My Finch Challenge

[VirOptimus]

Because we've discussed it before?

No, because it shows that your have a double standard regarding literal interpretation.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Would you recognize one if I gave it?

Yes.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

In the 1600s you were either a Christian or a Muslim or a Jew. There were like, three atheists and they were very, very quiet. Remember, there was no other concept of how the universe came to be or how the planet came to be or how life began other than "goddidit." The only question was which god or how that god accomplished it. The founders of the United States might very well have been atheists had they known about Evolution. But they did not. So many were deists. They believed that God started things off and then left us alone. This, "slavers were not Christian" is disingenuous and false. The men who brought slaves to the Americas were most certainly Christian. You can't lie your way out of the reprehensible behavior of men who claimed to follow Christ.

That has to be the writings of an atheist who understands nothing of what it means to follow the teachings of christ, a christian, and freely says others lie who disagree with their point. I always find this scary. Christians allow atheists to have their viewpoint but the atheist can be quite intolerant of christians with a different point of view. It’s “disagree with me and you are of bad character (lie).”

 

[Dorothy Mae]

The Hebrews were just one of many ethnic groups with their own religious practices in Canaan and the Levant at the time. The OT is just the compilation of their sacred texts and scripture. I'm not the one that said it applied to Christians, it was Jesus (allegedly) who said "I am not here to change the law but fulfill it."

Ironically, it was learning more about the contextual history of the peoples the Hebrews/Israelites interacted with that demystified the text and took it from its pedestal. The history reported in it exaggerates the importance and power of the Israelites when they do have an independent state, and is blatantly mythological in other places. This helped propel my deconversion.



It was "how to buy". (the how is important. It's not a command to buy slaves, but rather the proper way to do it if you are buying slaves.) Ex. 21, and others.

Can you please quote the specific text that instructions people how to buy people? Better include how to acquire people to sell as well because without the product, there is no sale. If the Bible is accused of promoting that line of goods, let’s see the whole of how this is laid out.

What is missing in your understanding is that the book is written to people in the world as it was. People then bought and sold people. It isn’t the world God wants yet but He starts with what is and starts to change from the heart of man outward. Slavery ended because Christians, followers of the teachings of Christ, pushed to end it. Those who don’t follow those teachings resisted.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Can you please quote the specific text that instructions people how to buy people? Better include how to acquire people to sell as well because without the product, there is no sale. If the Bible is accused of promoting that line of goods, let’s see the whole of how this is laid out.

One presumes you can read your own copy with out my help. Try Exodus, chapter 21 (I think, my bible is in a different room.)

What is missing in your understanding is that the book is written to people in the world as it was. People then bought and sold people. It isn’t the world God wants yet but He starts with what is and starts to change from the heart of man outward. Slavery ended because Christians, followers of the teachings of Christ, pushed to end it. Those who don’t follow those teachings resisted.

1. If this god is a truly moral being it could have said: "Do not be like the heathen that keeps others in bondage. Among you there shall be no slaves or bound servants." Why did Yahweh not command Moses to write this?

2. The notion that Christians, and Christians alone are pushing for the end of slavery is false.

3. Much more wrong is the notion that those that resisted the end of slavery were not Christians. Here is a book excerpt that illustrates this for you:

How Christian Slaveholders Used the Bible to Justify Slavery

 

[Dorothy Mae]

One presumes you can read your own copy with out my help. Try Exodus, chapter 21 (I think, my bible is in a different room.)

Since you refuse to answer we can assume you don’t know what it says or don’t want to really look into it. So slavery is NOT promoted in the Bible.

1. If this god is a truly moral being it could have said: "Do not be like the heathen that keeps others in bondage. Among you there shall be no slaves or bound servants." Why did Yahweh not command Moses to write this?

I have no connection whatsoever to Yahweh did so I cannot answer that. The God of the Bible (who doesn’t have either a particular first or last name) works with a culture starting where it is.The ending of treating men like slaves came with Jesus who changes men from the inside.

2. The notion that Christians, and Christians alone are pushing for the end of slavery is false.

Provide examples of atheists who ended slavery in the past please.

