Question For Christians About Biblical Inerrancy

[Vigile]

no human government has ever been a Christian government. Except maybe Geneva when Calvin was pastoring there

 

John Calvin

 

A Response To Questions and Objections of a Certain Jew

 

Their [the Jews] rotten and unbending stiffneckedness deserves that they be oppressed unendingly and without measure or end and that they die in their misery without the pity of anyone.

 

Excerpt from "Ad Quaelstiones et Objecta Juaei Cuiusdam Responsio," by John Calvin; The Jew in Christian Theology, Gerhard Falk, McFarland and Company, Inc., Jefferson, NC and London, 1931.

 

And the father of the protestant faith wasn't such a nice guy either: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_and_the_Jews

 

You listed what you plead are good things xians have done throughout history and ignore the many, many, many horrific things they have done. Your own book states by their fruits...

 

Now I'm not claiming that xians in general are rotten people. I know plenty of good ones who have done good things, not the least of which my own grandfather. The deeds done by the churches throughout history and the deeds done in the name of christ hardly are atoned by the good things they have done though. In short, xians are people and people have done rotten things. This becomes problematic for you in the sense that your belief system doesn't show a propensity to make people better and many times it in fact makes them worse.

[Deva]

My point exactly - no human government has ever been a Christian government. Except maybe Geneva when Calvin was pastoring there, and possibly the region of Germany where Count Zinzendorf ruled.

 

Yeah, Calvin and his bunch had Michael Servetus burned for heresy. Nice example of a Christian government, look what happens when Christians start running governments.

 

Can't speak for Count Zizendorf since I have never heard of him.

 

You fail to establish your point, which was that Christian ethics are superior to the ethics of other cultures.

Christians like to cite your example of Rome and the ending of slavery in Britain, while conveniently ignoring other facts of history, such as the fact that other Christians used the Bible for centuries to uphold slavery, tortures and executions of heretics.

 

Christians themselves cannot agree on what "Christian ethics" are. They are inconsistent, like all of Christianity. Christian's cannot even agree on what "Thou shalt not kill" means. That's why there are so many different denominations. Plainly you are approaching this question from a Protestant point of view or you would never have cited Calvin as a good example of Christian government.

 

Ray you are really opening a can of worms with your statement about obeying the civil leaders. Presumably you would make an exception if you lived in Nazi Germany, at least I would hope so.

[Neon Genesis]

But your thought that I state these things to show myself as righteous in God's sight is incorrect. As you well know - No one can be righteous in God's sight. Where have I indicated a personal righteousness that deserves God's favor? Anything that Christians accomplish are the result of God working through His people - in spite of their own inherent weaknesses and sin nature. And there is no greater satisfaction and motivation than knowing that we're serving the God of the Universe in carrying out His eternal purposes - which will result in a multitude which no one can number from every tribe & tongue & nation & people assembled before Him in joyous worship.

How is you bragging about how much more perfect and moral you are than all of us ebil atheists here not self-righteousness in any sense of the word? If you really did read the passage, you should go back and re-read verse 11 again where the Pharisee is praying and thanking God like what you're doing now.

The Pharisee, standing by himself, was praying thus, “God, I thank you that I am not like other people: thieves, rogues, adulterers, or even like this tax-collector.

Here you are thanking God for making you better and more moral than all of us evil atheists yet even Jesus criticized people with this holier than thou attitude. And what does Philippians have to do with anything in this thread?

 

Christianity should be concerned only with Gospel ministry - seeing people come to faith and grow in Christlikeness. As conversions increase and more people practice Christian ethics daily, there will be a positive impact on that culture.

So, in other words, it's better for Christians to take over the world by brainwashing everyone instead?

[Kuroikaze]

But I have only presented the tremendous good that Christianity has brought into the world in defense against criticisms that Christianity is primarily deleterious. And I have brought in my own personal experiences, because some thought my words may have been based on anecdotal evidence alone.

 

Perhaps you don't know what anecdotal evidence is.

 

from dictionary.com

based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation: anecdotal evidence.

 

Sorry but personal experiences ARE anecdotal evidence. I realized I am being picky, but even in an informal debate it is important that all parties know the correct definitions of the words being used.

 

 

Christianity should be concerned only with Gospel ministry - seeing people come to faith and grow in Christlikeness. As conversions increase and more people practice Christian ethics daily, there will be a positive impact on that culture. And sometimes, even laws are changed to improve culture. Examples: in the Roman government, the exposure of unwanted children was outlawed due to Christian influence. In the British Empire - slavery was outlawed by the persistence of William Wilberforce and other Christans.

