Come on, Creationists!

[ppp]

How should I go about doing that other than pointing to the fact that the U.S. system of government and U.S. Constitution - which were heavily influenced by Christianity - were what led to the abolishment of slavery in the Western hemisphere?

First you would have to demonstrate that Christianity is actually anti-slavery.
Second, you would actually have to show that such influence is a fact, and not simply part of your imagination.
Third, you would have to show that that influence was a direct cause of abolition.
Fourth, you would have to enumerate the other causes of abolition and demonstrate that those causes were less influential than Christianity.

I doubt that you can do the first.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

They are not confusing the two. Most sects of Christianity opposed abolition.

Irrelevant to my point.

As I said - no religion freed any slaves - but the system of government and the founding documents - which were heavily influenced by Christianity and whose creators were Christian - which led to the abolishment of slavery in the West.

And they opposed it using the Bible which explicitly condones and advocates for the institution of slavery.

The Bible explicitly condones and advocates for the institution of slavery in Israel according to the Law of Moses. That is true.

And only Israel. And only according to the Law of Moses.

Not in this universe.

[personal politics ignored]

Then what did if not that?

 

[ppp]

But - I never made any claim about Christians or Christianity as a whole - I said "It was the Christian principles found in the West that led to the end of slavery in the West."

I don't believe you. I don't believe that Christian principles are anti-slavery. I believe that Christians adopted, or I should say co-opted abolition after it was clear that was the way to keep parishioners. Same thing with suffrage. And with marriage equality. And to some extent with civil rights.

 

[ppp]

As I said - no religion freed any slaves - but the system of government and the founding documents - which were heavily influenced by Christianity and whose creators were Christian - which led to the abolishment of slavery in the West.

Make your historical case.

The Bible explicitly condones and advocates for the institution of slavery in Israel according to the Law of Moses. That is true.

I truly appreciate that you acknowledge that fact. No sarcasm or winking here. Straightforward.

And only Israel. And only according to the Law of Moses.

I am not sure what that means. Please elaborate.

Then what did if not that?

The enlightenment, it's values, human empathy, and the economics of the industrial revolution. The first and the last probably having the most impact.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

First you would have to demonstrate that Christianity is actually anti-slavery.

Where is the pro-slavery sermon by the Lord Jesus Christ or any of His Apostles?

Second, you would actually have to show that such influence is a fact, and not simply part of your imagination.

And what kind of "evidence" would anyone accept?

Third, you would have to show that that influence was a direct cause of abolition.

Fairly certain the system of government and the Constitution had a causal relationship to the abolition of slavery.

Fourth, you would have to enumerate the other causes of abolition and demonstrate that those causes were less influential than Christianity.

Who said anything about more or less?

I doubt that you can do the first.

 

[ppp]

Where is the pro-slavery sermon by the Lord Jesus Christ or any of His Apostles?

I don't know of any, but I don't see the relevance. Are you trying to suggest that if someone doesn't actually speak in favor of something that they are against it? You've got to do better than that.

And what kind of "evidence" would anyone accept?

A consistent, if not constant, explicit repudiation of the institution of slavery for most if not all of the 1800 years prior to the actual abolition.

I am perfectly aware that there were occasional writings that were anti-slavery. But those were anomalies. And in some cases they were not so much anti-slavery, as incentives for colonized natives to convert to Christianity.

Fairly certain the system of government and the Constitution had a causal relationship to the abolition of slavery.

Causal? No. The flexibility of the Constitution allowed for it. But causal. No.

Who said anything about more or less?

I thought that you were arguing that Christian principles were the cause of abolition. If not, what exactly are you arguing?

I'm right so far. You have not done the first.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

I don't believe you.

Really? I never would have thunk it?

I don't believe that Christian principles are anti-slavery.

Okay.

I believe that Christians adopted, or I should say co-opted abolition after it was clear that was the way to keep parishioners.

You see - you pivoted from "Christian principles" to "Christians".

Where is the pro-slavery sermon given by the Lord Jesus Christ or any of His Apostles?

Just because a priest rapes an alter boy - that doesn't mean that the Lord Jesus Christ agreed with it.

Same thing with suffrage.

Are you talking women's suffrage or for the freed slaves?

Because the first was a mistake that most women didn't even want it.

And with marriage equality.

Heterosexual marriage and "same-sex marriage" are not equal.

One is marriage and the other is not.

And to some extent with civil rights.

Republicans voted for suffrage of freed slaves and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - while Democrats didn't.

Even if you cannot believe Christianity had anything to do with it - those Republicans have remained consistent.

To their credit - the Democrats have remained consistent to this day as well - just as racist as ever.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Make your historical case.

That's difficult because I can't see where anything isn't not influenced by Christian principles.

I can't quote the entire thing to you.

I truly appreciate that you acknowledge that fact. No sarcasm or winking here. Straightforward.

It is what it is.

I am not sure what that means. Please elaborate.