3. Much more wrong is the notion that those that resisted the end of slavery were not Christians. Here is a book excerpt that illustrates this for you:

How Christian Slaveholders Used the Bible to Justify Slavery

You didn’t read what was written about who are Christians. This is the understanding missing. I said those who follow the teachings of christ. Slave holders clearly did not refusing to treat other people as they would like to be treated.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Since you refuse to answer we can assume you don’t know what it says or don’t want to really look into it. So slavery is NOT promoted in the Bible.

As I thought, it is Exodus 21 that provides the laws regarding slaves. Have you read it?

I have no connection whatsoever to Yahweh did so I cannot answer that. The Go of the Bible (who doesn’t have either a first or last name) works with a culture starting where it is.

Yahweh *is* your god. It is also referred to by other names or titles in the OT.

The ending of treating men like slaves came with Jesus who changes men from the inside.

And yet slavery persisted.

Provide examples of atheists who ended slavery in the past please.

Not all who are not christians are atheists. There are other faiths and philosophies.

You didn’t read what was written about who are Christians. This is the understanding missing.I said those who follow the teachings of christ. Slave holders clearly did not refusing to treat other people as they would like to be treated.

They just wanted the slaves to turn the other cheek right?

I'm not here to determine who is or is not a christian. It wouldn't be my place to deny anyone their religious identity. (And it violates the spirit of CF rules.)

 

[Dorothy Mae]

As I thought, it is Exodus 21 that provides the laws regarding slaves. Have you read it?

What passage tells where slaves can be acquired? I know the Bible well.

Yahweh *is* your god. It is also referred to by other names or titles in the OT.

Sorry but I know my God and you cannot tell me who my God is and be anywhere close to accurate. That word is not what the Hebrews used. That word is NOT what God told them to use. You are not in a position to know how my God wants to be called not having a relationship with Him.

And yet slavery persisted.

Christian men had to fight those who didn’t value the teaching of christ and the teachings of christ prevent violent overthrown for the purpose of change.

Not all who are not christians are atheists. There are other faiths and philosophies.

Correct.

They just wanted the slaves to turn the other cheek right?

I don’t think the attitudes or thoughts of slaves matter to owners.

I'm not here to determine who is or is not a christian. It wouldn't be my place to deny anyone their religious identity. (And it violates the spirit of CF rules.)

It is not an easy call by any means. But a man cannot but reveal his thinking when he writes. So some posts reflect an atheistic viewpoint and some a christian and many somewhere in the middle.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

On the contrary. Darwin was passionately against slavery. Educate yourself on the matter before making further such egregious errors. I suggest Darwin's Sacred Cause for your reading list.

I read the writings of his diary and so far, no one has been able to show any step whatsover to anything against slavey except that he said he wished he never had to hear the crys of slaves again in his life. I read the bit to linked and saw no actions taken by this man. His book was actually helpful to slavers because it distinguished races from one another and called it the struggle to survive between favored races. And it is true that some slavers decided that people of African descent were not really human beings. Darwin's theory an help that one along.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I read the writings of his diary and so far, no one has been able to show any step whatsover to anything against slavey except that he said he wished he never had to hear the crys of slaves again in his life. I read the bit to linked and saw no actions taken by this man. His book was actually helpful to slavers because it distinguished races from one another and called it the struggle to survive between favored races. And it is true that some slavers decided that people of African descent were not really human beings. Darwin's theory an help that one along.

You'll have to show evidence for your claim that Darwin's books helped slavers in their work, because that is quite a claim.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

You'll have to show evidence for your claim that Darwin's books helped slavers in their work, because that is quite a claim.

Perhaps what was in the minds of slavers can be debated. But it is known that those who dealt in slavery decided that those people were animals and not really human. This is common in some kinds of crime as well. It is not unknown. But what is sure is that he did nothing about the slave trade.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I read the writings of his diary and so far, no one has been able to show any step whatsover to anything against slavey except that he said he wished he never had to hear the crys of slaves again in his life. I read the bit to linked and saw no actions taken by this man. His book was actually helpful to slavers because it distinguished races from one another and called it the struggle to survive between favored races. And it is true that some slavers decided that people of African descent were not really human beings. Darwin's theory an help that one along.

You are not being consistent in your reasoning. The Bible tells the Hebrews who they could buy slaves from. It tells them how to trick their fellow Hebrews into life long slavery. And it allows a father to sell his daughter into slavery. Darwin was far less pro-slavery than the Bible is. If you are going to use that reasoning to attack Darwin you need to use the same reasoning to attack the Bible.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Perhaps what was in the minds of slavers can be debated. But it is known that those who dealt in slavery decided that those people were animals and not really human. This is common in some kinds of crime as well. It is not unknown. But what is sure is that he did nothing about the slave trade.

