peter12's "Human rights is an exclusively Christian concept." thread

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Lol. One guy uses the Bible one way, the other uses it another way and you claim only one is right

Well, there are established doctrines, and anyway, how can you possibly say a slaver is a Christian? They could be effectively compartmentalize that aspect of their life (do you believe that you don't do that too?) but it doesn't erase the fact that being a slaver is an enormous sin. John Newton recognized that in himself - it is something called conscience.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by peter12

Well, there are established doctrines, and anyway, how can you possibly say a slaver is a Christian? They could be effectively compartmentalize that aspect of their life (do you believe that you don't do that too?) but it doesn't erase the fact that being a slaver is an enormous sin. John Newton recognized that in himself - it is something called conscience.

So what exactly did Jesus say about slavery then, it being a sin and all?

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by peter12

Well, there are established doctrines, and anyway, how can you possibly say a slaver is a Christian? They could be effectively compartmentalize that aspect of their life (do you believe that you don't do that too?) but it doesn't erase the fact that being a slaver is an enormous sin. John Newton recognized that in himself - it is something called conscience.

John Newton recognized that sure, others felt the Bible said slavery was God's plan. Who's right?

In fact Jesus never argued against slavery and all the disciples discuss slavery and not once to they pose opposition

[peter12]

Yes, slavery is, and was, an essential part of all human economic problems. As one of my professors used to say, you may not have human slaves in your house, but you have their technological equivalents. It certainly was an important part of the ancient world.

However, while there is nothing explicitly against Christianity in the Bible, the overall tone of the Gospel is untenable with slavery. Basil the Younger, and several of the early Church Fathers gave sermons saying it was God's will for masters to free their slaves. I can't find the quotes online, but I would recommend reading David Bentley Hart.

Christianity offers Christ or Nothing, and as Christ's message culminates in absolute spiritual freedom, it would follow that material freedom is pretty important.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by peter12

Yes, slavery is, and was, an essential part of all human economic problems. As one of my professors used to say, you may not have human slaves in your house, but you have their technological equivalents. It certainly was an important part of the ancient world.

However, while there is nothing explicitly against Christianity in the Bible, the overall tone of the Gospel is untenable with slavery. Basil the Younger, and several of the early Church Fathers gave sermons saying it was God's will for masters to free their slaves. I can't find the quotes online, but I would recommend reading David Bentley Hart.

Christianity offers Christ or Nothing, and as Christ's message culminates in absolute spiritual freedom, it would follow that material freedom is pretty important.

So important that Jesus forgot to mention it?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

John Newton recognized that sure, others felt the Bible said slavery was God's plan. Who's right?

In fact Jesus never argued against slavery and all the disciples discuss slavery and not once to they pose opposition

Why do atheists always fall back into this wrathful subjectivity? Like there is no truth to be discerned in human conduct, and that doctrines in Christianity are not helpful, or indeed essential, to that truth?

So what did end slavery? The relentless cruelty of the modern state that industrialized slavery?

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by peter12

Why do atheists always fall back into this wrathful subjectivity? Like there is no truth to be discerned in human conduct, and that doctrines in Christianity are not helpful, or indeed essential, to that truth?

So what did end slavery? The relentless cruelty of the modern state that industrialized slavery?

Human compassion. It was not a universal Christian doctrine to end slavery. The Bible meant one thing to one guy and something else to someone else.

You call it wrathful subjectivity, fine. The reality is the Bible says very little succinctly. Almost every modern Christian doctrine is based off passages that day very little clearly and are strictly based on interpretation. How do you determine who's is right?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

So important that Jesus forgot to mention it?

As I said before, the Gospel is not a political manifesto, but a witness to a message of freedom. Unfortunately or fortunately, we are free beings whose decisions have moral consequences. The truth of Christianity has led people to reject slavery. You can't possibly be arguing that the abolitionists weren't Christian or that they didn't rely on the Gospel as an authoritative text to guide their actions? Because that would just be wrong, and it would show you to be arguing from a place of obstinacy and resentment.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by peter12

Why do atheists always fall back into this wrathful subjectivity? Like there is no truth to be discerned in human conduct, and that doctrines in Christianity are not helpful, or indeed essential, to that truth?

So what did end slavery? The relentless cruelty of the modern state that industrialized slavery?

What ended slavery? Well first it never ended, it still exists all over the world even in very Christian countries, where it has ended it is always economics that gets rid of it, not theology.

[peter12]

Well, we will have to part ways on this subject as I really don't think we are getting anywhere.

Your last statement is demonstrably false as there were legal abolition movements lead by Orthodox Christians as early as the 16th century. Britain eliminated slavery in the nascent stages of the industrial revolution, and only after a generational political debate. The Wilberforce campaign is a fascinating story!

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by peter12

As I said before, the Gospel is not a political manifesto, but a witness to a message of freedom. Unfortunately or fortunately, we are free beings whose decisions have moral consequences. The truth of Christianity has led people to reject slavery. You can't possibly be arguing that the abolitionists weren't Christian or that they didn't rely on the Gospel as an authoritative text to guide their actions? Because that would just be wrong, and it would show you to be arguing from a place of obstinacy and resentment.

Both the abolitionists and the slavers were Christian, they both relied on the bible to authorize their actions, and, if you are being honest you will have to concede that the bible says nothing to specifically proscribe slavery while says a fair amount to justify it.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by peter12

As I said before, the Gospel is not a political manifesto, but a witness to a message of freedom. Unfortunately or fortunately, we are free beings whose decisions have moral consequences. The truth of Christianity has led people to reject slavery. You can't possibly be arguing that the abolitionists weren't Christian or that they didn't rely on the Gospel as an authoritative text to guide their actions? Because that would just be wrong, and it would show you to be arguing from a place of obstinacy and resentment.