 

I don't usually get specific with listing of logical fallacies, but I feel it would be useful to point out exactly where this argument goes wrong

 

Post hoc:

The form of the post hoc fallacy can be expressed as follows:

 

• A occurred, then B occurred.
  
• Therefore, A caused B.
  

 

Cherry picking:

act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

 

The problem here is twofold. First you assume that Christianity is the cause of the particular social reforms you mention, even thought many Christians throughout history used their beliefs to justify the exact opposite position. It is not supprising that the people who both ended slavery and owned slaves were both Christians, because nearly everyone in those countries at the time were Christians. There does not seem to be any causal connection between belief in Christianity and the things you mention.

 

You also ignore a significant amount of contradicting data. Take Rome, which you mentioned; ok, they outlawed the exposure of unwanted children. (I have no idea how common this practice was) However, the Christian church ALSO did a lot of bad things, for instance, they closed all the public bath houses in Rome. ( they thought it was evil to see other people naked) They also did nothing to maintain all of the other public works which Rome had build to improve the cleanliness of their cities. As a result public cleanliness fell drastically and the middle ages is an example of one of the worst periods in history for the spread of infectious diseases.

 

So a British christian outlawed slavery, at the same time it was still being practiced by other Christian nations, and slavery had been practiced for hundreds of years by Christians and no seem to give it much thought. A cursory look at the evidence suggests that there were other factors at play here than his religious beliefs.

[rayskidude]

But I have only presented the tremendous good that Christianity has brought into the world in defense against criticisms that Christianity is primarily deleterious. And I have brought in my own personal experiences, because some thought my words may have been based on anecdotal evidence alone.

 

Perhaps you don't know what anecdotal evidence is.

 

from dictionary.com

based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation: anecdotal evidence.

 

Sorry but personal experiences ARE anecdotal evidence. I realized I am being picky, but even in an informal debate it is important that all parties know the correct definitions of the words being used.

 

 

Christianity should be concerned only with Gospel ministry - seeing people come to faith and grow in Christlikeness. As conversions increase and more people practice Christian ethics daily, there will be a positive impact on that culture. And sometimes, even laws are changed to improve culture. Examples: in the Roman government, the exposure of unwanted children was outlawed due to Christian influence. In the British Empire - slavery was outlawed by the persistence of William Wilberforce and other Christans.

 

I don't usually get specific with listing of logical fallacies, but I feel it would be useful to point out exactly where this argument goes wrong

 

Post hoc:

The form of the post hoc fallacy can be expressed as follows:

 

• A occurred, then B occurred.
  
• Therefore, A caused B.
  

 

Cherry picking:

act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

 

The problem here is twofold. First you assume that Christianity is the cause of the particular social reforms you mention, even thought many Christians throughout history used their beliefs to justify the exact opposite position. It is not supprising that the people who both ended slavery and owned slaves were both Christians, because nearly everyone in those countries at the time were Christians. There does not seem to be any causal connection between belief in Christianity and the things you mention.

 

You also ignore a significant amount of contradicting data. Take Rome, which you mentioned; ok, they outlawed the exposure of unwanted children. (I have no idea how common this practice was) However, the Christian church ALSO did a lot of bad things, for instance, they closed all the public bath houses in Rome. ( they thought it was evil to see other people naked) They also did nothing to maintain all of the other public works which Rome had build to improve the cleanliness of their cities. As a result public cleanliness fell drastically and the middle ages is an example of one of the worst periods in history for the spread of infectious diseases.

 

So a British christian outlawed slavery, at the same time it was still being practiced by other Christian nations, and slavery had been practiced for hundreds of years by Christians and no seem to give it much thought. A cursory look at the evidence suggests that there were other factors at play here than his religious beliefs.

 

Here's where you're worng - I am not attempting to relate increased rainfall in April on the East Coast with an increase in traffic accidents in May on LA freeways.

 

I am relating specific teachings of Christianity and the promulgation of such within a culture, and specific actions of Christians to eliminate certain wicked practices with the actual outlawing of said wicked practices. SO your post ad hoc fallacy does not apply. History has shown that Christians have worked in a variety of cultures to eliminate harmful practices - to the benefit of the people.

 

And re" the Middle Ages, and specifically the plague - are you saying that the eliminiation of bathhouses was a major contributing factor? Are you saying Christians worked against personal cleanliness, or public hygienic practices?