No where else in the Biblical narrative does God condone or advocate slavery - only to ancient Israel by way of the Law given to Moses.

The enlightenment, it's values, human empathy, and the economics of the industrial revolution. The first and the last probably having the most impact.

All of which were heavily influences by Christian principles - either directly or indirectly.

 

[ppp]

You see - you pivoted from "Christian principles" to "Christians".

Read closer, please. That's not a pivot. I literally said that abolition is a principal that Christians adopted once it was clear that abolition was the way that society was going. I did not say that abolition is a Christian principle. In fact I explicitly said that abolition was not a Christian principle.

Where is the pro-slavery sermon given by the Lord Jesus Christ or any of His Apostles?

I answered this in my last post. Asking me again will not yield a different answer.

Are you talking women's suffrage or for the freed slaves?

Doesn't matter. Christianity fails by supporting neither.

Because the first was a mistake that most women didn't even want it.

Cool story bro.

Heterosexual marriage and "same-sex marriage" are not equal.

One is marriage and the other is not.

Another moral failing of Christianity.

Republicans

Don't care about your politics. You can find someone else to talk about that to.

 

[ppp]

That's difficult because I can't see where anything isn't not influenced by Christian principles.

Then I continue to reject it.

I can't quote the entire thing to you.

There is nothing that you have to quote everything about to make a case.

No where else in the Biblical narrative does God condone or advocate slavery - only to ancient Israel by way of the Law given to Moses.

I'm not sure why that should matter. Do you believe that God represents an objective and absolute moral standard or not?

All of which were heavily influences by Christian principles - either directly or indirectly.

Enlightenment values directly flouted Christian values. Pray forgive the Wikipedia quoting
"The Enlightenment included a range of ideas centered on the value of human happiness, the pursuit of knowledge obtained by means of reason and the evidence of the senses, and ideals such as liberty, progress, toleration, fraternity, constitutional government, and separation of church and state."

The enlightenment also represented the movement from metaphysics to epistemology. As well as a anti-supernatural leaning. The first amendment of the Constitution is directly in conflict with the first amendment from the Bible. At least one of the first amendments. Bible says that you shall have no other God before the Bible God. Which was later converted to mean that there is only one God and that you should worship no others. Where is the Constitution of the United States says you are free to worship any god or gods that you want. It is clear from The History of the United States alone that Christians were not inclined to accept that element of the Constitution except where it applied to the assorted sects of Christians. For that matter, Christians still act that way.
The fact is that Christianity supports slavery, misogyny, miscegenation laws, homophobia, transphobia, inquisitions, and kingdom of Christ mentalities. You just expressed a few of those.

I am glad that most Christians shun those Christian principles in the same way that you shun slavery. I hope someday you'll join them.

 

[Audie]

What do you mean?

The values you speak of are shared among
many cultures. They are not exclusive to Christianity.
The bible specifically supports slavery,
even as it indirectly condemns it elsewhere.

The role of Christians in helping to end
slavery (which still exists) is of course commendable.

 

[Audie]

How should I go about doing that other than pointing to the fact that the U.S. system of government and U.S. Constitution - which were heavily influenced by Christianity - were what led to the abolishment of slavery in the Western hemisphere?

It didnt lead to the end of slavery any more than
the 45 calibre pistol led to the end of WW2.
"Played a role" and " led to" aint the same thing.

 

[Audie]

I guess I agree in the sense that no one is an island - we all grow up being influenced by everyone and everything.

However - there is a difference between relying on other's interpretations without ever going to the source material yourself and going to the source material yourself and then looking into other people's interpretations.

Of course, and nobody here is doing the former
so what point bringing up the obvious
and irrelevant?

The point of what i said is you are
praising the positive and ignoring the
negative in the bible re slavery.
The american slavers had no trouble
finding support in the bible.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

I don't know of any, but I don't see the relevance. Are you trying to suggest that if someone doesn't actually speak in favor of something that they are against it? You've got to do better than that.

No - what I am saying is that if you cannot show any evidence of someone favoring something - by word or deed - then you cannot claim that they are in favor of it.

You are the one that needs to do better.

A consistent, if not constant, explicit repudiation of the institution of slavery for most if not all of the 1800 years prior to the actual abolition.

How would that be relevant to my point?

I am perfectly aware that there were occasional writings that were anti-slavery. But those were anomalies. And in some cases they were not so much anti-slavery, as incentives for colonized natives to convert to Christianity.

Even though I don't really care about what the various Christian institutions have said or done - because they do not necessarily represent the Lord Jesus Christ and Christianity - the Catholic Church was consistent in condemning the enslavement of Christians.

It was not "anomalous" for the Catholic Church to have that stance - they always had it.

Causal? No. The flexibility of the Constitution allowed for it. But causal. No.

That "flexibility" was inspired by Christian principles - to unfetter Man's soul and allow for its growth. It's called repentance.

I thought that you were arguing that Christian principles were the cause of abolition. If not, what exactly are you arguing?

