My Finch Challenge

[Subduction Zone]

Then what's the point? Early American slave traders may have identified as Christian. What point are you making with this statement if not to remark on the system or Christianity itself? You are free to clarify your point if I have misunderstood it.

Let's forget the "identified as". They were Christians.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In what system is it endorsing it in? modern or ancient? Universal or contextual? You are treating slavery very 1 dimensionally and culture the same way. Ancient cultures are not going to fit in our mold. The use of master/slave hierarchies are not innately evil and there may be a mixture of justice and injustice happening within these systems. When it comes down to it is how people are treated as well as how they are protected by the law of the land. We can't just label salvery the same way in all circumstances because we superimpose our image of what slavery is over it.

The American agriculture labour force has a lot of migrant illegals over worked and under paid who live in the US but do not have the rights of a citizen. Is this morally right or morally wrong? What would happen If they were all deported tomorrow and what impact do you think this would have in the agricultural sector or the cost of food in grocery stores? Negative or positive? What impact would it have on the migrant illegals lives and their families? Positive or negative?

Societies are complex organisms and non are fully egalitarian. I don't know the answers of the above agricultural labour force in America because it's complex and blanket statements don't work but it's a very marred system that needs attention. I do however know a great difference can be made by the way we treat people. We have hierarchies, classes and examples of modern salvery where there is a clear top and a clear bottom. We need to speak out to the social injustices happening and do not mistreat a person or devalue them because they are in a lower position.

So where does the bible fit in this and what value does it endorse when it comes to the treatment of slaves? How does that compare to surrounding cultures? Are these positive things or negative things?

When did the Bible ever correct itself? The last time I checked it had no self correction system. In other words the Bible still seems to endorse slavery.

 

[DamianWarS]

Let's forget the "identified as". They were Christians.

You still have yet to state your point and only seem to be forcing specific details.

 

[DamianWarS]

When did the Bible ever correct itself? The last time I checked it had no self correction system. In other words the Bible still seems to endorse slavery.

Not everything in the bible should be considered universal. Why you seem to choose this detail as a universal endorsement to salvery is beyond me and is a hasty generalization. Everyone is dead under that system including the system itself. The Bible has the new testament where correction is the wrong word but it acts as the authority over the old.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You still have yet to state your point and only seem to be forcing specific details.

You should have gone back to where the topic first came up. One person was trying to claim that others were not Christians, by his or her standards. That person had a false sense of morality based upon the Bible. The issue of slavery is one of the Bible's worst fails.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not everything in the bible should be considered universal. Why you seem to choose this detail as a universal endorsement to salvery is beyond me and is a hasty generalization. Everyone is dead under that system including the system itself. The Bible has the new testament where correction is the wrong word but it acts as the authority over the old.

You seem to have forgotten that this debate is against specific types of Christians. Creationists make the mistake that you are talking about. That is why they are vulnerable to such arguments.

 

[DamianWarS]

You should have gone back to where the topic first came up. One person was trying to claim that others were not Christians, by his or her standards. That person had a false sense of morality based upon the Bible. The issue of slavery is one of the Bible's worst fails.

We can't say they aren't "true" Christians because then we would be guilty of No true Scotsman fallacy. But we also can't call their actions are innately Christian because we are guilty of hasty generalization fallacy. So in the end the two cancel each other and their Christian identiy should not be equated with their slave trader identiy. There were Christians (full stop). they were slave traders (full stop).

 

[DamianWarS]

You seem to have forgotten that this debate is against specific types of Christians. Creationists make the mistake that you are talking about. That is why they are vulnerable to such arguments.

This debate is about hasty generalizations. All teenagers are irresponsible since the beginning of time. See doesn't work either. How we look and respond to slavery is not the same as it was 3000 years ago. There is a space of the justice in these systems even to the slave but ignoring the context is a strawman.

 

[Occams Barber]

This debate is about hasty generalizations. All teenagers are irresponsible since the beginning of time. See doesn't work either. How we look and respond to slavery is not the same as it was 3000 years ago. There is a space of the justice in these systems even to the slave but ignoring the context is a strawman.

There's nothing hasty about this. Whether we're talking about killing of non-combatants or rape or slavery or revenge or condemning future generations for the sins on their forebears - it's all the same argument. By modern standards the actions of the God of the OT were immoral. Christians have been ducking and weaving around this for a long time.

At the same time Christians will speak of the consistency of God's morality. This consistency seems to fly out of the window when the OT is mentioned and be replaced with special pleading associated with an Old Covenant. All of a sudden context matters and God's rules become elastic.

The reality is that context - place, time and culture - always matters. Rules of right and wrong have always varied according to the prevailing circumstances. In attempting to justify God's OT morality Christians effectively prove this point.