The abolishinists are just as Christian as the slave owners. You can't decide who's rightfully Christian here based on who was on the right side of history.

1 Timothy 6:1-3#"Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;"

[peter12]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Both the abolitionists and the slavers were Christian, they both relied on the bible to authorize their actions, and, if you are being honest you will have to concede that the bible says nothing to specifically proscribe slavery while says a fair amount to justify it.

I conceded that in my last post. It is not a political manifesto. You will have to concede that every single abolition movement throughout history has been lead by Christians.

This is all semantics, and is misdirecting around my earlier statements.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by peter12

Well, we will have to part ways on this subject as I really don't think we are getting anywhere.

Your last statement is demonstrably false as there were legal abolition movements lead by Orthodox Christians as early as the 16th century. Britain eliminated slavery in the nascent stages of the industrial revolution, and only after a generational political debate. The Wilberforce campaign is a fascinating story!

Slavery in Britain was ended in the Middle Ages by the fall of feudalism, the plague and the rise of the middle class city dweller was the final nail in its coffin, in the U.S. slavery was ended by the rise in the industrial north.

All of the legal arguement said were secondary to the changing economic conditions that made them possible.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by peter12

I conceded that in my last post. It is not a political manifesto. You will have to concede that every single abolition movement throughout history has been lead by Christians.

This is all semantics, and is misdirecting around my earlier statements.

No. Slavery was abolished by the following non Christians:

-Ashoka of the Mauryan Empire
-Qin Dynastic rulers
-Hongwu Emperor

And others. They had compassion before meeting Christians! Imagine that!

[Coach]

Originally Posted by peter12

I conceded that in my last post. It is not a political manifesto. You will have to concede that every single abolition movement throughout history has been lead by Christians.

This is all semantics, and is misdirecting around my earlier statements.

Wouldn't the fact that there were devout Christians on both sides of the issue lead you to think that those people are Christian mostly by circumstance (ie, almost everyone in the US was a Christian, and not necessarily by choice), and that their respective religions aren't really part the debate. How they as people interpreted the text is where the difference lies, and those interpretations are up to each individual person, not the religion as a whole. So Christianity shouldn't take the credit for ending slavery, or the blame for beginning it. It was sh***y humans who were slavers, and good humans who were abolitionists. How they came to those ideas, IMO, is largely irrelevant. The people who were sh***y would be sh***y regardless of what book they followed, and the people who were good would be good regardless of what book they followed.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

No. Slavery was abolished by the following non Christians:

-Ashoka of the Mauryan Empire
-Qin Dynastic rulers
-Hongwu Emperor

And others. They had compassion before meeting Christians! Imagine that!

Well, you clearly pulled that from Wikipedia. Even the page itself says that slavery itself was not abolished in any of those places. Ashoka was a theocrat who referred to his people as "his children."

[peter12]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Wouldn't the fact that there were devout Christians on both sides of the issue lead you to think that those people are Christian mostly by circumstance (ie, almost everyone in the US was a Christian, and not necessarily by choice), and that their respective religions aren't really part the debate. How they as people interpreted the text is where the difference lies, and those interpretations are up to each individual person, not the religion as a whole. So Christianity shouldn't take the credit for ending slavery, or the blame for beginning it. It was sh***y humans who were slavers, and good humans who were abolitionists. How they came to those ideas, IMO, is largely irrelevant. The people who were sh***y would be sh***y regardless of what book they followed, and the people who were good would be good regardless of what book they followed.

I think this is a good point, and yes, I would agree. Many people are Christian by circumstance. I do think your division is grossly simplistic as it really doesn't address the foundations of what is "good" and what is "bad."

Is it just genetics?

I also don't think it is good to dismiss circumstances from a casual, and heuristic perspective. We don't know enough about cultural history or narratives to make those kinds of judgment across time and space - which is my overall point about the ancient Christians and compassion. You have to know what things were like before Christianity, and what kind of unique moral questions Christianity forced humans to answer.

I think a lot of people have very simplistic views of "belief," and want to interpret it along these massive general lines, but as afc and Street have shown, these are just tautological justifications of bias.

The whole purpose should be exploration. So the more interesting question is why certain Christians felt repulsed by slavery, and others didn't?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by peter12

I think this is a good point, and yes, I would agree. Many people are Christian by circumstance. I do think your division is grossly simplistic as it really doesn't address the foundations of what is "good" and what is "bad."

Is it just genetics?

I also don't think it is good to dismiss circumstances from a casual, and heuristic perspective. We don't know enough about cultural history or narratives to make those kinds of judgment across time and space - which is my overall point about the ancient Christians and compassion. You have to know what things were like before Christianity, and what kind of unique moral questions Christianity forced humans to answer.

I think a lot of people have very simplistic views of "belief," and want to interpret it along these massive general lines, but as afc and Street have shown, these are just tautological justifications of bias.

The whole purpose should be exploration. So the more interesting question is why certain Christians felt repulsed by slavery, and others didn't?

Probably because it has less to do with their Christianity and more to do with their humanity. I've got no religious beliefs or background, but it doesn't stop me from making moral choices, some of which align with Christianity, Buddhism, or other religions. It's human nature, not doctrine that in the end, drives most people to do good.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Is it just genetics?

Intuitive morality largely is.