 

When you say they didn't support all the public works - what works? And what was their political power status to decry public cleanliness? You've travelled around - and you know that many people are prone to dispose of trash wherever it's convenient for them - thus trash heaps are born and rat infestation is the result. This is laziness & selfishness - not religion.

 

And re: "Christians" supporting slavery - many people have hidden behind "supposed" Biblical teachings to justify their sin. I would encourage you to review the biography of John Newton - who was a slave-trader, but then abandoned that business after his conversion to evangelical Christianity.

[Vigile]

I am relating specific teachings of Christianity and the promulgation of such within a culture, and specific actions of Christians to eliminate certain wicked practices with the actual outlawing of said wicked practices. SO your post ad hoc fallacy does not apply. History has shown that Christians have worked in a variety of cultures to eliminate harmful practices - to the benefit of the people.

 

Like talking to a wall. Either post a study that shows a statistically significant correlation or just shut up. You xians and your logic just make me tired.

[Kuroikaze]

Here's where you're worng - I am not attempting to relate increased rainfall in April on the East Coast with an increase in traffic accidents in May on LA freeways.

 

I am relating specific teachings of Christianity and the promulgation of such within a culture, and specific actions of Christians to eliminate certain wicked practices with the actual outlawing of said wicked practices. SO your post ad hoc fallacy does not apply. History has shown that Christians have worked in a variety of cultures to eliminate harmful practices - to the benefit of the people.

 

Do you no understand post hoc? You can't just make a bald assertion that because the people who eliminated the practices were Christians they did so BECAUSE they were Christians? You can't just say, "its not post hoc" and then go on to make a claim that is the dictionary definition of such.

 

Your example of a post hoc is an obvious one, but in the real world post hoc's are usually much more subtle....much like the one you are using.

 

First you need to show actual correlation (which you haven't done with anything other than anecdotal evidence) then you need to show causation.

 

Of course Christians have worked in many cultures to eliminate harmful practices, just as other people have to. I did not claim they didn't, I suggested this was a post hoc because you claim they did it BECAUSE they are Christians with out any evidence to demonstrate this.

 

And re" the Middle Ages, and specifically the plague - are you saying that the eliminiation of bathhouses was a major contributing factor? Are you saying Christians worked against personal cleanliness, or public hygienic practices?

 

When you say they didn't support all the public works - what works? And what was their political power status to decry public cleanliness? You've travelled around - and you know that many people are prone to dispose of trash wherever it's convenient for them - thus trash heaps are born and rat infestation is the result. This is laziness & selfishness - not religion.

 

Yes, this is exactly what I am saying. For quite a while after the fall of the roman empire the church was the only organization with any money or power. Do you really think the catholic church had no political power in the middle ages?

 

You can actually find writings of various clergy during that time telling people that taking a bath too often was bad for your health, and they DID close the public baths, this is a well known piece of historical information.

 

And re: "Christians" supporting slavery - many people have hidden behind "supposed" Biblical teachings to justify their sin. I would encourage you to review the biography of John Newton - who was a slave-trader, but then abandoned that business after his conversion to evangelical Christianity.

 

and now I suppose I need to add "no true Scotsman" to the list of your more notable logical fallacies. There is no passage in the bible which says that slave owners do not qualify as christians....and quite a few that contradict such a claim. Ever read Philemon?

 

Are you really going to claim that the bible does not support slavery? Both the old and new testaments are full of instructions on proper slave ownership. Little tidbits like, if you beat your slave to death but it takes a day or two for him to die you get off with no punishment.

 

Please do not insult my intelligence by suggesting slave owners were "misreading" the bible to find support for slavery.

 

Oh, and telling me to read a biography of ONE man, is another example of anecdotal evidence. One example means absolutly nothing to my argument. Now if I were claiming that ALL Christians support slavery you would have something...but I never made such a silly claim.

[Neon Genesis]

I am relating specific teachings of Christianity and the promulgation of such within a culture, and specific actions of Christians to eliminate certain wicked practices with the actual outlawing of said wicked practices. SO your post ad hoc fallacy does not apply. History has shown that Christians have worked in a variety of cultures to eliminate harmful practices - to the benefit of the people.

And as AM said earlier in the thread, if you're going to claim Christianity is solely responsible for the good things Christians do, then Christianity must accept responsibility for the horrible things Christians do. Either Christianity is solely responsible for morality or it's not , but you can't on the one hand say Christianity is responsible for morality but then turn around and say it's not responsible when it's done something immoral.

