Christianity v. Secular Humanism

[BilliardsBall]

So slavery used to be moral, but now it isn't
But the Bible's pronouncements are are "consistent, absolute (non-subjective) morals."

It seems you have contradicted yourself here. I'm pretty sure I pointed this out to you the last time we had a discussion about slavery.




Sounds really just, kind and non-abusive to you?

Exodus 21:20-21
20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."



This doesn't sound like an economic exchange or voluntary servitude to me. Does it to you?

Leviticus 25:44-46
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

I'm willing to sound self-contradictory when talking to secularists, who would agree with me that morals are subjective and that we should not use the Bible as our moral compass. Therefore, I can feel slavery is moral on Tuesday and yet immoral on Wednesday. If you disagree, please tell me why you apply a metaphysical absolute (slavery is always wrong) to a fact of life/struggle for species perpetuation (some subjugate others for varied reasons, including slavery).

I have an apologetic for the Exodus passage but I don't think you're open to it, your question seems rhetorical. However, I will answer you--on the face of it, it sounds like Southern-style slave abuse, and not economic exchange or voluntary servitude. Hint: One could try a bit harder to find passages where slavers receive capital punishment for slave abuse, or where laws govern slaves beating their masters and vice versa. One would then see that the greatest number of capital punishments apply to slavers in the OT, more than any other people group! You highlighted property because of your moral indignation, but didn't think through the passage or even the verse. Let me redact it for you:

Modern America - differing economic and prison consequences for brawling with someone and injuring them than for killing them in cold blood or manslaughter, etc.

The Bible - if you beat a slave, UNLIKE in Antebellum America, there is fiscal restitution, if they die, unlike in American slavery, YOU die.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Hardly an ad hominem. Creationists should not use logical fallacies by the way. I am not impressed with a one man apologist.

So your latest post is you believe you found some logical fallacies when you actually read the 30,000 (?) word post on the subject I linked for you.

And in the prior post, you called them a liar, which was an ad hominem attack.

I feel like if you were mature in your discussions with me, you would retract your prior statement, rather than cover it with a fresh statement, which, unfortunately, means you have lied, which is not an ad hom on my part.

 

[Darkstorn]

I'm willing to sound self-contradictory when talking to secularists, who would agree with me that morals are subjective and that we should not use the Bible as our moral compass.

That just means secularists are more consistent and convincing than you.

I'm willing to sound self-contradictory when talking to secularists, who would agree with me that morals are subjective and that we should not use the Bible as our moral compass. Therefore, I can feel slavery is moral on Tuesday and yet immoral on Wednesday. If you disagree, please tell me why you apply a metaphysical absolute (slavery is always wrong) to a fact of life/struggle for species perpetuation (some subjugate others for varied reasons, including slavery).

That just means that you are morally bankrupt and inconsistent. And that the bible is morally bankrupt and inconsistent.

I can find several reasons why you would subjugate others, but none of those are moral.

I think consequently it's pretty safe to say that thanks to your personal efforts, secular humanism has been shown to be morally superior to both the bible and yourself.

Secular humanism does go with the so-called "absolute" of slavery being always wrong because it's always wrong to deprive someone of their personal rights and freedoms.

Since you see slavery as a valid reason to subjugate others, you are in fact showing a gross lack of empathy or morals. Subjucating another of your species is not "perpetuation" of the species.

TLDR: This thread demonstrates the opposite of what you intended.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'm willing to sound self-contradictory when talking to secularists, who would agree with me that morals are subjective and that we should not use the Bible as our moral compass. Therefore, I can feel slavery is moral on Tuesday and yet immoral on Wednesday. If you disagree, please tell me why you apply a metaphysical absolute (slavery is always wrong) to a fact of life/struggle for species perpetuation (some subjugate others for varied reasons, including slavery).


I have an apologetic for the Exodus passage but I don't think you're open to it, your question seems rhetorical. However, I will answer you--on the face of it, it sounds like Southern-style slave abuse, and not economic exchange or voluntary servitude. Hint: One could try a bit harder to find passages where slavers receive capital punishment for slave abuse, or where laws govern slaves beating their masters and vice versa. One would then see that the greatest number of capital punishments apply to slavers in the OT, more than any other people group! You highlighted property because of your moral indignation, but didn't think through the passage or even the verse. Let me redact it for you:

Modern America - differing economic and prison consequences for brawling with someone and injuring them than for killing them in cold blood or manslaughter, etc.

