I said 'look at nations that banned religion, China, The Soviet Union, if you ban religion, something much worse takes its place. Totalitarianism. You remove God, and man will make himself the God.'
He agreed.
Absolutely true. In fact I think that's the partially hidden root of the modern deep political divide.
shareThis ^^^^ Thank you! Good answer!
shareI truly hope you aren't this intellectually shallow that you think this is some fool-proof argument. Organized religion has earned all the scorn that has been heaped on it over the centuries, and simply using current examples to whitewash all the sins away is ignoring the long view of history.
shareRed Herring from Shallow Man! This is not the pre-enlightenment world, except for Muslim countries and Commie shit holes.
shareYou shouldn't assume that banning religion is the cause of totalitarianism. You should assume there are far more variables at play and work to figure them out before stating your claim.
For example, Hitler and the Nazis were heavily into the occult and believed Jews opposed the Christian god. Should we blame Christianity for the holocaust? If no, then we shouldn't blame atheism for totalitarianism.
The Nazis weren't a Christian movement. Hitler and much of his inner circle hated Christianity. The Nazis were focused on race and big government, and their religious views were an eclectic mix of atheists, Christians (more the further out from the leadership you got), and neopagans. If they had a party religion they favored neopaganism if anything. They also frequently claimed to worship "science".
Hitler and his national socialist comrades felt they had to give occasional lip service to Christianity for the time being because most Germans were Christian, but they also persecuted churches and sometimes their true sentiments would publicly rise to the service.
This is a funeral speech by the guy in charge of that Holocaust you mentioned:
Heinrich Himmler: "We will have to deal with Christianity in a tougher way than hitherto. We must settle accounts with this Christianity, this greatest of plagues that could have happened to us in our history, which has weakened us in every conflict. If our generation does not do it then it would I think drag on for a long time....The essence of these megalomaniacs, these Christians who talk of men ruling this world, must stop and be put back in its proper proportion. Man is nothing special at all. He is an insignificant part of this earth...Then he will acquire the right sense of proportion about what is above us, about how we are woven into this cycle...But everything that we do must be justifiable vis-à-vis the clan, our ancestors. If we do not secure this moral foundation which is the deepest and best because the most natural, we will not be able to overcome Christianity on this plane and create the Germanic Reich which will be a blessing for the earth. That is our mission as a nation on this earth."
https://ghdi.ghi-dc.org/sub_document.cfm?document_id=1573
Atheists can be just as horrible, and just as preachy, and just as annoying as religious zealots.
I don’t think today’s world would be any different without religion.
Maybe way back in history that could have been true.
Yes, the state of Victoria in Australia is left wing.
They locked up their Cardinal (got off on appeal.) Very creepy place.
You aren't interested in an honest discussion about atheists vs creationists though. You're just spewing personal talking points to defend an institution you don't want to go away for personal reasons.
shareYou end up with ignorant communists who make their political views their religion. In the United States case this would be the worthless Democrat party.
“There are no atheists in foxholes”
perhaps religion should be who ever has the most followers is the the true religion and all others should disband
shareReligion can infuse existence with meaning and provide a moral worldview. Ultimate meaning requires a connection to eternity. Without religion there is no objective, universal morality. Absent religion, any society-wide ethic, whether imposed by force or embraced voluntarily, results from human(s) subjective whim.
That's why religion is philosophically and morally necessary. Then there's its empirical impact. Religion made civilization possible. Beyond that not all religions are the same. They vary radically from Aztec paganism to Buddhism to Christianity and predictably have very different impacts.
Whether these consequences are "good" or "bad" is a subjective question informed by one's own religious/cultural inheritance, and therefore circular. Bogging down into calling things "good" or "bad" tends to cloud these discussions.
It's important to at least correctly assess the differences in these religions and the empirical impact they've had. I'll focus on Christianity because it's the most prominent world religion and the dominant force in the world's dominant civilization, the West.
Christianity immediately led to the abolition of gladiator games and crucifixion (though not all forms of execution). It inverted the old pagan moral view of "might makes right", a more Darwinian outlook that barely tolerated the weak or poor. By contrast Christianity exalted the meek.
The Christian view that all lives were valuable in God's eyes led to crusades to end the practice of both human sacrifice (in Europe especially common among Nordic pagans) and infanticide. Infanticide, whether through "exposure" (e.g. leaving a baby in the woods) or direct killing (e.g. tossing off a cliff; using a rock or knife) was common practice among both barbarian and civilized (Greek and Roman) pagans, often disappointed parents killing a newborn after discovering it was female. That same sex selection is common today via abortion in modern China and India. Archaeological studies have found such an extreme sex ratio skew in Scandinavia that some scholars think that seeking women partly motivated the Viking era raids.
While the New Testament isn’t about taking political stances, it’s also a short leap from believing that all lives are valuable in God’s eyes, which the Bible does establish, to having serious moral qualms with slavery. Slavery has been accepted practice around the world for most of human history, from American Indians to classical Athens to African tribes to Vikings. But Saint Patrick and other Dark Age Christian theologians preached against it as evil. By the High Middle Ages holding fellow Christians in bondage was illegal throughout Western Europe, and since virtually everyone was a Christian there by then slavery was effectively banned. The European black slave trade started up centuries later through a sort of loophole and found economic traction. Again, it was evangelical Christians who led the charge in abolishing it both in Britain and America. Those two nations then flexed their muscles to end it around the world, with parts of the Islamic Belt holding out into the 20th Century.
The Christian West was the only civilization to ban slavery on its own in a way that took without external pressure. It did so not once but twice. Islam never would have banned slavery on its own. Muhammed himself owned and traded slaves. Pagans had no reason to end it either. Non-Christian societies didn’t even have serious moral qualms over slavery.
Without Christianity slavery would still be pervasive, accepted practice around the world today. Period. That’s not a moral judgment. Maybe someone reading this likes slavery. If you do you should blame Christianity for ending it. That’s an objective assessment.