 

 

 

And re: "Christians" supporting slavery - many people have hidden behind "supposed" Biblical teachings to justify their sin. I would encourage you to review the biography of John Newton - who was a slave-trader, but then abandoned that business after his conversion to evangelical Christianity.

And you should read 1 Peter sometime.

Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. 19For it is to your credit if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly. 20If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, where is the credit in that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God’s approval. 21For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you should follow in his steps.

22‘He committed no sin,

and no deceit was found in his mouth.’

23When he was abused, he did not return abuse; when he suffered, he did not threaten; but he entrusted himself to the one who judges justly. 24He himself bore our sins in his body on the cross,* so that, free from sins, we might live for righteousness; by his wounds* you have been healed. 25For you were going astray like sheep, but now you have returned to the shepherd and guardian of your souls.

[rayskidude]

The impression that I have received from you is that Christian missions is primarily deleterious to wherever it travels - and you seemed to have based this on some historical truths and your own personal experience. If I have misinterpreted what you've said about your own experience - my apologies. How am I to interpret your statement that a switch to Christianity is like "a switch to heroin."???

 

My point has always been that Christians missions inherently has certain bias in it, (my religion is better than yours, my culture is better than yours) and that this often (but not always) results problems, harm, ect.

 

You have been added extra stuff to my argument from the beginning. I can't be responsible for your desire to demonize me.

 

You will take the heroin statement anyway you choose, you haven't let the intent behind my statements get in the way of your interpretation yet.

 

The statement means exactly what it is meant to sound like, you act like getting rid of the other religion and replacing it with Christianity is going to fix their problems, but exchanging one delusion for another isn't going to accomplish anything.

 

And you have insisted that my experience in Christian missions is no different than yours, but that is just not true. We've worked very diligently in our church to learn from mistakes (our own and those of others) and to work with local peoples in ways which will support local ministries. Coming into any new culture obviously involves a learning curve during which time various strategires are employed on a trial-an-error basis. And mistakes made should be quickly rectified.

 

But keep in mind - that peoples have asked for help in a variety of areas. They have asked; "How do you do this (youth ministry, small groups, marriage relationships, parenting, outreach, etc) in America? Many peoples consider the USA as a model to follow in alot of areas of life; and we have told them what we do - but always with the caveat "This is how it works for us - it may not work this way within your culture." But we cannot refuse when people ask us for guidance.

 

But in addition, they have instructed us before we leave the USA how we need to conduct ourselves in their cultures and how we can prepare here to best meet needs over there.

 

Whether on not Christians have made cultural faux pas is not the question - all humans make mistakes and inflict damage, Christians are not immune to this malady. And Christians have overstepped their bounds by becoming to too involved in politics - I think we should restrict ourselves to the Gospel and seeking to support societal ethics that are in keeping with the Golden Rule. And I disagree with Calvin's desire to establish a theocracy in Geneva. I think the separation of church and state is taught clearly in Romans 13 and Jesus's teaching on taxes to Ceaser.

 

Well you don't know a thing about me or my experiences, you are extrapolating from nearly no information, and a few examples of the WORST things I saw.

 

For your information what you describe is EXACTLY my experience with most missionaries. Of course they try to conduct themselves as well as possible. I wasn't suggesting that Missionaries are all a bunch of rednecks with attitude problems.

 

However, ethics is always a complex issue and all humans weight their ethics on levels of importance. To you evangelism is your #1 priority. I am not putting words in your mouth you have said this yourself. Your desire to evangelize will ALWAYS win out over your desire to be culturally sensitive. Which is my point that missions even at it's best is still going to do harm.

 

Oh, and of course people in churches over there are going to ask Americans for advice, they converted to Christianity which means they have pretty much bought into the notion that everything in their culture is evil.

 

But I do maintain that Christians must preach the Gospel as part of any missions activity - whether that is the primary focus (church-planting) or whether the Gospel accompanies a humanitarian effort (providing medical/dental care, farming & clean water projects, etc). And Biblical ethics are inherently superior to ethics found in many cultures - even the current USA culture which has turned decidedly to a post-Christian direction. There is not much in our modern American culture which is consistent with Biblical teachings.