The Bible - if you beat a slave, UNLIKE in Antebellum America, there is fiscal restitution, if they die, unlike in American slavery, YOU die.

You don't "sound" self-contradictory, you are self-contradictory.

And apparently, you've forgotten that we've had this exact same conversation at least twice now, and in both of those conversations, I explained my moral stance and how I've come to hold it.

I don't actually agree that morals are entirely subjective, as I've explained to you several times before. I think that morality is about the well-being of sentient creatures, and so there can be some level of "objective" morality when viewed in that light. We all live in the same reality where our actions have consequences for ourselves, and for others. And most of us have empathy, so we can actually identify with the plight of other human beings we share the planet with.

The quickest way to discover that slavery is immoral would be to ask a slave. Or to imagine how you would feel if you were a slave. It's pretty simple really. If that's not enough for you, then we can talk about how being a slave severely restricts one's freedoms, one’s life and their ability to protect themselves and their families, or even to have a family in the first place or to make choices for themselves.

The Bible tells us to take slaves from the nations around us that we’ve conquered and they then become our property. As do any children they may have. Today, this would be viewed as an extremely immoral practice, and rightly so. But back in Biblical times, it seems to have been a-ok. That doesn’t seem to jive with the idea of consistency here. Unless you think God thinks we should all be owning people today. Hence the reason I asked how many slaves you own.

As I just pointed out, the Bible says you can beat a slave as long as he doesn’t die within a few days. There is no punishment for that. And you can own a slave for life, and their children as well. You can take them from nations you’ve conquered, and in fact you are implored to do so, along with the virgins. They are your property. Think about that: The Bible says that human beings can be property! You lament my moral indignation at such a thought, as though you think it’s perfectly normal and moral for human beings to own other human beings as pieces of property.


Honestly, your apologetics on this are sickening to me.


So where are we here ? … You say the Bible is consistent on moral pronouncements when it isn’t. You say it’s moral to own slaves, but don’t provide any reasoning for it outside of what the Bible claims. This whole discussion is about things being moral just because the Bible says so, and I am one of the people taking issue with such a stance, because it clearly is not true, as you’ve helped to illustrate.

 

[Darkstorn]

So where are we here ? … You say the Bible is consistent on moral pronouncements when it isn’t. You say it’s moral to own slaves, but don’t provide any reasoning for it outside of what the Bible claims. This whole discussion is about things being moral just because the Bible says so, and I am one of the people taking issue with such a stance, because it clearly is not true, as you’ve helped to illustrate.

If this was a boxing match, then BilliardsBall lost before he started thinking of getting boxing lessons.

I don't understand his inconsistency: Every time he posts something it makes atheists and secular humanists look really, really, really good.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So your latest post is you believe you found some logical fallacies when you actually read the 30,000 (?) word post on the subject I linked for you.

And in the prior post, you called them a liar, which was an ad hominem attack.

I feel like if you were mature in your discussions with me, you would retract your prior statement, rather than cover it with a fresh statement, which, unfortunately, means you have lied, which is not an ad hom on my part.

No, I am not interested in reading what appears to be a Liar for Jesus. By the way, that is not an ad hom. Tell me does he support them myths of Exodus or Genesis? If so you have to know that he is not honest. I have not checked out all of his works. But the fact is that your source is garbage. As most Christian sources are. He is only a self claimed "expert". Worse yet his citations are all worthless. Do you know why?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I agree that there are slavery laws, I never said that it didn't. But a better that is not in the bible is a law that forbids people from owning slaves. That one law alone could have eliminated the need for all those slavery laws. The bible law that encourage Hebrews to own nonHebrews as property forever.



Work was not exchanged for safety, hence the need for the laws protecting slave owners. Slave owners were protected for beating their slaves on the body.



Can you discern/find any Bible laws in the OT or principles in the NT that describe slavers to be protected from being unjust, unkind, ungenerous, abusive, etc?

Don't worry, I found some for you.

Exodus 21
4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free. Definitely unkind for not allowing his family to go free with him. Definitely not being generous by not letting his family go with him.

20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property. Definitely abusive.