Christians didn’t abolish war, but instead of reveling in it like many pagan cultures they felt obliged to develop a theory of justified violence. Medicine in some form has always existed, but non-Christian societies didn’t have anything on the scale of the hospital or charity movements Christians started. There’s a reason even modern hospitals often have an overtly Christian name, and the Red Cross has its symbol. Buddhists give lip service to charity as part of their ethic, but Buddhism is about avoiding attachments and seeking oblivion. Its core motivation isn’t love, the way Christianity’s is. So it’s not surprising that Buddhist societies don’t have charitable operations of anywhere near the scale or variety that Christian ones do.
While historically ignorant modern pundits frequently focus on Christian ties to government, especially by the Medieval Catholic Church, what’s noteworthy about Christianity is that it initiated the separation of religion and state. Before that religion had been intimately associated with government, from the grand temples at the center of Sumerian cities to multiple Amerindian civilizations largely basing their states around mass human sacrifices to state sponsored pagan worship in Greece and Rome to Islamic theocracy. Mohammed is viewed as both prophet and head of state, an example that doesn’t easily lead to separating the two. The Egyptian priest class worked for the pharaohs, who were typically worshiped as gods.
The West may have been fertile ground for Christianity because at least it had already dispensed with the notion of worshiping their human leaders as gods. When Alexander the Great fell under eastern influences along this line from his conquered subjects and started to wonder if he really was a god it angered his own generals.
By contrast Jesus, who did claim to be the Son of God, rejected attempts to coopt him into earthly political movements looking to seize power. His emphasized that his Kingdom was not of this world, but in Heaven. Christian theologians like Augustine (late Roman Empire) laid out this doctrine of the earthy state and Christian Kingdom being two distinct spheres. When the various “popes” scattered around different regions finally coalesced under the full blown leadership of the Bishop of Rome after the Great Schism in 1054, he was a powerful and influential figure but even then not a secular king, emperor, or ruler, apart from a tiny territory he was given by various monarchs.
The invention of the printing press and growth of literacy a few centuries later further fueled this idea of separating church and state, with more people reading the Bible for themselves, resulting in Christian fundamentalism and the Protestant Reformation as they wanted to get back to a purer Christianity. Many, including the American founders, have been more concerned with government corrupting religion than vice versa. If anything the Christian example in the New Testament tends to encourage a libertarian sentiment of acting on your own. The state shouldn’t be the primary medium of cultural interaction.
I’ll note that’s a big reason why Marx hated Christianity so much and viewed it as an obstacle to his statist vision.
But worldview informs political views. The value placed by God on human life led not just to the abolition of slavery, but concepts formalized later like “equality” and John Locke’s natural rights philosophy that influenced the US Founding Fathers and the principles in the Declaration of Independence.
Without Christianity American style political freedom wouldn’t exist.
Nor would Western Civilization itself. It almost collapsed for good when Germanic barbarians destroyed the Roman Empire. Scattered pockets of Christian monks saved what learning they could, including the very art of reading. Those who managed to survive spent the Dark Ages rebooting Western Civilization, risking their lives to convert barbarian kings and enlighten them on the value of classical learning. Tribes became settled kingdoms. Abandoned cities were repopulated or replaced. The population grew again. Old knowledge was rediscovered. New knowledge was acquired. The university system was eventually founded as an outgrowth of monasticism, a process for learning and disseminating knowledge that was unique in the world. Far from the stagnation of popular misconception, the Middle Ages saw steady progress from near rock bottom to the heights of human civilization. All as the people increasingly became more Christian.
Sir Francis Bacon, outspoken Christian and polymath, invented the scientific method in the 1600s. That it caught traction and was embraced by European society at large, and no other civilization, isn’t a coincidence. While it’s not impossible that some other culture might have eventually become a scientific society, the Christian West was particularly fertile ground for it. Unlike the classical Greeks, who were mostly rationalists still caught up trying to answer the most fundamental questions, Christians believed they already had those answers. The universe was created by a just, rational God who governed it according to orderly processes. This belief in the inherent stability of natural laws made systematic empirical investigation worthwhile. This was also in contrast to Muslims, whose Allah is a more arbitrary being, let alone Jinns (the inspiration for the Anglicized “Genie”), pagan beings incorporated into Islam who rank below angels or demons and roam around the world causing chaos. Like pagans, Muslims tended to view the world as in a state of constant flux, with rules made to be broken. That’s possibly why Islam never developed a truly scientific society.
Scientists were often motivated in their investigations by their religion. Isaac Newton, who among other things invented calculus and modern physics, spent as much time studying the Bible as math or the natural world. Christians like Galileo and Copernicus would be horrified at being held up as heroes today by those evangelizing atheism, and distorting history to do so. Christian belief also inspired art even non-Christians around the world tend to agree is the greatest in history, from Michelangelo to Beethoven. Their work was often overtly religious so one can’t credibly argue Christianity was incidental to it. A sense of connection with the Divine seems important as a driving force to creating art that most view as “great”.
Whether one likes Beethoven or not is subjective, but religious belief does appear to produce different types of art than atheism tends to, or even than a more secular society does.
It also produces radically different types of values, and a very different world than what would otherwise exist.
"The Christian view that all lives were valuable in God's eyes led to crusades to end the practice of both human sacrifice (in Europe especially common among Nordic pagans) and infanticide."
Is this what they taught you in bible school? That the crusades were about ending human sacrifice and infanticide?
Fascinating. So this is how Christian propaganda justifies Christian crusaders raping and pillaging their way across europe in their efforts to expand Papal power.
I always wondered how indoctrinated Christians rationalized the crusades to themselves. Now I know. Thank you.