 

Really? what biblical ethics are you referring to? the notion that your god requires a blood sacrifice to forgive sins? Not even Islam teaches that bronze age tidbit. What about the one where it says slavery is O.K. or that we should stone unruly children. Or how about when god orders the Israelis to commit genocide? Or how about when the early chruch kills two people for telling a lie. Or Elijah calling down bears on people who made fun of his bald head?

 

Oh don't get me wrong I know there are good things in the bible too. I'm sure you cherry pick those good parts and flatly ignore or reinterpret all the horrific bronze age behavior some how. But the notion that biblical ethics are superior is just plain nonsense. If that were true then why has Christian history been just as bloody (or more so) as any other religion?

 

Anyway, this statement is just the sort of bias I was talking about that causes missionaries to do harm to other cultures.

 

As far as American culture being post Christian....I only wish that were the case, but it does seem to be moving that direction somewhat. As far as I am concerned it isn't happening fast enough. Welcome to a world where we can choose our morality without relying on bronze age mythology. It isn't nearly as bad as you suppose, I've lived there for years and the weather is quite nice.

 

But if Christians do not preach the Gospel - that would be the height of hypocrisy. How could we have truths from God for our eternal salvation and not say anything about it?

 

You have said this before, and I even agreed that from the christian perspective this makes sense. Of course you are going to evangelize. However, to me, fundamentalist Christianity is false so the very act of spreading your religion is harmful.

I thought I made this fairly clear early on.

 

Re: Islam and blood sacrifices >> Muhammad, on his last pilgrimmage to Mecca, sacrificed 100 camels; and even today during their hajj, many Muslims sacrifice small animals to commemorate the acceptable sacrifice that Abraham made of the ram in place of Ishmael (rather than Isaac).

[Ouroboros]

Re: Islam and blood sacrifices >> Muhammad, on his last pilgrimmage to Mecca, sacrificed 100 camels; and even today during their hajj, many Muslims sacrifice small animals to commemorate the acceptable sacrifice that Abraham made of the ram in place of Ishmael (rather than Isaac).

Right. And where do you think they got the idea from?

 

..edit..

 

Sorry, I read the quote and found the part you responded to. Do you think you could edit the quotes and just leave the part of interest? It kind of gets a bit overwhelming to see 100% of every quote everywhere and all the time. Just keep what is necessary for your post. Take the quote of you above here, I didn't leave the whole quote, with the other quotes within, but cut out the excess. It makes it easier to see what specific part I responded to.

[rayskidude]

I am relating specific teachings of Christianity and the promulgation of such within a culture, and specific actions of Christians to eliminate certain wicked practices with the actual outlawing of said wicked practices. SO your post ad hoc fallacy does not apply. History has shown that Christians have worked in a variety of cultures to eliminate harmful practices - to the benefit of the people.

 

Like talking to a wall. Either post a study that shows a statistically significant correlation or just shut up. You xians and your logic just make me tired.

 

When exactly in human history have statistics become the norm for analysis? Do you think much Stats were kept at all before 1850AD? You're asking for stats on events that occurred when stats weren't kept. Therefore, we must cite historical examples from reliable sources. And there are plenty of examples of Christians working to outlaw slavery, working to quell tribal violence & wife-stealing, working to end cannibalism and child sacrifice, etc.

 

And re: an earlier post - do you think the Indian gov't actually kept stats on sati (wife-burning)? Its occurence was common enough for Christian missionaries to work to outlaw that practice.

[rayskidude]

Here's where you're worng - I am not attempting to relate increased rainfall in April on the East Coast with an increase in traffic accidents in May on LA freeways.

 

I am relating specific teachings of Christianity and the promulgation of such within a culture, and specific actions of Christians to eliminate certain wicked practices with the actual outlawing of said wicked practices. SO your post ad hoc fallacy does not apply. History has shown that Christians have worked in a variety of cultures to eliminate harmful practices - to the benefit of the people.

 

Do you no understand post hoc? You can't just make a bald assertion that because the people who eliminated the practices were Christians they did so BECAUSE they were Christians? You can't just say, "its not post hoc" and then go on to make a claim that is the dictionary definition of such.

 

Your example of a post hoc is an obvious one, but in the real world post hoc's are usually much more subtle....much like the one you are using.

 

First you need to show actual correlation (which you haven't done with anything other than anecdotal evidence) then you need to show causation.

 

Of course Christians have worked in many cultures to eliminate harmful practices, just as other people have to. I did not claim they didn't, I suggested this was a post hoc because you claim they did it BECAUSE they are Christians with out any evidence to demonstrate this.