That's why slaves are usually just being whipped on the body in order to avoid accidentally hitting an eye blinding the slave or knocking out a slaves tooth. Also it's less likely that a slave would die before two days.

I had another look at this post today for you:

I understand you dislike (some) Bible morality, for example, you might consider “Do not murder” moral and “Worship Jesus” immoral. We can find some common ground here, “Don’t murder”.

But I’m asking how you know slavery is “immoral”. I know New York Pizza is better than Chicago Pizza, for I like thin crust pizza. Someone else prefers Chicago Pizza . . .

1) If slavery is wrong to you, because that’s what you were taught, will you recognize that for most of man’s history, slavery was taught as helpful to society?

2) . . . If slavery is inherently wrong, why did nearly all ancient cultures embrace it, for millennia? If slavery is inherently wrong, than people (cultures) are inherently sinful.

3) If you will not admit to a cultural/teaching bias regarding your abhorrence of slavery, you may perhaps instead invoke evolutionary imperatives to say slavery is wrong. If so, what prevents me from saying “in general, the strong enslave the weak to enforce survival for empires with citizen benefits, enforced rapes to enforce propagation, oppressing the weak so that the fittest/best adapted survive,” etc.?

4) Do you understand the nuances of biblical slavery?

a) You cannot name any people groups enslaved by the Israelites without an online search

b) You are confusing a precept (God’s people have freedom, the enemies of God’s people will be enslaved/destroyed)

c) You cannot say the Jews had any slaves in the modern era and continued any kind of slaving practice

d) Slavery was sometimes indentured servitude (no debtor prisons in Israel so debtors had to work for masters)

e) Slavery in the ancient world was identification with reciprocal benefits (think of a traditional marriage where husband and wife belong only to each other, body and soul)

 

[BilliardsBall]

That just means secularists are more consistent and convincing than you.



That just means that you are morally bankrupt and inconsistent. And that the bible is morally bankrupt and inconsistent.

I can find several reasons why you would subjugate others, but none of those are moral.

I think consequently it's pretty safe to say that thanks to your personal efforts, secular humanism has been shown to be morally superior to both the bible and yourself.

Secular humanism does go with the so-called "absolute" of slavery being always wrong because it's always wrong to deprive someone of their personal rights and freedoms.

Since you see slavery as a valid reason to subjugate others, you are in fact showing a gross lack of empathy or morals. Subjucating another of your species is not "perpetuation" of the species.

TLDR: This thread demonstrates the opposite of what you intended.

Making statements like "subjugating others is not moral" is not a proof of a moral imperative.

I understand you dislike (some) Bible morality, for example, you might consider “Do not murder” moral and “Worship Jesus” immoral. We can find some common ground here, “Don’t murder”.

But I’m asking how you know slavery is “immoral”. I know New York Pizza is better than Chicago Pizza, for I like thin crust pizza. Someone else prefers Chicago Pizza . . .

1) If slavery is wrong to you, because that’s what you were taught, will you recognize that for most of man’s history, slavery was taught as helpful to society?

2) . . . If slavery is inherently wrong, why did nearly all ancient cultures embrace it, for millennia? If slavery is inherently wrong, than people (cultures) are inherently sinful.

3) If you will not admit to a cultural/teaching bias regarding your abhorrence of slavery, you may perhaps instead invoke evolutionary imperatives to say slavery is wrong. If so, what prevents me from saying “in general, the strong enslave the weak to enforce survival for empires with citizen benefits, enforced rapes to enforce propagation, oppressing the weak so that the fittest/best adapted survive,” etc.?

 

[BilliardsBall]

You don't "sound" self-contradictory, you are self-contradictory.

And apparently, you've forgotten that we've had this exact same conversation at least twice now, and in both of those conversations, I explained my moral stance and how I've come to hold it.

I don't actually agree that morals are entirely subjective, as I've explained to you several times before. I think that morality is about the well-being of sentient creatures, and so there can be some level of "objective" morality when viewed in that light. We all live in the same reality where our actions have consequences for ourselves, and for others. And most of us have empathy, so we can actually identify with the plight of other human beings we share the planet with.