I said "crusades" lower case, moron. If you had contextual historical knowledge or even decent reading comprehension, you would have been able to discern that I was talking about efforts to end the routine practices of human sacrifice and infanticide among pagan Europeans. This mostly occurred during the Dark Ages in the few centuries after the Roman Empire fell, isn't associated with the "Crusades" of the High Middle Ages, was underway well before there was much "Papal power" to speak of (as I pointed out there were even still multiple "popes" scattered around), and involved preaching more than anything.
It had nothing to with "raping and pillaging".
justifies
"Pagans had absolutely no problem raping and pillaging."
Nor did the Christian crusaders you exalt. Ever wonder why Catholic clergy and Popes continued to own slaves and condone slavery well into the middle ages? Or why the Old Testament sanctions slavery? Or why the New Testament taught slaves to obey their masters? Of course not, you're too indoctrinated to have ever wondered these things.
In reality your "contextual historical knowledge" is a joke.
I actually explained it pretty well in the above posts. You clearly lack the mental acuity to even formulate a rational response. You're just blindly regurgitating BS bumper sticker-sized lines spoonfed to you by the anti-Christian blogs responsible for your actual indoctrination.
Nowhere did I claim Christians always behaved in a Christian manner, or state that the New Testament forbids slavery (though the old, low brow talking point you're vaguely alluding to dishonestly misinterprets that account, the one you laughably claim I've never "wondered about", while completely ignoring all the contrary evidence in scriptures). In fact I said the opposite, that the NT doesn't take political positions, so you're swiping at straw men.
I said you have to have a reason for believing in equality or the inherent value of human life. Christianity does provide that. That's what led to the eventual abolition of slavery. Rape and pillaging were always frowned upon by Christian society, though pagan tendencies remained for a while.
And you haven't addressed the undeniable fact that Christians also abolished human sacrifice, infanticide, and gladiator games. For good or ill. These are just the empirical facts. Nor have you commented on the Christian-founded charities and hospital movements.
For the record, though it's obvious to any honest person reading this, I'm not "indoctrinated". I'm an independent thinker who's studied history extensively and my ideas are my own (though sometimes others also arrive at them).
Instead of repeating your pre-canned spiel, let's see if you have a mind buried somewhere under that garbage.
Challenge: Justify belief in human equality. Don't use Christianity or your own arbitrary whim.
"I said you have to have a reason for believing in equality or the inherent value of human life. Christianity does provide that."
Yah, teaching slaves to obey their masters in the New Testament sure sounds like believing in the inherent value of obedient slaves. Doesn't say much for "equality" though. But alas, you're too indoctrinated to understand this.
Me: Instead of repeating your pre-canned spiel, let's see if you have a mind buried somewhere under that garbage.
Challenge: Justify belief in human equality. Don't use Christianity or your own arbitrary whim.
BreakbeatSavant: *crickets*
I guess you don't. For the record and the benefit of any honest person reading this, the New Testament doesn't endorse slavery. Your blog lied to you. It's not about repealing slavery either, because its writers are concerned with higher spiritual issues, though a "freedom" theme runs through the entire Bible.
What's funny given your stance is that they were living under Roman law at the time, and it was the pagan Romans who embraced slavery and harshly punished runaway slaves. In a couple of brief passages slaves were advised to obey their masters just as people generally were advised to obey the law, because they didn't want the early Christian movement discredited or viewed as an earthly political movement (or slave revolt). It's like Jesus saying "render unto Caesar the things (taxes) that are Caesar's". That's obedience within reason, without breaking God's law, as numerous Christian martyrs were executed for refusing to obey sinful edicts.
What's noteworthy is that the apostles are taking the time to directly address slaves at all, as if they're just as important as anyone else. Pagans didn't do that. We know that many slaves became Christians. This account is more telling:
Philemon, a Christian whom the apostle Paul knew, had a slave named Onesimus who ran away. After apparently converting to Christianity and being "a great help" to Paul in prison, Paul sent him back carrying a letter asking Philemon to accept him as a "brother" and "no longer as a slave".
Excerpt from Philemon (NIV): “8 Therefore, although in Christ I could be bold and order you to do what you ought to do, 9 yet I prefer to appeal to you on the basis of love. It is as none other than Paul—an old man and now also a prisoner of Christ Jesus— 10 that I appeal to you for my son Onesimus, who became my son while I was in chains. 11 Formerly he was useless to you, but now he has become useful both to you and to me.
12 I am sending him—who is my very heart—back to you. 13 I would have liked to keep him with me so that he could take your place in helping me while I am in chains for the gospel. 14 But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do would not seem forced but would be voluntary. 15 Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever— 16 no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord.
17 So if you consider me a partner, welcome him as you would welcome me. 18 If he has done you any wrong or owes you anything, charge it to me. 19 I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand. I will pay it back—not to mention that you owe me your very self. 20 I do wish, brother, that I may have some benefit from you in the Lord; refresh my heart in Christ. 21 Confident of your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I ask.”
Pagans didn’t write about slaves like that. Little wonder that Christians are the ones who abolished slavery.
https://overviewbible.com/philemon/
"Little wonder that Christians are the ones who abolished slavery"
And practiced and perpetuated slavery for 1800 years. Christian slavers would quote scripture sanctioning slavery to justify enslaving slaves. The entire transatlantic slave trade was initiated at the request of Bishop Las Casas and authorized by Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor in 1517.
You indoctrinated sheep always leave these inconvenient parts of history out. Your Jesus blog lied to you.
1 Timothy 6:1-2 New International Version (NIV)
6 All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered. 2 Those who have believing masters should not show them disrespect just because they are fellow believers. Instead, they should serve them even better because their masters are dear to them as fellow believers and are devoted to the welfare[a] of their slaves.
And practiced and perpetuated slavery for 1800 years.
You indoctrinated sheep always leave these inconvenient parts of history out. Your Jesus blog lied to you.
slavers would quote scripture sanctioning slavery to justify enslaving slaves.
"I just cited Biblical principles and verses to show why that happened."