 

And re" the Middle Ages, and specifically the plague - are you saying that the eliminiation of bathhouses was a major contributing factor? Are you saying Christians worked against personal cleanliness, or public hygienic practices?

 

When you say they didn't support all the public works - what works? And what was their political power status to decry public cleanliness? You've travelled around - and you know that many people are prone to dispose of trash wherever it's convenient for them - thus trash heaps are born and rat infestation is the result. This is laziness & selfishness - not religion.

 

Yes, this is exactly what I am saying. For quite a while after the fall of the roman empire the church was the only organization with any money or power. Do you really think the catholic church had no political power in the middle ages?

 

You can actually find writings of various clergy during that time telling people that taking a bath too often was bad for your health, and they DID close the public baths, this is a well known piece of historical information.

 

And re: "Christians" supporting slavery - many people have hidden behind "supposed" Biblical teachings to justify their sin. I would encourage you to review the biography of John Newton - who was a slave-trader, but then abandoned that business after his conversion to evangelical Christianity.

 

and now I suppose I need to add "no true Scotsman" to the list of your more notable logical fallacies. There is no passage in the bible which says that slave owners do not qualify as christians....and quite a few that contradict such a claim. Ever read Philemon?

 

Are you really going to claim that the bible does not support slavery? Both the old and new testaments are full of instructions on proper slave ownership. Little tidbits like, if you beat your slave to death but it takes a day or two for him to die you get off with no punishment.

 

Please do not insult my intelligence by suggesting slave owners were "misreading" the bible to find support for slavery.

 

Oh, and telling me to read a biography of ONE man, is another example of anecdotal evidence. One example means absolutly nothing to my argument. Now if I were claiming that ALL Christians support slavery you would have something...but I never made such a silly claim.

 

SO you're actually suggesting that Christians working against societal ills are not motivated to do so primarly because of their Christianity? Our religion - whateveer it may be - forms the basis for our lives, it affects how we live and make decisions moreso than any other aspect. It will even take precedence over our drive for self-preservation in certain extreme cases.

 

In science, the last "why" question you ask about physical phenomena is a physics question; in life, the last question you ask is a religious question.

[Ouroboros]

Ray, do you think you can edit the quotes and just keep the part you are answering? It's a bit hard to read other people's posts several times over and then guess which part in there you actually did respond to.

[rayskidude]

I am relating specific teachings of Christianity and the promulgation of such within a culture, and specific actions of Christians to eliminate certain wicked practices with the actual outlawing of said wicked practices. SO your post ad hoc fallacy does not apply. History has shown that Christians have worked in a variety of cultures to eliminate harmful practices - to the benefit of the people.

And as AM said earlier in the thread, if you're going to claim Christianity is solely responsible for the good things Christians do, then Christianity must accept responsibility for the horrible things Christians do. Either Christianity is solely responsible for morality or it's not , but you can't on the one hand say Christianity is responsible for morality but then turn around and say it's not responsible when it's done something immoral.

 

 

 

And re: "Christians" supporting slavery - many people have hidden behind "supposed" Biblical teachings to justify their sin. I would encourage you to review the biography of John Newton - who was a slave-trader, but then abandoned that business after his conversion to evangelical Christianity.

And you should read 1 Peter sometime.

Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. 19For it is to your credit if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly. 20If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, where is the credit in that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God’s approval. 21For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you should follow in his steps.

22‘He committed no sin,

and no deceit was found in his mouth.’

23When he was abused, he did not return abuse; when he suffered, he did not threaten; but he entrusted himself to the one who judges justly. 24He himself bore our sins in his body on the cross,* so that, free from sins, we might live for righteousness; by his wounds* you have been healed. 25For you were going astray like sheep, but now you have returned to the shepherd and guardian of your souls.

 

 

I Peter acknowledeges that slavery exists, and that many believers were slaves. But keep in mind, that many of these slaves are what we would term "indentured servants" today. I saw dozens of these indentured servants when I lived in Iraq, they were generally Bengali and had signed 2-year contracts to work for various rich Kurds or for the Kurdish gov't.

 

The point of I Peter - is that believers are aliens and exiles in this world - because our citizenship is in heaven. And though we may be mistreated on Earth, yet God is able to supply whatever grace we need to persevere in that situation. Jesus Christ Himself was serverely mistreated, and yet God used that for His Glory. And as we persevere under mistreatment, those unbelievers who are in power will be amazed - and they will wonder at the hope that the Christian maintains in the face of persecution. Which in turn will cause them to ask - "What is the hope that you have in the future?"