The quickest way to discover that slavery is immoral would be to ask a slave. Or to imagine how you would feel if you were a slave. It's pretty simple really. If that's not enough for you, then we can talk about how being a slave severely restricts one's freedoms, one’s life and their ability to protect themselves and their families, or even to have a family in the first place or to make choices for themselves.

The Bible tells us to take slaves from the nations around us that we’ve conquered and they then become our property. As do any children they may have. Today, this would be viewed as an extremely immoral practice, and rightly so. But back in Biblical times, it seems to have been a-ok. That doesn’t seem to jive with the idea of consistency here. Unless you think God thinks we should all be owning people today. Hence the reason I asked how many slaves you own.

As I just pointed out, the Bible says you can beat a slave as long as he doesn’t die within a few days. There is no punishment for that. And you can own a slave for life, and their children as well. You can take them from nations you’ve conquered, and in fact you are implored to do so, along with the virgins. They are your property. Think about that: The Bible says that human beings can be property! You lament my moral indignation at such a thought, as though you think it’s perfectly normal and moral for human beings to own other human beings as pieces of property.


Honestly, your apologetics on this are sickening to me.


So where are we here ? … You say the Bible is consistent on moral pronouncements when it isn’t. You say it’s moral to own slaves, but don’t provide any reasoning for it outside of what the Bible claims. This whole discussion is about things being moral just because the Bible says so, and I am one of the people taking issue with such a stance, because it clearly is not true, as you’ve helped to illustrate.

I understand you dislike (some) Bible morality, for example, you might consider “Do not murder” moral and “Worship Jesus” immoral. We can find some common ground here, “Don’t murder”.

But I’m asking how you know slavery is “immoral”. I know New York Pizza is better than Chicago Pizza, for I like thin crust pizza. Someone else prefers Chicago Pizza . . .

1) If slavery is wrong to you, because that’s what you were taught, will you recognize that for most of man’s history, slavery was taught as helpful to society?

2) . . . If slavery is inherently wrong, why did nearly all ancient cultures embrace it, for millennia? If slavery is inherently wrong, than people (cultures) are inherently sinful.

3) If you will not admit to a cultural/teaching bias regarding your abhorrence of slavery, you may perhaps instead invoke evolutionary imperatives to say slavery is wrong. If so, what prevents me from saying “in general, the strong enslave the weak to enforce survival for empires with citizen benefits, enforced rapes to enforce propagation, oppressing the weak so that the fittest/best adapted survive,” etc.?

**

Put differently, the "wellbeing of sentient creatures" is a secular (current, modern, fashionable) precept that partly stems from what you were taught is moral and partly from misapplications of evolutionary theory.

**

If my apologetics sicken you, please tell me something I can bank on so I know that, for example, slavery is immoral, but atheism is moral.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No, I am not interested in reading what appears to be a Liar for Jesus. By the way, that is not an ad hom. Tell me does he support them myths of Exodus or Genesis? If so you have to know that he is not honest. I have not checked out all of his works. But the fact is that your source is garbage. As most Christian sources are. He is only a self claimed "expert". Worse yet his citations are all worthless. Do you know why?

It's not an ad hom to refuse to read an author's work before pronouncing him a liar? What type of fallacy do you think that is on your part, then?

 

[Darkstorn]

Making statements like "subjugating others is not moral" is not a proof of a moral imperative.

Your "morality" is based on asking the slaveholder what's appropriate for the treatment of the slave(the Bible.)

Our morality is based on asking the slave whatever they think about being enslaved(humanism.)

Since the slaves themselves will universally say "slavery is wrong" I'm going to take that as my "moral imperative." You're supposed to ask the person receiving the short end of the stick. Not the person administering said stick. I.E The person taking away someone else's rights and freedoms is not the arbiter of morality; The person whose rights and freedoms are being taken away is. That's all there is to it.

But my ultimate point isn't "proof." It's just this:

You're morally bankrupt and inconsistent. And the Bible is morally bankrupt and inconsistent.

I understand you dislike (some) Bible morality, for example, you might consider “Do not murder” moral and “Worship Jesus” immoral. We can find some common ground here, “Don’t murder”.

It also says to take as possessions subjugated peoples.

That's evidence of the inconsistency and moral bankruptcy of the Bible and your worldview. Not mine. When it says both moral and immoral things, it's not consistent. My stance is entirely consistent.