This is a weak rationalization awfully short on practicality seeing as how Christendom practiced and perpetuated slavery for 18 centuries before a single radical sect of Quakers cherry picked parts of biblical text to push their interpretation that slavery is wrong and openly opposed it. The rest of Christendom continued to justify and defend slavery by quoting from the numerous passages out of the bible that support it. And to be blunt, they had a lot of material like this to work with:
Colossians 3:22, NIV: "Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord."
To this day, some sects (Reconstructionist Christians, Christian Identiy Movement) still promote slavery.
The historical reality is that Christians had no problem at all keeping slaves until AFTER Western Civilization experienced two secular humanist movements that transformed its values: the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. Your Christian indoctrination and lack of independent thought is a dead giveaway here since you're not even aware of this. Instead, you're busy trying to credit all the gains of secular humanism to Christianity. Your one dimensional rendition of history makes a mockery of your assertions of being able to think for yourself. It's obvious you don't.
At last! Halfway through your post you realized the pitifully weak argument you've been dumbly repeating that some Christians supported slavery (like the non-Christian world did) fails when what matters is how slavery ended and who ended it.
Your new argument is a loser too and reveals your historical (and Biblical) ignorance but at least there are belated glimmers of neural activity. First, to quickly finish off your old argument, again, Paul and the other NT writers weren't in a position to shape laws, which on slavery and everything else were imposed by the Romans. The couple of brief slaves-obey-your-masters-and-masters-treat-your-slaves-well verses your low brow blog cherry picked and spoonfed you were just generic calls to obey the law (within reason in accordance with one's Christian conscience; not worshiping idols or other sins), along the lines of Romans 13 or other passages talking about obeying laws in other areas. This was because they were concerned about Christianity becoming or being perceived as some type of political movement.
1st Timothy 6:1 (NIV) - "All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered."
So why did so many Roman slaves become Christians, to the point where it's been described as a "religion of slaves"? For that matter why did so many black American slaves become enthusiastic Christians? Verses like these are more relevant to Christian theology:
1st Corinthians 12:13 – “For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.”
Galatians 3:26-28 – “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
1st Corinthians 7:21-24 - “Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For the one who was a slave when called to faith in the Lord is the Lord’s freed person; similarly, the one who was free when called is Christ’s slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of human beings. Brothers and sisters, each person, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation they were in when God called them.”
Ephesians 6:9 – And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.”
Colossians 4:1 – “Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven.”
1st Timothy 1:9-11 – “We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.”
In addition to many others, including the entire book Philemon I quoted excerpts from above, that establish God values slaves just as much as anyone (“there is no favoritism with him”). Various Biblical heroes, like Joseph for example, were even sold into slavery and rose up to become instruments of God and enormously important people.
What other religion devotes so much time to directly speaking to slaves rather than ignoring them or treating them as objects?
As I’ve said all along, the NT doesn’t explicitly say “slavery must be illegal”. It doesn’t say that about any earthly law. The writers dealt with slavery and other laws as they existed under Roman rule.
But, as I’ve proved, it does explicitly establish that God loves and values individuals without regard to whether they’re slave or free. The imagery and theme of broken chains and ultimate freedom through God runs throughout the Bible. Little wonder then that Christendom was such fertile ground for anti-slavery movements.
And, despite your ludicrous claim, I don’t know of any Christian denominations who support slavery today, LOL. Christians are at the forefront of combating modern slavery (e.g. sex trafficking), fighting to abolish infanticide (abortion, and sadly now in the US postnatal infanticide), and opposing other evils.
Again, your low brow anti-Christian blog lied to you.
The historical reality is that Christians had no problem at all keeping slaves until AFTER Western Civilization experienced two secular humanist movements that transformed its values: the Renaissance and the Enlightenment.
Bans on the enslavement of Christians had long ago become the status quo throughout Western Europe (Eastern Europe still had slaves mostly due to its proximity to the heart of the Islamic world, Muslims always being huge slavers until forced to stop by Christian powers in the 20th Century), but in 1537 Pope Paul III went further by forbidding the enslavement of Amerindians and non-Christians in general. Under heavy Spanish political pressure he later rescinded this, but his order is still worth noting and was often cited by clergy in the Spanish colonies arguing against enslaving Indians.
From the Papal Bull “Sublimus Dei” (1537): “Nor is it credible that any one should possess so little understanding as to desire the faith and yet be destitute of the most necessary faculty to enable him to receive it. Hence Christ, who is the Truth itself, that has never failed and can never fail, said to the preachers of the faith whom He chose for that office ‘Go ye and teach all nations.’ He said all, without exception, for all are capable of receiving the doctrines of the faith.
The enemy of the human race, who opposes all good deeds in order to bring men to destruction, beholding and envying this, invented a means never before heard of, by which he might hinder the preaching of God’s word of Salvation to the people: he inspired his satellites who, to please him, have not hesitated to publish abroad that the Indians of the West and the South, and other people of whom We have recent knowledge should be treated as dumb brutes created for our service, pretending that they are incapable of receiving the Catholic Faith.
We, who, though unworthy, exercise on earth the power of our Lord and seek with all our might to bring those sheep of His flock who are outside into the fold committed to our charge, consider, however, that the Indians are truly men and that they are not only capable of understanding the Catholic Faith but, according to our information, they desire exceedingly to receive it. Desiring to provide ample remedy for these evils, We define and declare…the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved”.
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/paul03/p3subli.htm
Contrary to your claim, clearly Christians had moral qualms with slavery. Christian sentiment, however, was facing secular political/economic concerns, inertial practices in Europe since pagan times, and ongoing slavery as accepted reality around the non-Christian world.
Now let’s revisit the other half of your claim:
The historical reality is that Christians had no problem at all keeping slaves until AFTER Western Civilization experienced two secular humanist movements that transformed its values: the Renaissance and the Enlightenment.