 

1Pe 3:14 But even if you should suffer for righteousness' sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled,

1Pe 3:15 but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,

1Pe 3:16 having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.

 

1Pe 4:12 Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you.

1Pe 4:13 But rejoice insofar as you share Christ's sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed.

1Pe 4:14 If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you.

1Pe 4:15 But let none of you suffer as a murderer or a thief or an evildoer or as a meddler.

1Pe 4:16 Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name.

1Pe 4:17 For it is time for judgment to begin at the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God?

1Pe 4:18 And "If the righteous is scarcely saved, what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?"

1Pe 4:19 Therefore let those who suffer according to God's will entrust their souls to a faithful Creator while doing good.

[Neon Genesis]

I Peter acknowledeges that slavery exists, and that many believers were slaves. But keep in mind, that many of these slaves are what we would term "indentured servants" today. I saw dozens of these indentured servants when I lived in Iraq, they were generally Bengali and had signed 2-year contracts to work for various rich Kurds or for the Kurdish gov't.

 

The point of I Peter - is that believers are aliens and exiles in this world - because our citizenship is in heaven. And though we may be mistreated on Earth, yet God is able to supply whatever grace we need to persevere in that situation. Jesus Christ Himself was serverely mistreated, and yet God used that for His Glory. And as we persevere under mistreatment, those unbelievers who are in power will be amazed - and they will wonder at the hope that the Christian maintains in the face of persecution. Which in turn will cause them to ask - "What is the hope that you have in the future?"

But nowhere in those verses does it say anything about servants. It clearly says slaves and then it goes on to talk about how it's ok to beat your slaves. If they're just paid servants, why would they be beaten and why does 1 Peter approve of such barbarism? And 1 Peter is not simply acknowledging the existence of slavery. It clearly says that slaves must accept their authority. The author is clearly saying that slaves must obey their masters. If these are just paid servants who are volunteering for the job, why would Peter need to tell them to accept authority, including the authority of those masters that beat them? And you're contradicting yourself by saying 1 Peter acknowledges that there are Christians who practice slavery but it's not really slavery. Either it's slavery or it's not.

[Kuroikaze]

SO you're actually suggesting that Christians working against societal ills are not motivated to do so primarly because of their Christianity? Our religion - whateveer it may be - forms the basis for our lives, it affects how we live and make decisions moreso than any other aspect. It will even take precedence over our drive for self-preservation in certain extreme cases.

 

In science, the last "why" question you ask about physical phenomena is a physics question; in life, the last question you ask is a religious question.

 

Actually I was not necessarily suggesting that. What i was suggesting was that you support your claims with more than a bald assertion. I guess that is too much trouble for you though.

 

I was also suggesting that you have not demonstrated that there is anything in the christian religion which is necessarily anti-slavery. A point which you entirely ignored.

 

It is quite irritating to talk with you, not because of your religion mind you, but because of your singular inability to understand even the most basic principals of logic.

You flatly refuse to produce facts to back up any claim you make, I can only assume this is because you have no facts, just a lot of assumptions which seem reasonable to you.

[Kuroikaze]

I Peter acknowledeges that slavery exists, and that many believers were slaves. But keep in mind, that many of these slaves are what we would term "indentured servants" today. I saw dozens of these indentured servants when I lived in Iraq, they were generally Bengali and had signed 2-year contracts to work for various rich Kurds or for the Kurdish gov't.

 

Don't feed us this line of horse shit.

 

The bible says you can beat your slave to fucking death as long as it takes a few days for him to die. (exodus 21:20)

 

Also (exodus 21:2) while they were required to let a Jewish slave go after 7 years, you could keep the slaves wife and kids, and the only way for him to stay with them was to agree to become a slave permanently. I don't care what you say, that is damn sick.

 

Does that sound like a fucking INDENTURED SERVANT to you? Give me a break. This goes to the top of the list of stupid things you have said.

 

Even if they treat their slaves well, they are still OWNING another human being.

[rayskidude]

Ray, do you think you can edit the quotes and just keep the part you are answering? It's a bit hard to read other people's posts several times over and then guess which part in there you actually did respond to.

 

Yes - sorry for that. I will seek to follow your request.

[rayskidude]

Ray, do you think you can edit the quotes and just keep the part you are answering? It's a bit hard to read other people's posts several times over and then guess which part in there you actually did respond to.

