tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post2778071353754042108..comments2024-03-14T14:41:17.663-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Secular sentimentalityRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-73190708580216664572012-03-31T11:35:30.287-04:002012-03-31T11:35:30.287-04:00zilch said:
"That's true, as far as it g...zilch said:<br /><br />"That's true, as far as it goes. But as I believe I've already said, I'm against slavery, and thus find it worth fighting against, because it causes unnecessary pain, and because it's unfair."<br /><br />On atheism, we could have someone with your tolerant moral scruples, or we could have someone with Jeffrey Dahmer's moral scruples. On atheism, who's to say Dahmer is wrong and you are right? On atheism, who's to say it's wrong to cause "unnecessary pain" or it's "unfair" to treat others a certain way?<br /><br />"How is this a canard?"<br /><br />Because it's not true the Bible "condones slavery." We've given you reasoned argumentation, but you don't interact with our argumentation. Rather, like I said, you just keep repeating this canard.<br /><br />"It's a fact that the Bible condones slavery: it lays down rules on how it is to be practiced, and nowhere forbids it."<br /><br />Once again, care to cite and exegete the relevant passages where the Bible "lays down rules on how it is to be practiced, and nowwhere forbids it"? <br /><br />"And it's also a fact that most people have moved on from this attitude: slavery was legal in much of the world in Biblical times; it's now illegal everywhere (as far as I know)."<br /><br />On atheism, the fact that "most people have moved on from this attitude" doesn't tell us whether slavery is objectively right or wrong.<br /><br />Also, what's legal or illegal isn't identical to what's moral or immoral.<br /><br />"Ah, the "not a true Christian" argument. Sorry, but since I'm not God or even a Calvinist, I'm in no position to know who is a "true" Christian or not- I can only judge people on what they say and how they behave. Thus, for me, the effect of the Bible on how people behave has nothing to do with whether or not they are "true" Christians, but only on what they actually do. And some people calling themselves Christians have done things that are (to my untutored atheist mind) good, and some have done bad things. Christians (and other theists as well, of course) have gleefully established thousands of sects dedicated to separating the "true" beleivers from the "false"; but I'm afraid I'm unequipped to distinguish which are which. And reading the Bible doesn't help much, since it has such mixed messages. But I guess that's a whole nother topic, isn't it?"<br /><br />You say you "can only judge people on what they say and how they behave." Yet you ignore someone like William Wilberforce (mentioned above) who was a devout Christian and central to abolishing slavery in British lands.<br /><br />Also, you say "reading the Bible doesn't help much, since it has such mixed messages." But when we actually attempt to begin to interpret the Bible (as others have done above), you don't actually interact with what we say. You just keep repeating your same old tired tales.<br /><br />If you're going to judge Christianity based on what the worst "Christians" say and do, then I could just as easily judge atheism based on what the worst atheists say and do. I could take someone like Stalin or Pol Pot or Kim Jong-il. After all, I'm in no position to know who is a "true" atheist or not - I can only judge people based on what they say and how they behave. After all, communists like Stalin, Pol Pot, and Kim Jong-il say they don't believe God and they behave like it. So according to your logic, they're representative of atheism.rockingwithhawkinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10550503108269371174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-23163470168616591532012-03-27T09:09:36.474-04:002012-03-27T09:09:36.474-04:00ZILCH SAID:
"I continue to cite 'eating ...ZILCH SAID:<br /><br />"I continue to cite 'eating wheat' because it is listed in Rev 18, and if you insist that Rev 18 is an indictment of chattel slavery, then I don't see how you can, in good conscience, eat wheat."<br /><br />I already explained that to you. You lack adaptive intelligence. You repeat the same objections ad nauseam like a tape recorder on playback, without regard to the explanations. It's a waste of time debating someone who lacks the rational capacity to update his objections in light of counterarguments.<br /><br />Go back and read what I said about wheat @ 3/25/2012 8:17 AM<br /><br />You seem unable to address anything that doesn't fit on your 3x5 cue cards. Learn how to take what I say into consideration and modify your objections accordingly.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-73025609557969712182012-03-27T08:27:58.052-04:002012-03-27T08:27:58.052-04:00Oh, and by the way, for any Christians still follo...Oh, and by the way, for any Christians still following this thread- I'm still curious if you agree with rho's statement that "Slavery [chattel slavery], as a societal institution, is not morally prohibited in Scripture."<br /><br />cheers from sunny Vienna, zilchzilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-8040089037310421192012-03-26T11:20:10.098-04:002012-03-26T11:20:10.098-04:00Steve, you say:
All the listed items are condemne...Steve, you say:<br /><br /><i>All the listed items are condemned.</i><br /><br />Okay. Do you eat bread?<br /><br /><i>You continue to simple-mindedly cite "eating wheat" when I already explained the context of that indictment. Try to keep more than one idea in your little head at a time.</i><br /><br />I continue to cite "eating wheat" because it is listed in Rev 18, and if you insist that Rev 18 is an indictment of chattel slavery, then I don't see how you can, in good conscience, eat wheat. And please, Steve, lay off the childish insults- I'm trying to understand what you believe, and also trying to understand what I believe, and this just gets in the way.zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-11766653417062828922012-03-26T10:47:52.421-04:002012-03-26T10:47:52.421-04:00ZILCH SAID:
"Steve, you are the one claiming...ZILCH SAID:<br /><br />"Steve, you are the one claiming that 'slavery is indicted' in Rev 18. How about you telling me exactly what kind of slavery was meant here?"<br /><br />Chattel slavery. <br /><br />"Again- how do you get a condemnation of slavery (you tell me what kind) and no condemnation of eating wheat out of this?"<br /><br />All the listed items are condemned.<br /><br />You continue to simple-mindedly cite "eating wheat" when I already explained the context of that indictment. Try to keep more than one idea in your little head at a time.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-73983611087764633382012-03-25T16:25:47.889-04:002012-03-25T16:25:47.889-04:00I said:
But it's not a condemnation of slaver...I said:<br /><br /><b>But it's not a condemnation of slavery per se, any more than it's a condemnation of eating wheat or working iron per se.</b><br /><br />Steve said:<br /><br /><i>That's because you have a rubbery definition of "slavery," as I noted early on. There's no such thing as "slavery per se.</i><br /><br />Steve, <i>you</i> are the one claiming that "slavery is indicted" in Rev 18. How about <i>you</i> telling me exactly what kind of slavery was meant here?<br /><br /><b>So only the last item in the litany is considered indicted?</b><br /><br /><i>An illogical question. Try to think.</i><br /><br />Again, <i>you</i> are the one making the claim, which was "Rome prospered at the expense of her many victims. And that includes the slave trade–accentuated by the emphatic position of at the end of the litany." Since being at the end of the litany is the <i>only</i> way in which the slave trade was in any way differentiated (if you can even consider it so) from other items in the list, including iron and wheat, that prompted my question. Again- how do you get a condemnation of slavery (you tell me what kind) and no condemnation of eating wheat out of this?zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-79694119242344550412012-03-25T15:50:02.519-04:002012-03-25T15:50:02.519-04:00zilch said...