But I’m asking how you know slavery is “immoral”. I know New York Pizza is better than Chicago Pizza, for I like thin crust pizza. Someone else prefers Chicago Pizza . . .

Because when i ask the slave whether or not it's moral being enslaved, they'll say "it's not moral." Your analogy is just bad.

1) If slavery is wrong to you, because that’s what you were taught, will you recognize that for most of man’s history, slavery was taught as helpful to society?

I was "taught" that the people of those times, educated in such a manner to think that slavery is productive for humanity(!) are horrible monsters. I recognize the existence of such monsters.

2) . . . If slavery is inherently wrong, why did nearly all ancient cultures embrace it, for millennia? If slavery is inherently wrong, than people (cultures) are inherently sinful.

ALL cultures embracing slavery are immoral and inconsistent. Slavery IS just as bad as murder. Because in both cases YOU are doing something to deprive ANOTHER person of something else. Without asking the target of your actions.

I.E During the millenia there have been horrible idiots and monsters. Lots of them. Lots of them were looked upon as "moral guides" by other monsters and idiots like themselves.

3) If you will not admit to a cultural/teaching bias regarding your abhorrence of slavery, you may perhaps instead invoke evolutionary imperatives to say slavery is wrong. If so, what prevents me from saying “in general, the strong enslave the weak to enforce survival for empires with citizen benefits, enforced rapes to enforce propagation, oppressing the weak so that the fittest/best adapted survive,” etc.?

I invoke neither evolutionary imperatives or cultural / teaching bias. I ask the person targeted by what i perceive to be immoral actions whether or not they like it. If they don't like it, it's immoral to do something to them against their will.

But as far as evolutionary imperatives do go: Human evolution shows that helping and caring for those around you is beneficial. Whereas murdering others of your species or subjugating them is probably not helping.

If so, what prevents me from saying “in general, the strong enslave the weak to enforce survival for empires with citizen benefits, enforced rapes to enforce propagation, oppressing the weak so that the fittest/best adapted survive,” etc.?

You can say that. But it'd make you one of those monsters i was talking about.

 

[Darkstorn]

It's not an ad hom to refuse to read an author's work before pronouncing him a liar? What type of fallacy do you think that is on your part, then?

It's not an ad hominem to refuse to read an author's work before pronouncing him a liar. You should probably learn to understand what logical fallacies are before attempting to use them.

But just to help him out a bit. Your source makes the claim that slavery has historically been mostly voluntary. It's a lie, and the only piece of "evidence" he has to verify that claim is a bible passage.

So your source IS lying. I stopped finding more after 1 lie because it's unnecessary. You lie once, you're a liar.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's not an ad hom to refuse to read an author's work before pronouncing him a liar? What type of fallacy do you think that is on your part, then?

Wrong again. It is foolish to use a huge source by someone with no credentials and to pretend that one has made a point.

And I see you dodged a more than reasonable question. Does he believe the myths of Genesis and Exodus? If he odes you just called him a liar yourself, though you will not understand why.

 

[night912]

Yes, thanks for reminding me of my prior post. I've changed my mind since that prior post, I think slavery is moral. On what basis do you condemn me? "It's obvious slavery is wrong" doesn't work for me, when talking about metaphysics such as morals or justice.

Thanks,

Why are you here and not be slave?

Do you want to get beaten? Get rape? Curse at your God? Denounce your God? Worship idol while taking a crap on your bible 5x a day? Since you are Okay with all of that, when are you available to be a slave?

 

[night912]

2) . . . If slavery is inherently wrong, why did nearly all ancient cultures embrace it, for millennia? If slavery is inherently wrong, than people (cultures) are inherently sinful.

If murder is inherently wrong, why did nearly all ancient cultures embrace it, for millennia?

If rape is inherently wrong, why did nearly all ancient cultures embrace it, for millennia?

If lying is inherently wrong, why did nearly all ancient cultures embrace it, for millennia?

Nice try.

I got to ask you, did your God possessed all those people to commit murder, rape and lie? Or did your God give humanity freewill, even if they chose to commit murder, rape and lie?

Can you provide evidence and show us your bachelor's degree in religion. I'm just saying this because for someone who claims to have gotten a bachelor's degree in religion, you don't know much about the bible.