I said, "It was the Christian principles found in the West that led to the end of slavery in the West."

I never said it was the only cause - but without the system of government and the Constitution - which had Christian principles imbedded into it - it never would have happened.

I'm right so far. You have not done the first.

There is no need for me to refute a claim that has no substantiation.

The Lord Jesus Christ and His Apostles never spoke in favor of slavery - so you cannot claim that they were in favor of it - you have no case.

And I know you are going to point to "Christian institutions" or individual "Christians" - but they are irrelevant.

Just like how you cannot use a Republican who holds liberal positions to argue against conservatism - you cannot use a "Christian" or "Christian institution" that holds non-Christian positions to argue against the Lord Jesus Christ or Christianity.

 

[ppp]

No - what I am saying is that if you cannot show any evidence of someone favoring something - by word or deed - then you cannot claim that they are in favor of it.

You are the one that needs to do better.

I do not know what you are trying to say there. The Bible depicts God as explicitly condoning and advocation for chattel slavery. That is reinforced in Ephesians and Colossians. -- You asked earlier where slavery was supported by either Jesus or his Apostles. I always forget that Paul was an Apostle.

I don't know if Jesus is God according to your particular sect of Christianity, but Jesus never says that any of that is wrong,.

How would that be relevant to my point?

You asked what kind of evidence would anyone accept. I cannot answer for "anyone" so I answered for myself.

Even though I don't really care about what the various Christian institutions have said or done - because they do not necessarily represent the Lord Jesus Christ and Christianity.

The same applies to you. As well as the RCC.

the Catholic Church was consistent in condemning the enslavement of Christians.

False.

That "flexibility" was inspired by Christian principles - to unfetter Man's soul and allow for its growth. It's called repentance.

False.

The Lord Jesus Christ and His Apostles never spoke in favor of slavery - so you cannot claim that they were in favor of it - you have no case.

If Jesus is God, then he did speak in favor of it.

 

[Audie]

No - what I am saying is that if you cannot show any evidence of someone favoring something - by word or deed - then you cannot claim that they are in favor of it.

You are the one that needs to do better.

How would that be relevant to my point?

Even though I don't really care about what the various Christian institutions have said or done - because they do not necessarily represent the Lord Jesus Christ and Christianity - the Catholic Church was consistent in condemning the enslavement of Christians.

It was not "anomalous" for the Catholic Church to have that stance - they always had it.

That "flexibility" was inspired by Christian principles - to unfetter Man's soul and allow for its growth. It's called repentance.

I said, "It was the Christian principles found in the West that led to the end of slavery in the West."

I never said it was the only cause - but without the system of government and the Constitution - which had Christian principles imbedded into it - it never would have happened.

There is no need for me to refute a claim that has no substantiation.

The Lord Jesus Christ and His Apostles never spoke in favor of slavery - so you cannot claim that they were in favor of it - you have no case.

And I know you are going to point to "Christian institutions" or individual "Christians" - but they are irrelevant.

Just like how you cannot use a Republican who holds liberal positions to argue against conservatism - you cannot use a "Christian" or "Christian institution" that holds non-Christian positions to argue against the Lord Jesus Christ or Christianity.

You twice claim exclusivity to "Christian"
principles, as if they never existed outside
that religion, and that slavery would not
have ended without christianity-
Made up "facts" without supporting evidence.

And the while, you ignore the specific wording
in the bible that accepts it and even sets labour relations standards.

 

[tas8831]

The Lord Jesus Christ and His Apostles never spoke in favor of slavery - so you cannot claim that they were in favor of it - you have no case.

So... Jesus and his Apostles just ignored/rejected some parts of the Pentateuch?

Cool.

Pity that no Confederates were aware of this:

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.​

Christianity is amazing - one can use it to argue diametrically opposing positions, each side claiming to be the TRUE Christians...

 

[tas8831]

How should I go about doing that other than pointing to the fact that the U.S. system of government and U.S. Constitution - which were heavily influenced by Christianity - were what led to the abolishment of slavery in the Western hemisphere?

So you're not aware that other Western nations had outlawed it before the USA did?

There are people out there today - some running for office- declaring that slavery wasn't so bad, that it was beneficial for the Africans, etc.
Shall we wager on the religious proclivities of such folk? They ain't Hindu, that's for sure.

 

[Audie]

​

Christianity is amazing - one can use it to argue diametrically opposing positions, each side claiming to be the TRUE Christians...

Such flex no doubt explains much of the popularity.

 

[metis]

You are confusing religion with government and political affiliations.

No, I am not.

No religion freed the slaves -

Of course not.

It was the Democrats who persecuted Native tribes and enslaved them, passed the Jim Crowe laws and opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Not the latter as it was LBJ and the Dems who got that passed.

The Republicans were religious conservatives - but political liberals.

Not prior to FDR's New Deal agenda.

Maybe do your homework before posting because you're fabricating stories.