If “secular humanism” ended slavery, then why were the people actually leading the charge to abolish slavery outspoken Christians or preachers? Do you believe Sojourner Truth, the freed slave and Methodist who cited a religious experience as her chief motivating factor for campaigning for abolition, or for that matter the civil rights leaders who followed through the Reverend Martin Luther King, were “secular humanists”, LOL?
While Quakers were abolitionists, none of the figures I listed above were Quakers, so it’s laughably dishonest to pretend they were the only Christians combatting slavery (for one thing there weren’t anywhere near enough of them). Weld and Finney were Presbyterians. Spurgeon was Baptist.
The man who ended slavery in Britain was MP William Wilberforce, a born again Christian whose adult conversion motivated him to use his position to fight slavery.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wilberforce
His close friend was John Newton, who as a young man captained a slave ship, but after converting to Christianity renounced his old profession and became an Anglican preacher. In addition to being a vocal abolitionist, he’s famous for writing the most popular modern Christian hymn, “Amazing Grace”.
Pro slavery advocates of the era argued that blacks weren’t fully human and were inherently unequal, a trendy biological view that’s incompatible with the New Testament. Wilberforce and his group of evangelical activists, called the Clapham Sect, fought uphill for decades against apathy and entrenched economic interests, gradually winning more support in Parliament even as the stress of the campaign took a toll on his health. Using incrementalism tactics, he finally got his bill ending the British slave trade passed in 1807 and heard news that the bill abolishing slavery was guaranteed to pass in 1833, days before he died.
William Wilberforce: “In the Scripture, no national crime is condemned so frequently and few so strongly as oppression and cruelty, and the not using our best endeavors to deliver our fellow-creatures from them.”
https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/article/william-wilberforce-did-you-know/
It was not “secular humanism” that ended slavery, but Christianity.
More proof is in your inability to answer the earlier question:
How do you justify belief in human equality?
Your answer: *crickets*
My answer: God loves and values each person, without regard to whether they’re slaves or free.
That truth, proved with scriptural quotes above, has a real and unfolding empirical impact on history.
"Halfway through your post you realized the pitifully weak argument you've been dumbly repeating that some Christians supported slavery (like the non-Christian world did) fails when what matters is how slavery ended and who ended it."
Except that's not what I said. It's just that your christo-centric indoctrination limits you from interpreting what I said any other way. It was a SECULAR British parliament of a SECULAR (not a religious) abolitionist movement that ended slavery even if Quakers made up the most prominent voices among it. The fact that they were Christian is not significant because EVERY British citizen was affiliated with a Christian denomination in that era and all the other Christian sects did NOT support it. This was a triumph of secular progressivism that you're wrongly trying to credit to Christianity when most of the bible openly endorses slavery. You're just too blinded by your Christian indoctrination to be aware of this empirical fact. So good for the Quakers for cherry picking the tiny sliver of biblical text to support their secular abolitionist cause for justice in successfully lobbying the SECULAR British government to end slavery.
But we already know what would have happened if British government were a Christian theocracy instead of secular. Nothing. Because that was the official position of the Catholic and Anglican churches at the time. They probably would have figured a way to persecute the radical Quakers for heresy since they posed a challenge to their power. Much like they did over a thousand years prior when they wiped out the Gnostics and the Cathars. But you're too indoctrinated to know these things. Hint: It wasn't about infanticide and human sacrifice as you were taught in bible school. It was about consolidating power. But alas, I'm sure this truth will fall on deaf ears because you're just too brainwashed to think for yourself. Such a pity.
I've already debunked everything you said in my posts above (you even repeated the "Quaker" thing when none of the leading abolitionists I discussed were Quakers, LOL). You're grossly ignorant of history, philosophy, and that "Sunday School" you keep derisively mentioning (which doesn't cover stuff like this, you bigoted buffoon).
Here I'll just reiterate the 2 key points proving you wrong. One, it was Christians like Wilberforce and the others who actually led the charge to ban slavery, not "secular humanists". They didn't just happen to be Christian. They were the most outspoken, born again Christians and/or preachers in politics and they made it clear that their religion was their motivating factor.
Two, you're still unable to answer this question, partly because "secular humanism" has no answer, though your failure to recognize that is a symptom of your lack of independent thinking ability:
How do you justify belief in human equality?
Your answer: *crickets*
My answer: God loves and values each person, without regard to whether they’re slaves or free.
The notion of human equality is scientifically absurd. There has to be some basis for it. You take it for granted because you're a shallow person leading an unexamined life. But it only exists because of Christian premises.
"Two, you're still unable to answer this question, partly because "secular humanism" has no answer, though your failure to recognize that is a symptom of your lack of independent thinking ability:
How do you justify belief in human equality?"
This was so funny to read I nearly fell out of my chair. If you had any real knowledge of history you'd understand the ethical movements that developed from Enlightenment era secular humanism is founded on the idea that morality is independent of theology. In fact, if you had any real knowledge of philosophy you'd be aware that secular ethics forms an entire branch of moral philosophy. Ethics based solely on human faculties such as logic, empathy, reason or moral intuition, and NOT from belief in supernatural revelation or guidance.
Your knowledge as a pseudointellectual is woefully inadequate and permanently stunted by your Christian indoctrination. You need to evolve beyond what you learned in bible college if you strive to be an intellectual.
LOL! Your empty regurgitation of the secular humanist mission statement that you culled from a blog just states what they wanted to do, which echoes the description of the movement I already posted above. It's not an argument and it doesn't answer the question. You don't know anything about philosophy or history or you'd know that. The vapidity of secular humanism is one reason there aren't more secular humanists. I was asking you to actually think and answer the question, or at the very least drive home your inability to do so to others who may read this.
Still waiting, moron.
How do you justify belief in human equality?
Your answer: *crickets*
My answer: God loves and values each person, without regard to whether they’re slaves or free.
And don't just do panicked searching for a spoonfed answer. Actually try to think about it yourself and come up with an answer. If nothing else it'd be good intellectual exercise.