"But it's not a condemnati...zilch said...<br /><br />"But it's not a condemnation of slavery per se, any more than it's a condemnation of eating wheat or working iron per se."<br /><br />That's because you have a rubbery definition of "slavery," as I noted early on. There's no such thing as "slavery per se." <br /><br />"So only the last item in the litany is considered indicted?"<br /><br />An illogical question. Try to think.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-51268967527412361802012-03-25T15:30:29.417-04:002012-03-25T15:30:29.417-04:00Steve, you say:
As an expat American living abroa...Steve, you say:<br /><br /><i>As an expat American living abroad, you ought to appreciate the need to understand a foreign culture on its own terms.</i><br /><br />I try my best, but sometimes my American upbringing still comes out- for instance, I bristle when I have to deal with the gratuitous unfriendliness of, say, telephone operators here.<br /><br /><i>Rev 18 isn't merely a condemnation of Rome. It also details the basis of the condemnation. The concentration of wealth and power in Rome, on the backs of her vassals. And the means by which Rome acquired her status.<br /><br />For instance, wheat was diverted to feed the vast appetite of the imperial city, thereby starving the provinces.<br /><br />Likewise, because iron was harder than bronze, that was the preferred metal for weaponry. So that alludes to Roman military might, by which Rome subjugated the ancient world and maintained her rule through brute force. Literally "iron rule."</i><br /><br />Yes, Steve, I really get this. As you and I believe rocking said, it's a condemnation of luxury and greed. But it's not a condemnation of slavery <i>per se</i>, any more than it's a condemnation of eating wheat or working iron <i>per se</i>.<br /><br /><i>Roman military and economic power went hand-in-hand. Empires exploit the conquered peoples for their resources, viz. tribute, taxation, and plunder. Or the use of forced labor in mining.<br /><br />Rome prospered at the expense of her many victims. And that includes the slave trade–accentuated by the emphatic position of at the end of the litany.</i><br /><br />So only the last item in the litany is considered indicted? Again, I can see that this is a list of burdens Babylon (or Rome) placed on her vassals in her greed and luxury; but that's not the same thing as saying that slavery is forbidden or even discouraged in general, any more than any other item in the list is. If you believe this is a general indictment of slavery, then you need a justification for your eating wheat or working iron.<br /><br />I'm still waiting for rho to weigh in here, since he said "slavery is not morally prohibited in the Bible". Do you agree with this, Steve?zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-52902316592542127622012-03-25T15:11:11.502-04:002012-03-25T15:11:11.502-04:00Rocking, you say:
On atheism, the fact that both ...Rocking, you say:<br /><br /><i>On atheism, the fact that both you and I would fight slavery doesn't tell us anything about whether slavery is actually worth fighting against, morally speaking.</i><br /><br />That's true, as far as it goes. But as I believe I've already said, I'm against slavery, and thus find it worth fighting against, because it causes unnecessary pain, and because it's unfair.<br /><br />I said:<br /><br /><b>That's why the Bible condones slavery- it's a product of men of their time and place in culture. But luckily, most people have moved on from this attitude.</b><br /><br />You replied:<br /><br /><i>You keep repeating this canard.</i><br /><br />How is this a canard? It's a fact that the Bible condones slavery: it lays down rules on how it is to be practiced, and nowhere forbids it. And it's also a fact that most people have moved on from this attitude: slavery was legal in much of the world in Biblical times; it's now illegal everywhere (as far as I know).<br /><br /><i>For another, if you're referring to Biblical Christianity, then the Bible allows for the fact that not all who call themselves Christians are necessarily Christians. Not to mention the Bible allows for the fact that Christians are far from perfect. Christians don't necessarily always do what the Bible commands.</i><br /><br />Ah, the "not a true Christian" argument. Sorry, but since I'm not God or even a Calvinist, I'm in no position to know who is a "true" Christian or not- I can only judge people on what they say and how they behave. Thus, for me, the effect of the Bible on how people behave has nothing to do with whether or not they are "true" Christians, but only on what they actually do. And some people calling themselves Christians have done things that are (to my untutored atheist mind) good, and some have done bad things. Christians (and other theists as well, of course) have gleefully established thousands of sects dedicated to separating the "true" beleivers from the "false"; but I'm afraid I'm unequipped to distinguish which are which. And reading the Bible doesn't help much, since it has such mixed messages. But I guess that's a whole nother topic, isn't it?<br /><br /><i>Also, the point of all this was to make an internal critique of your atheistic secular values. Say you somehow can prove your claim "I don't see that religion has done a bang-up job of eliminating slavery." So what? What about secularists and atheists? I could just as easily say like you that I don't see that atheists have done a bang-up job of eliminating slavery. In other words, it doesn't change what I said in response to you in my preceding comment.</i><br /><br />You're right there- <i>no one</i> has done a bang-up job of eliminating slavery, or it wouldn't still exist. I'm not claiming that atheists invest the high moral ground here by any means. But I don't see, as I've said already, that merely claiming "objective" standards has done any better.zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-90963559016568654832012-03-25T14:46:43.759-04:002012-03-25T14:46:43.759-04:00Bill, you say:
The abolitionist movement in Engla...Bill, you say:<br /><br /><i>The abolitionist movement in England was just as Christian as the one in America. Is that mere coincidence?</i><br /><br />Most people, abolitionists and slaveholders alike, in England and America, were and have been Christian for many years. That's just a fact of history. How many atheists, or Muslims or Buddhists for that matter, were there in 19th century America and England?<br /><br /><i>The fact that most modern civilization oppose slavery according is not helpful to your argument. On the one hand statistically most modern people are religious as well or one could say that given the secular status of most of Europe and sadly as well much of the USA - perhaps that explains the growing sex slave trade?</i><br /><br />I doubt it. If the majority of people are religious, why is there a growing slave trade? Do you have any evidence that atheists are responsible for it?<br /><br /><i>Your arguments seems to be just a form of emotivism. You don't like it (its yucky!) because of your background, genetics, friends, whatever.</i><br /><br />Why do <i>you</i> find slavery yucky, then, Bill? As I've said, there's no place in Scripture that treats slavery as yucky, and even rhology has said that slavery is not morally prohibited in the Bible. I'm open to correction.<br /><br /><i>The appropriate response already given is that someone (and obviously this is a lot of someones) else could respond that all those same types of factors cause him/her to say that slavery is yummy. So you have your perspective and he has his. Thats why the notion of "objectivity" which you dismiss becomes important - i think Nietzsche sums this up best - God is dead - there is no good or evil. there is only perspectivalism. So if the laws were to change tomorrow and legalize slavery accross the western world - what would be your best argument? It doesn't feel right to you? And others should care about that WHY?</i><br /><br />It's a problem, innit? That's why we still have people, including Christians, other religious people, and atheists disagreeing about stuff. But somehow, sometimes, stuff still gets done- for instance, the thirteenth amendment to the Constitution in the USA. I'm all for that, even in lack of an "objective" reason. Is that bad? Does it not work?<br /><br />Neither of my two children, both atheists, is in favor of slavery, partly because of how I brought them up. Why is some sort of intangible theoretical "objective standard" important- don't we simply want to <i>eliminate actual slavery in the actual world?</i><br /><br /><i>If there is no objective standard, then there is no foundation for any moral principal other than your own feelings. And those can change with the wind and have no weight with anyone else.</i><br /><br />Moral feelings do change, undeniably- for instance, most Christians in the US supported or at least condoned slavery in the 18th century, and nowadays most Christians don't support slavery. But as I've said, what does it help to append the adjective "objective" to moral standards? All that does is say "God is behind my morals". History has shown that the results of this attitude have sometimes been laudible, but have often been horrific.zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-11306591571170001062012-03-25T08:17:53.357-04:002012-03-25T08:17:53.357-04:00ZILCH SAID:
"I guess elementary reading comp...ZILCH SAID:<br /><br />"I guess elementary reading comprehension is a problem for me because I'm an atheist- what other answer could there be? And you're right- the entire chapter reads as a gleeful taunt-song on the downfall of Babylon. But the practice of slavery is not indicted; it only says that no one will buy Babylon's slaves, or her cinnamon or iron or wheat, etc, any more...Babylon is indicted for luxury and greed, yes; but the practice of slavery is not condemned, any more than the practice of eating wheat or working iron is condemned. I honestly don't see how you can squeeze that meaning out of the passages in question, except by very powerful wishful thinking...And it's a good thing that bronze and iron and vessels of brass are not indicted, because if they were, I'd be in big trouble, having plenty of all of these in my workshop."<br /><br />As an expat American living abroad, you ought to appreciate the need to understand a foreign culture on its own terms. <br /><br />Rev 18 isn't merely a condemnation of Rome. It also details the basis of the condemnation. The concentration of wealth and power in Rome, on the backs of her vassals. And the means by which Rome acquired her status.<br /><br />For instance, wheat was diverted to feed the vast appetite of the imperial city, thereby starving the provinces. <br /><br />Likewise, because iron was harder than bronze, that was the preferred metal for weaponry. So that alludes to Roman military might, by which Rome subjugated the ancient world and maintained her rule through brute force. Literally "iron rule." <br /><br />Roman military and economic power went hand-in-hand. Empires exploit the conquered peoples for their resources, viz. tribute, taxation, and plunder. Or the use of forced labor in mining.<br /><br />Rome prospered at the expense of her many victims. And that includes the slave trade–accentuated by the emphatic position of at the end of the litany.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-68034994344694601412012-03-24T13:55:21.161-04:002012-03-24T13:55:21.161-04:00zilch said:
"Sure, maybe some would reason a...zilch said:<br /><br />"Sure, maybe some would reason along those lines. I would still fight them, wouldn't you?"<br /><br />You keep missing the point. It could simply be because we're both men of our times. On atheism, the fact that both you and I would fight slavery doesn't tell us anything about whether slavery is actually worth fighting against, morally speaking. <br /><br />"That's why the Bible condones slavery- it's a product of men of their time and place in culture. But luckily, most people have moved on from this attitude."<br /><br />You keep repeating this canard. <br /><br />Again, see above.<br /><br />"I don't see how regarding something as wrong, as I do slavery, gains any force or authority by appending the label 'objective' to it,"<br /><br />You were the one who introduced "absolute." What else could you mean by "absolute" in context other than that which is "objective"? If you have an alternative, then I'm all ears!<br /><br />"unless you happen to believe in God. And lots of people who believed in God held slaves. As I said, I don't really care what motivates people to oppose slavery, but I don't see that religion has done a bang-up job of eliminating slavery. Sure, most of the abolitionists in antebellum America were Christians, but most of the slaveowners were too. Handsome is as handsome does, at least to me."<br /><br />This is so confused. <br /><br />For one thing, you're way too vague when you say stuff like "I don't see that religion has done a bang-up job of eliminating slavery." Which "religion" are you referring to? Not all religions subscribe to the same God or set of ethical values. <br /><br />And where's your argument that religion hasn't "done a bang-up job of eliminating slavery"?<br /><br />For another, if you're referring to Biblical Christianity, then the Bible allows for the fact that not all who call themselves Christians are necessarily Christians. Not to mention the Bible allows for the fact that Christians are far from perfect. Christians don't necessarily always do what the Bible commands.<br /><br />Also, the point of all this was to make an internal critique of your atheistic secular values. Say you somehow can prove your claim "I don't see that religion has done a bang-up job of eliminating slavery." So what? What about secularists and atheists? I could just as easily say like you that I don't see that atheists have done a bang-up job of eliminating slavery. In other words, it doesn't change what I said in response to you in my preceding comment.<br /><br />Anyway, you could start with William Wilberforce.rockingwithhawkinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10550503108269371174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-86781580819756682762012-03-24T13:44:14.478-04:002012-03-24T13:44:14.478-04:00The abolitionist movement in England was just as C...The abolitionist movement in England was just as Christian as the one in America. Is that mere coincidence?<br />The fact that most modern civilization oppose slavery according is not helpful to your argument. On the one hand statistically most modern people are religious as well or one could say that given the secular status of most of Europe and sadly as well much of the USA - perhaps that explains the growing sex slave trade?<br />Your arguments seems to be just a form of emotivism. You don't like it (its yucky!) because of your background, genetics, friends, whatever. The appropriate response already given is that someone (and obviously this is a lot of someones) else could respond that all those same types of factors cause him/her to say that slavery is yummy. So you have your perspective and he has his. Thats why the notion of "objectivity" which you dismiss becomes important - i think Nietzsche sums this up best - God is dead - there is no good or evil. there is only perspectivalism. So if the laws were to change tomorrow and legalize slavery accross the western world - what would be your best argument? It doesn't feel right to you? And others should care about that WHY?<br />If there is no objective standard, then there is no foundation for any moral principal other than your own feelings. And those can change with the wind and have no weight with anyone else.Bill Honsbergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04836300411894206079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-27374432001504875932012-03-24T12:52:33.069-04:002012-03-24T12:52:33.069-04:00Rocking, you say:
Hm, but those who enslave other...Rocking, you say:<br /><br /><i>Hm, but those who enslave others could just as well say that they want to enslave people because of their genetic heritage as social animals, their cultural heritage reflecting tribal and pagan values placed on human lives, and their rational mind and love for money. Or something along those lines.</i><br /><br />Sure, maybe some would reason along those lines. I would still fight them, wouldn't you?<br /><br /><i>So maybe what you happen to believe simply reflects a man of your time and place and culture. And maybe what they happen to believe simply reflects a man of their time and place and culture.</i><br /><br />That's why the Bible condones slavery- it's a product of men of their time and place in culture. But luckily, most people have moved on from this attitude.<br /><br /><i>If there are no "absolute" moral truths or values, then there's nothing right or wrong with slavery. You may not like it as a 21st century Westerner. But I'm afraid I can't see how you can say it's objectively morally or ethically wrong when a 21st century Somali pirate or a 10th century Muslim slave trader engages in slavery.</i><br /><br />I don't see how regarding something as wrong, as I do slavery, gains any force or authority by appending the label "objective" to it, unless you happen to believe in God. And lots of people who believed in God held slaves. As I said, I don't really care what motivates people to oppose slavery, but I don't see that religion has done a bang-up job of eliminating slavery. Sure, most of the abolitionists in antebellum America were Christians, but most of the slaveowners were too. Handsome is as handsome does, at least to me.zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-26401111299479046892012-03-24T12:31:14.680-04:002012-03-24T12:31:14.680-04:00zilch said:
"Why I want that is the result o...zilch said:<br /><br />"Why I want that is the result of many factors: my genetic heritage as a social animal, my cultural heritage reflecting democratic and religious values placed on human lives and happiness, and my rational mind and love for life. These are enough for me, and for many others, to reject slavery, without recourse to any 'absolute' decrees, which may or may not exist."<br /><br />Hm, but those who enslave others could just as well say that they want to enslave people because of their genetic heritage as social animals, their cultural heritage reflecting tribal and pagan values placed on human lives, and their rational mind and love for money. Or something along those lines.<br /><br />So maybe what you happen to believe simply reflects a man of your time and place and culture. And maybe what they happen to believe simply reflects a man of their time and place and culture.<br /><br />If there are no "absolute" moral truths or values, then there's nothing right or wrong with slavery. You may not like it as a 21st century Westerner. But I'm afraid I can't see how you can say it's objectively morally or ethically wrong when a 21st century Somali pirate or a 10th century Muslim slave trader engages in slavery.rockingwithhawkinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10550503108269371174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-13148614600004387662012-03-24T05:10:32.041-04:002012-03-24T05:10:32.041-04:00Bill- you ask:
Most secularists condemn slavery? ...Bill- you ask:<br /><br /><i>Most secularists condemn slavery? Maybe I am misreading the statistics, but isn't the rise of the sex slavery network in the formerly Christian Europe (whatever that meant) now estimated to be higher than at any time in human history?</i><br /><br />Okay, I'll admit that I don't know of any recent poll asking secularists (or anyone else) about their views on slavery. I'm just going by the fact that slavery is now illegal in every country in the world, and that I don't know anyone personally, secular or not, who is for slavery. The fact that slavery still exists or has sprung up again, in Europe, the USA (see <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2981327&page=1" rel="nofollow">here</a>) and elsewhere, is a tragic reality; but I doubt that it is supported by most modern civilized people.<br /><br /><i>I am just wondering how secularism gives a foundation to say that it is wrong - you are quibbling over what the Bible says with others here and thats fine - Just tell me which ethical foundation you want to land on which can do the job you insist on?</i><br /><br />Bill, you're right to characterize my interpretation of Scripture here as "quibbling". While I still think the Bible pretty obviously condoned slavery, it's far more important to me that slavery today be fought, and if Christians interpret the Bible in such a way that motivates them to fight slavery, more power to them. As far as what I consider to be my ethical foundation for fighting slavery goes, it's nothing new: I don't want people to suffer needlessly or unfairly, and slavery is needless and unfair.<br /><br />Why I want that is the result of many factors: my genetic heritage as a social animal, my cultural heritage reflecting democratic and religious values placed on human lives and happiness, and my rational mind and love for life. These are enough for me, and for many others, to reject slavery, without recourse to any "absolute" decrees, which may or may not exist.<br /><br />cheers from sunny Vienna, zilchzilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-28288680947295412542012-03-23T20:40:33.783-04:002012-03-23T20:40:33.783-04:00Most secularists condemn slavery? Maybe I am misr...Most secularists condemn slavery? Maybe I am misreading the statistics, but isn't the rise of the sex slavery network in the formerly Christian Europe (whatever that meant) now estimated to be higher than at any time in human history? I am just wondering how secularism gives a foundation to say that it is wrong - you are quibbling over what the Bible says with others here and thats fine - Just tell me which ethical foundation you want to land on which can do the job you insist on?Bill Honsbergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04836300411894206079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-45622193384752291852012-03-23T15:47:33.545-04:002012-03-23T15:47:33.545-04:00I said:
So wheat, cinnamon, and bronze are condem...I said:<br /><br /><b>So wheat, cinnamon, and bronze are condemned too? I don't get it.</b><br /><br />Steve said:<br /><br /><i>You need to acquire a modicum of background knowledge about the ancient world, and what these items signified back then. 18:11-13 condemns the conspicuous consumption of Rome (under the guise of "Babylon"), and the means by which these luxury items were acquired.</i><br /><br />So this is a condemnation of luxury. Still no condemnation of slavery here.<br /><br /><b>Okay, Steve, so slavery is not 'nice', but it's 'moral'. That's pretty much what Rho said.</b><br /><br /><i>That's an unintelligent reply inasmuch as you bundle a variety of different things under the same word: "slavery." You've already been corrected on that score. Try to learn from experience.</i><br /><br />I'm just following Rho, who said, in the link above:<br /><br /><i>(Note: In the following, I define "slavery" to refer to so-called "chattel slavery," as formerly practiced in Rome and the United States, which as an institution consists of the following components, in whole, or in part: 1) The master-slave relationship entails ownership of the slave, 2) the period of slavery is indefinite, 3) slavery is generational, such that one can be born into slavery, and 4) the slave is not considered to be fully-human or have the basic human rights accorded to free men in society. )</i><br /><br />... and went on to say:<br /><br /><i>1. Slavery, as a societal institution, is not morally prohibited in Scripture.</i><br /><br />As I pointed out, with no rebuttal so far, there are no injunctions in the Bible against slavery in Rho's sense, if the slaves consist of the "right" people.<br /><br /><b>How in the name of Darwin do you get a condemnation of slavery out of this? I guess you have to have the right kind of glasses.</b><br /><br /><i>The entire chapter is a gleeful taunt-song on the downfall of Babylon. Slavery is one of the named items in the indictment. Why is elementary reading comprehension such a challenge for you?</i><br /><br />I guess elementary reading comprehension is a problem for me because I'm an atheist- what other answer could there be? And you're right- the entire chapter reads as a gleeful taunt-song on the downfall of Babylon. But the <i>practice of slavery</i> is not indicted; it only says that <i>no one will buy</i> Babylon's slaves, or her cinnamon or iron or wheat, etc, any more.<br /><br />Babylon is indicted for luxury and greed, yes; but the practice of slavery is not condemned, any more than the practice of eating wheat or working iron is condemned. I honestly don't see how you can squeeze that meaning out of the passages in question, except by very powerful wishful thinking.<br /><br />And it's a good thing that bronze and iron and vessels of brass are not indicted, because if they were, I'd be in big trouble, having plenty of all of these in my workshop. No slaves, though. But not because of the Bible. If God didn't look upon slavery with favor, why didn't He simply say "thou shalt not hold slaves", just as He said "thou shalt have no graven images" or "thou shalt not work on the Sabbath day"? I guess He works in mysterious ways.zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-52741800129678969992012-03-23T12:43:24.545-04:002012-03-23T12:43:24.545-04:00ZILCH SAID:
"So wheat, cinnamon, and bronze ...ZILCH SAID:<br /><br />"So wheat, cinnamon, and bronze are condemned too? I don't get it."<br /><br />You need to acquire a modicum of background knowledge about the ancient world, and what these items signified back then. 18:11-13 condemns the conspicuous consumption of Rome (under the guise of "Babylon"), and the means by which these luxury items were acquired.<br /><br />"Okay, Steve, so slavery is not 'nice', but it's 'moral'. That's pretty much what Rho said."<br /><br />That's an unintelligent reply inasmuch as you bundle a variety of different things under the same word: "slavery." You've already been corrected on that score. Try to learn from experience.<br /><br />"How in the name of Darwin do you get a condemnation of slavery out of this? I guess you have to have the right kind of glasses."<br /><br />The entire chapter is a gleeful taunt-song on the downfall of Babylon. Slavery is one of the named items in the indictment. Why is elementary reading comprehension such a challenge for you?stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-66129927233144143802012-03-23T11:16:25.810-04:002012-03-23T11:16:25.810-04:00Niceness and morality are two different things.