 

Unfortunately I'm not sure how to do this - my computer skills are limited; do you "Reply" and then block and delete what you don't necessarily want to address?

 

Thnx for any help you can provide.

[Ouroboros]

Ray, do you think you can edit the quotes and just keep the part you are answering? It's a bit hard to read other people's posts several times over and then guess which part in there you actually did respond to.

 

Unfortunately I'm not sure how to do this - my computer skills are limited; do you "Reply" and then block and delete what you don't necessarily want to address?

 

Thnx for any help you can provide.

When you hit reply, you get the quote within the block starting with [ quote ] and ending with [ / quote ]. Just remove the text in there you're not addressing, and just put "..." in the places you cut away, and it at least would save some space on the server, plus it would help to get the reference to your answer more clear too. Thanks.

[Antlerman]

reference to your answer more

Like this? That makes the reply more in context like this and much more understandable.

 

clear too.

It does. I agree.

 

Thanks.

You're welcome...

 

 

 

 

BTW, one thing I like to do is to put a quote that's from somewhere else that I used as a reference inside the [ indent] [ /indent] brackets. It makes it clear that it's not a poster in the thread I replying to, but quoting an external reference. just makes it visually stand out beter, like this:

"He that beateth the snake with the palm of his hand shall be greatly rewarded." Hezekiah 3:18

 

Now you can see more clearly the reference. Carry on....

[rayskidude]

"You can paint a picture of any society pretty much any way you wish by focusing on a few bad apples and as long as the reader is ignorant. I've lived in Russia for the past 5 years, lived in India, Costa Rica, Venezuela, Italy and have been all over at least a 1/3 of this globe. What I've found is that people everywhere are pretty much the same with only minor differences. People have families and friends who they care for. They have bills to pay, worries, loves, sadness, friendships, enemies, etc... etc... "

 

I agree whole-heartedly.

 

"If I felt like wasting any more time on you I could fill a book giving you reasons why western cultural values are oftentimes worse than values held in the 1/3 world, but I won't because that would also require I be ethnocentric and focus on certain aspects of a culture while ignoring others as you have consistently done here."

 

I don't believe that I've ever sung the praises of Western cultural values; but I would champion a diligent aplication of Christian values. Those terms are not synonymous.

 

"But the big question is why am I wasting my time on this?  You have obviously made up your mind that you know the truth so I'll never convince you.  I guess I bother to respond so that others who haven't made up their mind will have a broader perspective from which to consider before they make up their minds should they ever choose to do so."

 

Though there are some things that I know to be true and I cannot see myself turning from them, there are certainly many aspects of life where I need to learn and grow. I believe that this is true for everyone - and it's what drives me to continue in these conversations. Mutual edification.

[Vigile]

When exactly in human history have statistics become the norm for analysis?

 

Look, without statistical analysis you can make any old claim about causation and it sounds good but the proof is in the pudding. You don't actually need analysis performed in the past however to provide a valid study, you just need valid data that can be analyzed now. If you don't have the data you can't make the claim. At least not with a straight face.

 

Beyond this I will just not that Kuri rebutted your ad hoc denial quite soundly. If you are still having trouble with this concept, let me just say that I'm very happy you don't work for the FDA. If you do, then I'm very happy I don't live in the US and left vulnerable to an FDA that would hire a person who mistakes proximity and exigency with causation.

[Vigile]

When exactly in human history have statistics become the norm for analysis?

 

Look, without statistical analysis you can make any old claim about causation and if it sounds good the unwashed masses will probably believe you but the proof is in the pudding. You don't actually need analysis performed in the past however to provide a valid study, you just need valid data that can be analyzed now. If you don't have the data you can't make the claim. At least not with a straight face.

 

Beyond this I will just not that Kuroi rebutted your ad hoc denial quite soundly. If you are still having trouble with this concept, let me just say that I'm very happy you don't work for the FDA. If you do, then I'm very happy I don't live in the US and left vulnerable to an FDA that would hire a person who mistakes proximity and extenuating circumstances with causation.

 

And there are plenty of examples of Christians working to outlaw slavery, working to quell tribal violence & wife-stealing, working to end cannibalism and child sacrifice, etc.

 

Yes, and there are plenty of examples of xians doing a lot of rotten things. There are plenty of examples of non xians doing both good and bad things as well. You see where causation and correlation becomes a problem for your argument now? Meh, probably not.

[Ouroboros]

this

 

reply

 

is

 

not

 

clearly the reference.