They would have held those views before Darwin's On the Origin of Species was published, hence why they were able to commit the acts of kidnapping and slavery and other heinous things they did.

You are unjustly and unfairly laying the crime of slavery at the feet of Darwin, and for what reason? So he couldn't make big steps to end slavery, and?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

They would have held those views before Darwin's On the Origin of Species was published, hence why they were able to commit the acts of kidnapping and slavery and other heinous things they did.

You are unjustly and unfairly laying the crime of slavery at the feet of Darwin, and for what reason? So he couldn't make big steps to end slavery, and?

The book was published 6 years before the end of slavery so you are mistaken. That does not, however, establish that the work actually was part of their justification for it. Probably not likely slavers were avid readers of works of that kind.

I do not lay that crime at his feet. I merely say he did not nothing to combat it. Others did, just not him. They took big steps to end it so it could have been done. Just Darwin did not do it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The book was published 6 years before the end of slavery so you are mistaken. That does not, however, establish that the work actually was part of their justification for it. Probably not likely slavers were avid readers of works of that kind.

I do not lay that crime at his feet. I merely say he did not nothing to combat it. Others did, just not him. They took big steps to end it so it could have been done. Just Darwin did not do it.

I do not see how I am mistaken because you've offered no evidence to say that Darwin's book helped slavers in the work. Do you have any evidence to back up that claim?

And so what if he didn't? Hundreds of thousands of people across Britain didn't do a thing to end slavery in Britain (which already had been abolished in Britain in 1807 by the by) when The Origin of Species was published, and Britain had done much to battle the actions of slavery in their own territories overseas (The West Africa Squadron comes to mind).

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I do not see how I am mistaken because you've offered no evidence to say that Darwin's book helped slavers in the work. Do you have any evidence to back up that claim?

I already said it is not likely that any slavers read those sorts of non-peer reviewed works. It was helpful to later generations that practiced inhuman arts on humans though but maybe you do not want to go there.

And so what if he didn't? Hundreds of thousands of people across Britain didn't do a thing to end slavery in Britain (which already had been abolished in Britain in 1807 by the by) when The Origin of Species was published, and Britain had done much to battle the actions of slavery in their own territories overseas (The West Africa Squadron comes to mind).

Britian did, as least a christian did and as he lay dying, his life's work was finally made law. He had an uphill battle to end slavery in GB. But they did and without a war. The US can be eternally ashamed that they fought and killed men in order to keep their slavery. The Brits can be proud of their answer to the problem.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I already said it is not likely that any slavers read those sorts of non-peer reviewed works. It was helpful to later generations that practiced inhuman arts on humans though but maybe you do not want to go there.

This is what you said in post #229: "His book was actually helpful to slavers because it distinguished races from one another and called it the struggle to survive between favored races. And it is true that some slavers decided that people of African descent were not really human beings. Darwin's theory an help that one along."

Do you have evidence to back up this claim, yes or no?

 

[Ophiolite]

I read the writings of his diary and so far, no one has been able to show any step whatsover to anything against slavey except that he said he wished he never had to hear the crys of slaves again in his life. I read the bit to linked and saw no actions taken by this man. His book was actually helpful to slavers because it distinguished races from one another and called it the struggle to survive between favored races. And it is true that some slavers decided that people of African descent were not really human beings. Darwin's theory an help that one along.

So, read the book I recommended, then we can talk further.

I'll simply say, at this point, because some noxious individuals chose to distort evolutionary theory to support their behaviour is down to their inhumanity, not Darwin's accurate concept of how the diversity of life arose on the planet. Mixing the two, as you have done, looks like a desparate search for an excuse to justify your disbelief.

 

[pitabread]

His book was actually helpful to slavers because it distinguished races from one another and called it the struggle to survive between favored races.

Darwin's use of the term "races" was basically synonymous with variations in species. In his writings he uses the term with respect of various species not just humans.

We have to be careful not to distort the context of the word as it was used at the time.

 

[AV1611VET]

We have to be careful not to distort the context of the word as it was used at the time.

You mean like distorting "child in the womb" to "fetus" to justify abortion?