FW: Christian Slavery (2/2)

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

POOBAH  (past)
Well there's a Christian atrocity. Live with it. Thank your God for allowing
it to happen by not making his will clearer.

CARTER
Poobah, the logic is so flawed with your statement its not even funny. Has
atheism been used to justify rape, murder, cannibalism, Hitler's
extermination of the Jews, etc. etc.? Yes, so there are many atheist
atrocities. Live with it. Thank your philosophy for allowing it to happen,
because your philosophical system was not clearer.

POOBAH
Show me anywhere where atheism has been used to justify rape, murder,
cannabilism. After that, show me that it has been used on the same scale as
Christianity to justify those actions.

As for Hitler, I will note that you are either mistaken or lying for Jesus.
Start with one of those childish arguments from infidels.org:

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/arguments.html#hitler

I expect that you will tell us that Hitler wasn't a "real Christian" but he
certainly wasn't an atheist. The honest thing for you to do would be to
retract that statement.

CARTER
Do you see how dumb that argument is? You cannot label something a
"Christian" atrocity unless it was done out of a commandment of Christ, or
the apostles, or God, or committed in light of a absolutely correct
adherence to biblical Christianity.

POOBAH
No, I label it a Christian atrocity if it was done by Christians with either
scriptural support, or for the benefit of the Church. You haven't proven
that there is such a thing as "absolutely correct adherence to biblical
Christianity" and there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Nonetheless, no atheist claims infallibility. You Christians claim it for
your God. If he didn't want atrocities committed in the name of
Christianity, or with the unwitting use of its scriptures, as the ultimate
author he could have prevented it by dictating them in such a way as to make
his will unambiguous. Regardless of what verses you quote in Matthew, the
fact that there is so much disagreement between self-avowed Christians tells
me that either the book is ambiguous, or he didn't care about getting his
message across clearly. You would add a third option, that the readers are
either mistaken or willful, but do to that you must first show that your
reading is correct, and is the only reading.

You haven't done that.

CARTER
The only thing you can say with certainty is, "Certain fallible people who
confessed to be Christians, committed these acts under their (probably
incorrect) interpretation  of scripture, or their own indivdual motives,
while CLAIMING to do their actions 'in the name of Christ'."

POOBAH
Okay, you're right (although I would remove the probably incorrect. I see no
evidence of that). Now I will add, "A certain fallible person, Jason Carter,
who confesses to be a Christian, makes claims based on his interpretation of
scripture, or his individual motives, while CLAIMING to do so 'in the name
of Christ.'"

Why should I believe you? And you can't assert a "correct hermeneutic."
You'll have to demonstrate it, and further demonstrate that it is the only
one. Until you do, why isn't it reasonable to take each & every one of you
Christians at your word and assume that the Bible can be used to justify all
of the things for which people quote scripture?

CARTER
Lastly, you have absolutely no ground to even call slavery an "atrocity",
because you have no binding moral system to label it as objectively wrong.

POOBAH
I don't need one. First of all the reasons why I might find slavery
objectionable aren't germane to the list (although I have rational,
demonstrable reasons). The fact is that since you consider it an atrocity,
and Christians were in the forefront of supporting it, is enough to either
give lie to the notion that objective morality exists or that Christians are
moral.

POOBAH
Wow! If only you had been there in the 19th century. You could have kept the
Southern Baptists from splitting off, you could have saved an entire nation
an anguished debate, you could have prevented a bloody civil war with the
deaths of millions by pointing out to those Christian supporters of slavery
"you missed that bit."

CARTER
As I'm sure I don't have to point out, not everyone in the south (including
Southern Baptists) was a supporter of slavery.

POOBAH
I never said that everyone in the south was. The Southern Baptists were
founded because of their support of slavery. Simple historical fact. For you
to be right, every soon-to-be Southern Baptist who prayed for divine
guidance in the early 19th century, who searched the scriptures & their
souls, got it wrong. I think that's a bit arrogant & presumptive, don't you?

CARTER
Secondly, societal views can influence religious values. For instance,
liberal Christianity asserts that practicing homosexuality is not "wrong",
however, conservative Christianity asserts that it is. One of the two is
right.

POOBAH
Well we agree that societal views & religious values influence one another.
What do you suppose that does to your position of objective morality, hmm?
Remember, Till said, even if it exists how can you know what it is? You seem
to be indicating you can't, because on the one hand you said American
slavery was objectively wrong, and yet you are saying that societal views
influenced religious values with regard to slavery. It looks like in this
matter at least, it is impossible to know what is objectively right & wrong,
so how can you assert that you know it is objectively wrong?

Secondly, as far as homosexuality, you left out a third option. It is
neither right nor wrong, but simply is.

I've heard a Buddhist saying that everything is true, everything is false,
everything is true & false, everything is neither true nor false.

Do me a favor and try living outside your dualist world for a while.

• Previous message: FW: Christian Slavery (1/2)
• Next message: FW: Christian Slavery (2/2)
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]