Quite honestly I can tell you never went to college at all where you could take any entry level philosophy ethics course and learn what I just told you. I should have figured you didn't have the aptitude to get into college.
I clearly overestimated you. My bad.
I'm not sure you graduated Junior High given your apparent inability to even comprehend the clear, straightforward posts you reply to. I already knew "what (you) told me", moron, which was just defining the intent of the secular humanist movement, which didn't answer the question I've been asking. In my last post I even reminded you that above I had already said a briefer version of what you posted (shallow thinkers who assumed they could retain Christian ethics while jettisoning Christianity. https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/5ec7178e970d9078efed176e/I-had-the-perfect-answer-to-someone-who-said-the-world-would-be-better-without-religion?reply=5ecdbd8de9a0343d5d927f14).
It's increasingly looking like you lack the mental acuity to even follow this discussion. Good thing I don't value people solely by intelligence or I'd have to conclude you're a grossly inferior being.
For good measure I'll post the question you've failed to answer again:
How do you justify belief in human equality?
Your answer: *crickets*
My answer: God loves and values each person, without regard to whether they’re slaves or free.
"I already knew "what (you) told me", moron, which was just defining the intent of the secular humanist movement"
What do you mean "intent"? I just educated you on the fact that secular ethics forms an entire branch of moral philosophy, a course you could take at any institute of higher education with a philosophy department if only you could gain admission.
If you even understood what philosophy and ethics were you'd know this. You wouldn't need me to explain to you why equality is perfectly moral without the necessity of supernatural guidance. But alas, it's apparently beyond your intellectual reach. Instead your poor temperament and lack of Christian demeanor is causing you to lash out. It really exposes your hypocrisy trying to pretend like you're a good Christian when you're really not.
You wouldn't need me to explain to you why equality is perfectly moral without the necessity of supernatural guidance.
lol. Even the great Saint Thomas Aquinas thought slavery was justified by pointing out the hierarchical nature of heaven. He even went on to reason that beating a slave was perfectly acceptable. The Christian philosophers continued to rationalize and uphold the concept of slavery for thousands of years until secularism changed peoples values. You're in over your head kid.
If it's too challenging for you to grasp how equality is a moral concept without a supernatural deity dictating it to you, you're clearly too mentally handicapped for me to explain it so you'd understand. I'm sorry that secular ethics is too difficult a subject for you and you need religion to tell you what is right from wrong. Perhaps religion is needed for people like you. But fortunately you don't speak for everyone.
"My answer: God loves and values each person, without regard to whether they’re slaves or free."
Just so you know, this is gibberish given the natural inequality of the human condition.
LOL! Aquinas was heavily influenced by Aristotle, who argued based on his empirical observations and reason that some races (Northern Europeans; Easterners) were inferior to others and should be slaves while the superior ones (Greeks) should be slave owners.
In fact I almost mentioned Aquinas by name in the post above where I said this: Humanism also had little or nothing to do with ending slavery. If anything, more exposure to the aforementioned Aristotle and other pre-Christian writers, who strongly supported slavery, nudged Europe in a more pro slavery direction.
Not that Aquinas agreed with Aristotle on everything.
Thank you for reinforcing my point. Too bad you did it unwittingly while being too dim and ignorant to even try to address most of the points in my last post. You're in waaaay over your head. But you're welcome for the education anyway.
The real question is why there was less slavery in the Christian era in the Middle Ages than the pre-Christian era and in the non-Christian world, and why were Christians ultimately the ones who ended slavery around the planet?
I'm sorry that secular ethics is too difficult a subject for you and you need religion to tell you what is right from wrong.
"My answer: God loves and values each person, without regard to whether they’re slaves or free."
Just so you know, this is gibberish given the natural inequality of the human condition.
"Hogwash. Even you're not too dumb to understand that it's saying God values everyone, without regard to their earthly status, rich or poor, slave or free. You're being willfully stupid."
lol. Or maybe you're confirming you're the unwitting stupid one for failing to understand it was "God" that set up the inequality in the first place. How could he love all equally when he treats everyone so differently and unfairly, turning some into slaves and others into kings? Your answer to your own question is gibberish. Your Christian indoctrination is just too absolute to recognize how simple logic blows holes in your reasoning.
You don't seriously expect me to try explain human equality to you when you've proven you can't even grasp basic logic do you? The ability to reason is essential to understanding ethical arguments. You've shown no aptitude for this and can't even provide a coherent answer to your own question. 😀
Wrong. It's men with free will who enslave other men. But your half-baked theological argument is irrelevant and misses the point. Even if you disagree with my view of God the statement isn't "gibberish" and provides a basis for human equality that you lack.
The fact that the Christian God values slaves and kings equally, their ultimate reward being in heaven mind you, and the Bible even turns slaves like Joseph into heroes while preaching about exalting the meek, predictably makes Christians far more likely than any other group to at least have qualms with slavery, as history has empirically born out.
You don't know anything about ethics or logic or you'd at least be able to make a rudimentary secular argument for equality. You clearly can't.
My undeniably vital question has stumped you. 😀
You're a dishonest moron who doesn't merit this digression, but in case anyone else reads this I'll say that I do think the Enlightenment helped the anti-slavery cause in one way. It expanded the notion of natural political rights. But the chief figure in this was Brit John Locke, the most influential philosopher among the American founders. He was an outspoken Christian whose theistic premise is vital to those rights, their source who's an authority higher than government.
Locke didn't crusade to end slavery but enshrining those principles in the American Revolution did make the contrast between slave and free citizen more glaring than it had been in the era of emperors and kings. Yet it was still the most outspoken Christians (typically preachers or born again evangelicals) who led the crusade to abolish slavery in the 19th Century, and Christians had been condemning or banning slavery for centuries before the Enlightenment as I documented earlier.