 

[night912]

a) You cannot name any people groups enslaved by the Israelites without an online search

What? So now you don't care about your god's moral laws? I thought you said you agreed with the bible's morals? Or are you trying to say that the bible's morals are based on my answer? So that would make me, in control of the bible's morals.

I disagree with none of the Bible's morals, including its teachings on slavery.

b) You are confusing a precept (God’s people have freedom, the enemies of God’s people will be enslaved/destroyed)
Like I said, slavery is not immoral according to the bible. Please don't project your confusion on me.

c) You cannot say the Jews had any slaves in the modern era and continued any kind of slaving practice

I don't care, as long as I can say that they had slaves back in biblical days. The bible still exist, correct? So according to you, biblical slavery still exist is still not immoral.

d) Slavery was sometimes indentured servitude (no debtor prisons in Israel so debtors had to work for masters)

And sometimes it was slavery from an episode of Roots. What's your point?

e) Slavery in the ancient world was identification with reciprocal benefits (think of a traditional marriage where husband and wife belong only to each other, body and soul)

Check post #87. An episode of Roots.

Try harder.

BTW,
I never got a bachelor's degree in religion, but did pretty good against someone who claimed that they have one.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I understand you dislike (some) Bible morality, for example, you might consider “Do not murder” moral and “Worship Jesus” immoral. We can find some common ground here, “Don’t murder”.

But I’m asking how you know slavery is “immoral”. I know New York Pizza is better than Chicago Pizza, for I like thin crust pizza. Someone else prefers Chicago Pizza . . .

1) If slavery is wrong to you, because that’s what you were taught, will you recognize that for most of man’s history, slavery was taught as helpful to society?

2) . . . If slavery is inherently wrong, why did nearly all ancient cultures embrace it, for millennia? If slavery is inherently wrong, than people (cultures) are inherently sinful.

3) If you will not admit to a cultural/teaching bias regarding your abhorrence of slavery, you may perhaps instead invoke evolutionary imperatives to say slavery is wrong. If so, what prevents me from saying “in general, the strong enslave the weak to enforce survival for empires with citizen benefits, enforced rapes to enforce propagation, oppressing the weak so that the fittest/best adapted survive,” etc.?

**

I would prefer a response that speaks to the points I made, rather than this generic response you've made to everyone, as I have already answered some of your questions.

Nobody that I'm aware of "invokes evolutionary imperatives to say slavery is wrong." I certainly haven't and had you read my response you'd already have known that. I've actually described to you on multiple occasions (including this very post you are responding to) how I go about determining what is moral and what is immoral.

I really don't care that "slavery was taught as helpful to society" because reason, logic and observation tell is that is not true. You seem to have bought into that idea though.

Put differently, the "wellbeing of sentient creatures" is a secular (current, modern, fashionable) precept that partly stems from what you were taught is moral and partly from misapplications of evolutionary theory.

If morality is not about the wellbeing of sentient creatures, then what is it about, in your mind?

Please don't make me point out again that I am not (and nobody that I've ever seen) is arguing that we should take our morality from evolutionary theory. I'm not even sure what that means, to be honest.

**

If my apologetics sicken you, please tell me something I can bank on so I know that, for example, slavery is immoral, but atheism is moral.

Atheism isn't something that's moral or immoral. It's just the rejection of god claims.

I explained a little bit about how slavery is immoral in my last post. It would be awesome if you'd respond to that instead of this generic type of post you've written here.

 

[night912]

b) You are confusing a precept (God’s people have freedom, the enemies of God’s people will be enslaved/destroyed)

So think it was moral for God's white American people to own black Africans as property and treat them as being less than human?

 

[night912]

Christians are/or bible believers, do any of you agree with the statement in bold below? I just want clarification if it's true that that is taught in bible. Keep in mind that this claim refers to the time during biblical era and today. It's not just referring to society and culture back in those days but also in today's society.

Is this a shared belief among other Christians and/or bible believers or just an opinion of an individual with an immoral beliefs?

Yes, thanks for reminding me of my prior post. I've changed my mind since that prior post, I think slavery is moral. On what basis do you condemn me? "It's obvious slavery is wrong" doesn't work for me, when talking about metaphysics such as morals or justice.

 

[Martin]

Where do non-theist Christians fit in? There are a few around.