum I think outside the Hebrews it was pretty barbaric.

Who ever is responsible these books, whether that be the editors of the Torah ~2500 years ago, or Moses, or the deity dictating it to him could have demanded "Don't own slaves" or "Don't keep slaves" but they couldn't even bring themselves to "Don't keep your fellow Israelites in bondage for terms of service." That is either weakness to make such a pronouncement or a condoning of the whole practice. I leave it to you to decide which.

But heres the thing. What moral basis are you basing this moral outrage on. Skeptics borrow from Gods morality to make these objections. Without that same moral basis there is no right and wrong to slavery beyond human created ideas which we know are fallible.

Plus demanding that history should be changed where God just stops all slavery by miracle is unreal. Slavery was not Gods doing but one of humans and God allowed humans to reject Him and do things their way.

God sometimes works with a system and changes it from within. Deals with the realities of life in how humans (not God) create the world. Thomas Aquinas talked about this with his 'Doctrine of Providence'. Gods plan doesn't always go according to how we think but it does work to a good and rightious end.

But slavery was not all bad for that time as you falsely make out. There was no currency apart from human labor. If someone was in debt, committed crime or just wanted a better life by selling themselves as a servant it was economics for that time. That is good and not bad and nothing like the false equivelance of the brutal slavery skeptics conflate.

That is a good question, and not one that any of us can cleanly answer. Why should it take anything out of the ordinary to find enslavement morally abhorent?

It doesn't as we are moral beings who can intuit the pain of others from birth. But its the rational of an atheistic ideology to justify this truth as being a law unto humans that must stand regardless of limited human ideas and beliefs.

If we take the materialist and atheists worldview that humans are just a higher animal form without any purpose than to suvive and pass on genes then we can see a stark difference in metaphysics about human worth. Its natural or at least understandable logically despite skeptics claims for a Godless world to see humans this way.

But also the idea that morality is subjective individually and relative culturally is self defeating as far as establishing some independent truth or law that no human can alter as principly there is no morality to determine human worth apart from what humans come up with. That is why there is little respect for manmade Human Rights.

At least for Christains they can stand on the truths that we are made in Gods image and are equal in worth in Christ which stands above human ideology. To defy this truth would be a breach of Gods word and laws and a grave sin that will be judged by rightious God.

Probably, but so what? We'll all be dead.

You missed the point. This shows that under subjective morality what is morally right and wrong depends on the present culture and that ultimately there can be no moral truth under this worldview. Each culture thinking they are more moral than the past only to find out that they were also wrong in a never ending cycle of relative morality.

Oh, Steve, not the "happy slave trope". This is straight from the Ante-bellum days of the gag order, just recyled for centuries.

Its not a trope but reality and I think your creating a trope by pretending otherwise. I mean even the equivication of all biblical slavery being like the Ante-bellum days is a misrepresentation. The Hebrew word 'ebed' doesn't even mean slave but rather 'servant or worker'. So skeptics are getting all moral over a misinterpretation of the text they claim to be experts on.

Another standard form of biblical slavery excusagetics: define other things as the same -- if you're willing go to "wage slaves". SMH.

Once again its not an excuse but a legitimate arguement. First there were endentured slaves and it was an agreement as explained above and not like forced slavery against a persons will. But skeptics totally ignore this and falsely conflate this with the American slavery. So their moral judgement is skewed and they are not in any position to be truth holders on this. That is is a fact.

Second I'm not saying that todays form of slavery in terms of slave labor exploitations and poor treatment is like the Hebrew slavery. I am saying todays is worse. The Hebrews ensured fair, just and humane treatment of slaves. Once again your judgement is skewed due to your own bias.

It's not funny, Steve. Your excuse making is embarassing.

According to you. But we have already established that your moral judgements may be skewed and bias on this.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Nope, borrowed, as I stated.

I thought I was relatively clear, I would only apply such a term to the most indefensible of excuse making. The rest of apologetics falls into the "existence of God" kind which I find weak, and the arguments for specific theological doctrines relative to others ("sola scriptura", "transubstantiation", etc.) about which I don't care.

what ever flips you require...

Our friend chose to defend with the worst sort of apologetics rather than modify a position he had already taken (See for example his odd insistence about the circumstances of my childhood contrary to the simple statements I had already made.) or an idea about the past he'd already internalized.

ahh, the good old days.

On a prima facie level, I think we both agree that the Bible is problematic. Where we differ is in the extent or degree to which we each think it actually is problematic.

We likely also differ on the issue of the efficacy level of the modern Secular Evaluation Apparatus [or S.E.A. for short] and how it used to tear apart the Bible.

 

[stevevw]

Even if we allow for the skeptics objections that the old testament has some questionable morals. Though I disagree with whether it is a problem as either side cannot give a winable arguement. So its more an unknown than evidence for or against and subjective.

But even if we did accept the questionable morals of the Old Testament this does not change the teachings and beliefs of Christainity regarding human worth and how we treat others.

The idea of being made in Gods image and being of equal worth in Christ were the foundations for changing the pagan and material worldview of human worth and morality and underpinned individual human rights.

It is these truth principles of Christainity that make a better world.

 

[BCP1928]

Even if we allow for the skeptics objections that the old testament has some questionable morals. Though I disagree with whether it is a problem as either side cannot give a winable arguement. So its more an unknown than evidence for or against and subjective.

But even if we did accept the questionable morals of the Old Testament this does not change the teachings and beliefs of Christainity regarding human worth and how we treat others.

The idea of being made in Gods image and being of equal worth in Christ were the foundations for changing the pagan and material worldview of human worth and morality and underpinned individual human rights.

It is these truth principles of Christainity that make a better world.

It is by no means an idea that is unique to Christianity or derived solely from it. Buddhism, for example, has always taught that all people have equal spiritual worth, regardless of caste, status, or origins.

 

[Hans Blaster]

On a prima facie level, I think we both agree that the Bible is problematic. Where we differ is in the extent or degree to which we each think it actually is problematic.

The Bible (particularly the OT) is a collection Ancient Near East religious and legal texts. As such from a modern sensibility some of it is "problematic", but not particularly more so or less so than any other similar set of ANE texts. I am not particularly bother by the "problems" of the text as to me it is nothing more than a collection of ANE texts. Of course when people use it to make claims about something in our present time (the subject of the thread)...

We likely also differ on the issue of the efficacy level of the modern Secular Evaluation Apparatus [or S.E.A. for short] and how it used to tear apart the Bible.

Do you mean secular biblical studies going back to the early 19th century? The ones that treat the Bible as what it is -- a set of ANE texts

 

[BCP1928]

On a prima facie level, I think we both agree that the Bible is problematic. Where we differ is in the extent or degree to which we each think it actually is problematic.

We likely also differ on the issue of the efficacy level of the modern Secular Evaluation Apparatus [or S.E.A. for short] and how it used to tear apart the Bible.

How does it do that? The OT is a collection of ancient texts, assembled, edited and redacted to suit a particular theological agenda. Those texts have--at least in principle and to a large extent in practice--a determinable history. They are what they are and studing them in that light doe not change them any or "tear them apart,." If anything, it will increase our understanding go their meaning.