You haven't produced non-Christian equivalents to this:
Church Council of London (1102, banning the slave trade): “Let no one presume for the future to enter into that nefarious business by which they were accustomed hitherto to sell men like brute animals in England.”
"It's men with free will who enslave other men. But your half-baked theological argument is irrelevant and misses the point."
lol. Your half-baked theological argument doesn't even make sense. It's your god who creates the conditions for immeasurable suffering of some at the hands of the others. Yet loves them all equally while treating them so differently? It's gibberish. Only a brainwashed zealot could believe this.
You demand a coherent answer that you can't even provide yourself. 😀 Christian hypocrisy at its finest.
Wrong. Still waiting on your answer.
How do you justify belief in human equality?
Come on, Breakbeat"Savant" (😄). Show me you learned something in that class you lied about taking.
Why can't you provide a coherent answer to your own question? (😄)
Come on krs97a. Show me you learned something in bible school. 😉
Maybe I've embarrassed you enough on that question, but the basis for universal human equality, and the value of life itself along with morality in general, is especially important to keep in mind as we enter the age of genetic engineering.
Think about it, and remember what I said about Peter Singer and Nietzschean spiraling out of control.
I guess they didn't teach you stuff like this on your atheist blog:
Church Council of London (1102, banning the slave trade): “Let no one presume for the future to enter into that nefarious business by which they were accustomed hitherto to sell men like brute animals in England.”
I know all about Singer and Nietzsche's argument about secular society and Christian values. I would happily school you if I had any indication that you would engage in the debate in good faith. But that's not your MO and I refuse to engage a consummate bad actor who can't provide a coherent answer to your own question.
So how about you answer your own question so I can see you can actually formulate a coherent and logical answer instead of devolving into reductio ad absurdum like you always do?
Come on krs97a. Show me you learned something in bible school. 😉
😄 You know nothing about any of those people except what I've told you. Stop lying, BreakbeatSavant. You've probably heard of Nietzsche but that's about it.
In this debate I've raised and discussed Petrarch, William Wilberforce, Theodore Weld, Charles Finney, Charles Spurgeon, John Newton, Gregory I, Eugene IV, Paul III, Sojourner Truth, the Reverend Martin Luther King, Sir Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, Michelangelo, Beethoven, Galileo, Copernicus, John Locke, Saint Patrick, Aristotle, Peter Singer, Mohammed, Joseph, Philemon, the Apostle Paul, Onesimus, and Jesus, among others.
You’ve only mentioned one bishop and an emperor. Oh, and Aquinas, whom I had almost mentioned earlier because with him you unwittingly supported my point. You're in over your head and have no response other than...uh..uh.. "Indoctrination!"...uh...uh..."Sunday school!" You can't even spell my screenname correctly when it's right in front of you. 😄
I answered the equality question immediately. If you don't like it argue with the US Declaration of Independence.
Either way, why don't you answer the question? Show me how it's done. 😀
looool. It's obvious you're refusing to answer your own question because you know I'll make you look silly. 😀
shareYou've failed miserably so far. Why don't you answer the question? Show me how it's done. 😀
shareBecause it's your question. Duh. 😀
shareThat you can't answer. Duh indeed.
shareYou can't expect an answer to a question you can't answer yourself. Duh. 😀
shareI see you don't know how questioning works.
You must have no intellectual curiosity whatsoever. 😄
Of course, I did answer my own question.
But your answer was gibberish and lacked coherency.
What happened, didn't take a logic class in bible school? 😄
Wrong, and logically the questioner's own answer or non-answer doesn't prevent you from answering the question.....if you can.
You certainly didn't take a logic class or I wouldn't have to point that out. 😄
I'm requiring that you provide a coherent answer to your own question before I answer. The fact you don't even recognize your answer is a reductio ad absurdum definitively proves YOU have never taken a logic class. 😄
That's because bible school doesn't offer that type of curriculum. You need to go to college for that. 😀
LOL! I aced logic at college. You have no idea what "reductio ad absurdum" means.
We've proved here that you're ignorant on history, philosophy, and theology, and you have no idea how to even begin to construct an argument.
Thank you for thoroughly discrediting yourself. If nothing else you've been a useful prop and excuse for me to post material I wanted to post anyway. 😀
HAHEHAHAEHAEHHAEH. It took you 14 minutes just to look up and process what reductio ad absurdum meant? Damn you're slow. 😀
We both know you're lying since everyone knows bible school doesn't have logic class. 🤣
Wrong again. I’ve been multitasking. I didn’t realize you were sitting there waiting with baited breath for my every reply. That’s especially sad since you’ve shown yourself to just be a mindless troll. You aren’t even good at that.
shareNo you weren't. We both know you were struggling trying to figure out what the latin words meant. It's obvious.
🤣
See? Your BS is terrible trolling.
shareWhat BS? The fact that I accurately called you out for never having taken a logic class because your answer to your own question was a reductio ad absurdum? That's not trolling, that's stating facts for the record.
shareYour BS trolling mostly sucks because it’s boring. It’s not my fault you’re an uneducated idiot who was embarrassed by your inability to answer a simple question.
shareLOL! All you've done is confirm I'm right because you STILL can't explain why the answer to your own question isn't a reductio ad absurdum even after spending all this time trying to learn the latin. You couldn't write a logical proof to save your life, let alone your non-existent credibility. Should have went to college instead of bible school. 😃
shareSee? Boring. Repeating your BS doesn’t make it true.
PS - Watching you struggle to diagram a semantic tableau would be hilarious.