O...<i>Niceness and morality are two different things.</i><br /><br />Okay, Steve, so slavery is not "nice", but it's "moral". That's pretty much what Rho said.<br /><br /><i>1. One of the things that's condemned is the city's greed.<br /><br />Related, merchants aren't so upset by the overtuning of the city as they are with their loss of trade and revenue.</i><br /><br />Okay, greed is condemned. That's pretty much how I read the passage too. Doesn't say anything about slavery being immoral.<br /><br /><i>2. I read "slaves" here as suggesting that the merchants would even go so far as to sell humans for profit in their greed.</i><br /><br />And cinnamon. Where's the condemnation of slavery here?<br /><br /><i>3. Compare this to Ezek 27:13 as well. See what was condemned in this passage too.</i><br /><br />Okay. Vessels of brass were also condemned, by your reading. How in the name of Darwin do you get a condemnation of slavery out of this? I guess you have to have the right kind of glasses.zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-73658776166433351602012-03-23T11:04:30.217-04:002012-03-23T11:04:30.217-04:00zilch said:
"So wheat, cinnamon, and bronze ...zilch said:<br /><br />"So wheat, cinnamon, and bronze are condemned too? I don't get it."<br /><br />1. One of the things that's condemned is the city's greed. <br /><br />Related, merchants aren't so upset by the overtuning of the city as they are with their loss of trade and revenue.<br /><br />2. I read "slaves" here as suggesting that the merchants would even go so far as to sell humans for profit in their greed. Henry Barclay Swete comments in his <em>The Apocalypse of St. John</em>: "The world of St. John’s day ministered in a thousand ways to the follies and vices of Babylon, but the climax was reached in the sacrifice of human life which recruited the huge familiae of the rich, filled the brothels, and ministered to the brutal pleasures of the amphi-theatre."<br /><br />3. Compare this to Ezek 27:13 as well. See what was condemned in this passage too.rockingwithhawkinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10550503108269371174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-33343114554187550732012-03-23T10:47:41.948-04:002012-03-23T10:47:41.948-04:00Niceness and morality are two different things.Niceness and morality are two different things.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-4887628682686830882012-03-23T10:14:22.115-04:002012-03-23T10:14:22.115-04:00Steve, you say:
Babylon is condemned for her life...Steve, you say:<br /><br /><i>Babylon is condemned for her lifestyle, including the slave trade.</i><br /><br />So wheat, cinnamon, and bronze are condemned too? I don't get it.<br /><br /><i>You're using "slavery" indiscriminately to cover a range of very different situations, such as indentured servants or war captives.</i><br /><br />Sure, there are degrees from indentured servitude to slavery condoned for different groups of people in the Bible, just as there were in colonial America: while there were white indentured servants, there weren't any white slaves, as far as I know. Does this make anything any nicer?zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-22957262444548482692012-03-23T09:58:05.853-04:002012-03-23T09:58:05.853-04:00zilch said...
"Don't get me wrong- I'...zilch said...<br /><br />"Don't get me wrong- I'm sure that the Biblical passages that urge treating your slaves well were very humane for the time and place."<br /><br />You're using "slavery" indiscriminately to cover a range of very different situations, such as indentured servants or war captives.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-48131302852524536752012-03-23T09:55:46.646-04:002012-03-23T09:55:46.646-04:00ZILCH SAID:
"Steve- I'll be the first to...ZILCH SAID:<br /><br />"Steve- I'll be the first to admit that I'm no Bible scholar, but how do you get from a list of things that merchants won't buy from Babylon any more, including bronze, wheat, and cinnamon, as well as slaves, to a denunciation of the practice of slavery? Must we consider the use of bronze, wheat, and cinnamon also denounced? Can you explicate a bit here?"<br /><br />Because it's in judgmental context. Babylon is condemned for her lifestyle, including the slave trade.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.com