OB

 

[Subduction Zone]

We can't say they aren't "true" Christians because then we would be guilty of No true Scotsman fallacy. But we also can't call their actions are innately Christian because we are guilty of hasty generalization fallacy. So in the end the two cancel each other and their Christian identiy should not be equated with their slave trader identiy. There were Christians (full stop). they were slave traders (full stop).

The problem is that there is nothing that is "innately Christian as shown by the countless different sects of Christianity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This debate is about hasty generalizations. All teenagers are irresponsible since the beginning of time. See doesn't work either. How we look and respond to slavery is not the same as it was 3000 years ago. There is a space of the justice in these systems even to the slave but ignoring the context is a strawman.

No, you are trying to make it about that. Which makes your argument a strawman.

 

[DamianWarS]

The problem is that there is nothing that is "innately Christian as shown by the countless different sects of Christianity.

Christianity of or relating to Christ. Slave traders of or relating to slaves. Is that innate enough? Your point is still lost what does it matter that X Christians were slave traders to your point? It matters to me because I think it's deplorable Christ is represented like this but what does it matter to you? What point are you making?

 

[DamianWarS]

No, you are trying to make it about that. Which makes your argument a strawman.

So let's wipe the slate clean. No one has an argument and it's all invalid. The actions of those before us, Christian or not, do not determine the actions of us now, Christian or not. Is that what this boils down to?

 

[DamianWarS]

There's nothing hasty about this. Whether we're talking about killing of non-combatants or rape or slavery or revenge or condemning future generations for the sins on their forebears - it's all the same argument. By modern standards the actions of the God of the OT were immoral. Christians have been ducking and weaving around this for a long time.

At the same time Christians will speak of the consistency of God's morality. This consistency seems to fly out of the window when the OT is mentioned and be replaced with special pleading associated with an Old Covenant. All of a sudden context matters and God's rules become elastic.

The reality is that context - place, time and culture - always matters. Rules of right and wrong have always varied according to the prevailing circumstances. In attempting to justify God's OT morality Christians effectively prove this point.

OB

That's what the fallacy is called. I didn't name it. So it is a hasty generalization fallacy to say Christianity endorses slavery because X Christians were slave traders and used the bible for justification of these actions. The timeline is not the hasty thing it's the generalization of things that happen in the timeline. Societies operate with hierarchies and those hierarchies may use terms like master and slave but this doesn't mean the system is injust/just. We can't interpret ancient systems based on modern to determine their morality and this is also a generalization and I might add where are your sources since I'm guessing you don't have creditals to interpret ancient systems so these remarks are unsubstantiated.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Christianity of or relating to Christ. Slave traders of or relating to slaves. Is that innate enough? Your point is still lost what does it matter that X Christians were slave traders to your point? It matters to me because I think it's deplorable Christ is represented like this but what does it matter to you? What point are you making?

That you do not like some Christians does not mean that they are not Christians. You seem to be far off from the topic of evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So let's wipe the slate clean. No one has an argument and it's all invalid. The actions of those before us, Christian or not, do not determine the actions of us now, Christian or not. Is that what this boils down to?

Please, you are dodging. It seems that you know that there are times that one should not take the Bible literally. That is the point of bringing up some parts of the Bible that are no longer used today. When one tries to take the Bible too literally, such as reading Genesis literally then one has no excuse to oppose slavery. They are basically the same error.

 

[Ophiolite]

We can't interpret ancient systems based on modern to determine their morality

That sounds as if you are arguing for situation ethics. Are you? If not, what did you mean by the comment.

 

[VirOptimus]

So let's wipe the slate clean. No one has an argument and it's all invalid. The actions of those before us, Christian or not, do not determine the actions of us now, Christian or not. Is that what this boils down to?

Thats not how a religion of tradition works.

So no, you got to own the history.

 

[DamianWarS]

That you do not like some Christians does not mean that they are not Christians. You seem to be far off from the topic of evolution.

I didn't say they weren't Christians. what I don't like are the actions but you're avoiding the question. what does it matter those slave traders were Christian? what is your point? you are free to bring this back to evolution since the remarks on your insights.

 

[DamianWarS]

Please, you are dodging. It seems that you know that there are times that one should not take the Bible literally. That is the point of bringing up some parts of the Bible that are no longer used today. When one tries to take the Bible too literally, such as reading Genesis literally then one has no excuse to oppose slavery. They are basically the same error.

Genesis may have components of myth and legend mixed throughout. pre-Abraham probably is more myth-like and post-Abraham arguably is more accurate because it is the specific storyline of the Hebrews so their details are going to be preserved better, but ancient cultures are going to be more honor-driven than fact-driven so there is a point to the accounts but their facts might not be it.

You will have to unpack your statement regarding taking Genesis literally leads to "no excuse to oppose slavery" I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. sure oppose slavery but how does that link to taking Genesis literally? I'm not objecting per se I'm just curious how you made that connection.