Aw. It's fun watching you flail trying to reach beyond your grasp. Writing the logic proof of your RAA wouldn't require a semantic tableau dumbass. Stop trying to pretend to be literate in something you're not. It just makes your dumbassery even more obvious. 😉
shareI didn’t mention my statement, moron, and you don’t know what a semantic tableau is any more than you know what reductio ad absurdum means. I was laughing at the notion of you doing any kind of analysis of the type we did in logic class, despite you trying to talk over your head, pretend you’re educated, and repeat terms you google up but don’t understand like “RAA”. The fact that you’ve spent dozens of posts proving you can’t provide an atheistic justification for human equality makes my case. And you keep obliviously bumping a worthy thread. So thanks. 😀
shareLOOOL! You know the only reason you're still arguing after I caught you lying red handed about needing to write out a semantic tableau is your desperation to salvage some sort of pride. It took two days for you to try and figure out what RAA meant and you still can't formulate the proof. It's hilarious watching how bitter you are. Should have aimed higher than bible school. 😮
shareWrong again, halfwit. I didn't post at all yesterday and didn't see your inept reply until a couple of minutes before I responded today.
Your trolling is boring, but again, thanks for the bump. 😀
Again, for old time's sake:
How do you justify belief in human equality?
Your answer: *crickets*
My answer: God loves and values each person, without regard to whether they’re slaves or free.
Thank God you people are such a small minority.
Your Answer: RAA
There, I corrected it for you. 🤯 Thankfully, your stupidity is one of a kind.
😄 You forgot to show your work, moron.
Meanwhile:
How do you justify belief in human equality?
Your answer: *crickets*
My answer: God loves and values each person, without regard to whether they’re slaves or free.
I already told you the proof slow boy. It's your god who creates the conditions for immeasurable suffering of some at the hands of the others. Yet you say he loves them all equally while treating them so differently? RAA. You're speaking gibberish slowboy. If you knew what RAA meant you'd know this, but it's clear you STILL don't understand the meaning of the term.😄
shareThat’s not what “RAA” means, moron, but regardless you’re making multiple false assumptions.
1. You’re assuming unequal earthly circumstances means God values people unequally, despite the entire thrust of the New Testament being about the Kingdom of Heaven, not this world. God himself entered the world as Jesus to suffer and die to offer salvation to humanity. He also went out of his way to serve others. Was that fair or equal?
2. You’re ignoring the existence of free will and man’s role in enslaving each other, or committing sins for that matter. The Bible makes it clear that humans are frequently acting against His will.
Are you so ignorant of the Bible that you don’t even know that or are you really just that shallow of a thinker? Ironically your argument actually just underscores mine, that there’s no NATURAL basis for assuming human equality. Without a higher authority like God, saying “all men are Created equal” is gibberish.
Still waiting for your own answer disproving that, which BTW isn’t contingent on me providing one (logic biting you again) though I already have.
How do you justify belief in human equality?
Your answer: *crickets*
My answer: God loves and values each person, without regard to whether they’re slaves or free.
Holy shit you're an idiot, you still don't understand what RAA means. Bible school was not enough.
"You’re ignoring the existence of free will and man’s role in enslaving each other, or committing sins for that matter. The Bible makes it clear that humans are frequently acting against His will."
And this is exactly what I'm talking about. You're so deeply indoctrinated that you don't see how this is pure illogical gibberish. An omnipotent, omniscient being's "will" was to create humans, some of whom he knew would enslave others and subject them to immeasurable suffering. That was his "will" because God has agency. Saying they were acting against his "will" is RAA. You're speaking gibberish. Back to the drawing board kid.😄
Yawn. You're just rehashing "the problem of evil", an age old philosophical/theological issue.
I answered that by citing free will, blame man for slavery rather than God, and you failed to respond. Clearly man has the free will to END slavery too, as Christians have at home and around the world, destroying your vapid argument.
You wouldn't have made the rookie logical mistakes you did with your unwarranted assumptions I laid out if you had ever taken a logic class.
You clearly don't know what "RAA" means and you aren't used to having debates like this. And, like the cowardly moron you are, you still haven't answered or conceded this point:
How do you justify belief in human equality?
Your answer: *crickets*
My answer: God loves and values each person, without regard to whether they’re slaves or free.
Then you should be familiar with why your weak theodicean rebuttal fails miserably on the lack of merit. Yet you're not. There are many evil "acts of God" in the form of natural disasters and disease that cause immeasurable suffering yet do not occur as a result of any moral failings. That means your appeal to "free will" is a farce since it provides no answer to an argument from evil that focuses upon such evils. You clearly have never thought this through outside of what you were told in your bible theology class. You are really sad. 😢
shareSo you're completely unfamiliar with the theological concept of the Fallen World, caused by man's sin. That's without getting into more complex arguments about God obviously seeing the big picture we don't. You're a vapid clown who keeps finding new ways to showcase your ignorance.
Meanwhile, I'll keep embarrassing you by hammering this truth home:
How do you justify belief in human equality?
Your answer: *crickets*
My answer: God loves and values each person, without regard to whether they’re slaves or free.
WAHAHAHAHAH! So of course you have no logical response to your "free will" fallacy except to refer me to fallacious christian allegory that doesn't pass logical muster. lolol. I see how you are and I have to admit it's pretty vapid and exactly how I called you. You've never taken a logic class. You were such a putz trying to pretend like you had. 😢
How do you justify belief in human equality?
Your answer: RAA🤯
😄 So you ADMIT you're ignorant of the basic Christian concept of a Fallen World and have no idea what you're talking about.
Of course you don't understand any of these concepts and you've certainly never taken a logic class or you wouldn't be making so many rookie errors.
It's irrelevant to this debate whether you agree with Christianity or not, moron. The religion firmly establishes the premises I've said it does. An educated anti-Christian poster would have at least been logically competent enough to distinguish between the two topics of attacking Christianity and the equality discussion we're having, acknowledging what Christians believe, rightly or wrongly.
What's funny is that all you've done is support my position that THERE IS NO NATURALISTIC BASIS FOR BELIEVING IN UNIVERSAL HUMAN EQUALITY.
So thanks. 😀
Little wonder then that you can't answer this:
How do you justify belief in human equality?
Your answer: *crickets*
My answer: God loves and values each person, without regard to whether they’re slaves or free.