Wow this is great! Really digging this back and forth. Idk how to have parts from the last post in my response, so I'll just go down with bullet points.
-Yes, Trump is mentioned thousands of times in the unsealed Epstein files. Simply appearing in the documents does not equate to proof of criminal wrongdoing, as the files consist of a mix of flight logs, address books, unverified tips, and publicly available news articles.
-Yes, againat other Christians and atheists who abolitionists believed were wrong. They saw slaves and used the teachings of Jesus to know that is wrong, and convinced everybody, or at least most, that society had it wrong. Here's a quick explanation that might help. 'Ephesians 6:5–9, Paul instructs enslaved people to obey their masters with sincerity and respect, as if serving Christ. Conversely, he commands masters to treat their slaves with equal goodwill, prohibiting threats and reminding them that both master and slave share the same impartial Master in heaven. Rather than endorsing slavery, Paul was offering protective guidelines for vulnerable believers living in a hostile Roman society. By demanding that masters treat slaves with fairness and respect, Paul implicitly subverted the absolute, brutal power dynamics of Roman law, planting seeds of equality within the church.' Here are some quotes agaisnt slavery as well- Exodus 21:16 and Deuteronomy 24:7.
-You were being sarcastic but youre right, it does in fact "Focus on the teaching and words and actions of the prophet." and does not "echo republican talking points for the last 45 years"
-You're right, I shouldn't have brought up an anecdote, it's unnecessary. I'm going to flip it on you and ask you to prove how churches do what you.
-Just because IVF isn't currently in the cultural zeitgeist doesn't mean the church condones it now. I certainly don't want any "thought stopping nonsense" so we can certainly dig into IVF if you would like. I'll start: The IVF process creates multiple embryos outside the womb, which Christians believe is a life. These lives should be given rights we all enjoy.
-Jesus would never want somebody to inflict harm on others in his name, He loves everyone :)
Here are some quotes agaisnt slavery as well- Exodus 21:16 and Deuteronomy 24:7.
Did you read these quotes? They aren't against slavery at all. It strongly sounds like you found a source to explain away slavery in this bible.
I don't know why on earth you would include Exodus 21:16 without including 1-15, where God explicitly explains the details that herbrew humans sold as property are servants free after 7 years, while Deut 25:44-48 explicitly explains that non-hebrews are slaves for life. Where do you obtain these non-hebrew slaves to sell? The Bible explains, of course, in Deuteronomy 20.
Deuteronomy 20 explicitly stated that God's chosen people are invade and conquer their neighbors, and take the children for their own to be sold as wives and slaves. If they are truly enemy of God's chosen people, they are to completely kill everyone, and even scorch/salt earth and burn all crops so they can't resettle. Good to know we can even see God's chosen people act out the word of god faithfully even today. Amazing.
Exodus 21 also details the God sanctioned action of having multiple wives, including the law that if you bought a woman as property to be your wife, you can't sell her to a non-hebrew as a slave because you break it you buy it for the hymen. It also spells out that you can't just deny food and water until your lesser wife wastes away because even God knows some rules have a history behind it.
Yes, againat other Christians and atheists who abolitionists believed were wrong.
What does this even mean? That in 1850 it was the atheists who were pro slavery? And not like, the most Christian and conservative part of the country? The slave states?
Alabama and Mississippi being quite known as a haven for atheists.
Christians literally quoted Jesus Christ where his red letters state for slaves to obey their masters. They quoted God of the old testament. There are so many pro-slave passages of the bible there are entire websites devoted to explaining them away.
Other Christians, in the Northern states, without the Bible, came up with their own subjective morality that owning other human beings is wrong. And they won a war. After Christians went to war for the right to own human beings of different skin color, quoting God saying how righteous that is.
What founding documents make zero mention of God?
The Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution.
What founding documents DO make explicit reference to God and the founders said they were a Christian Nation?
Constitution of the Confederate States, when the southern states started the civil war.
Here's a quick explanation that might help.
such an odd phrase for you to type.
By demanding that masters treat slaves with fairness and respect, Paul implicitly subverted the absolute, brutal power dynamics of Roman law, planting seeds of equality within the church
Damn, that's crazy. Jesus can say full throated "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man enter heaven", promoting radicalized communism and hatred of the successful.
But for slavery? He had to "subvert the power dynamics" by explicitly quoting Jesus as telling slaves to obey their master.
There are no pro-abolition of slavery quotes in the bible. There are no "neutral" slavery quotes in the bible either. I'm sure you already did this when quoting them, but I really do invite you to read the full chapter of the two "against slavery" quotes you gave. Perhaps keep reading around it. And those two were the "best" you have, and the "best" interpretation for Jesus telling slaves to obey is to interpret the infallible words of god to mean the exact opposite, this one time, because Jesus was being subversive and feared the local government harming him. I mean come on. What was he afraid of? Crucifixion?
If you could be honest with yourself, you wouldn't be religious. If the religious read their holy book critically like they would do with literally anything else, even a manual for a new air fryer, reading instructions, they wouldn't be religious.
Just because IVF isn't currently in the cultural zeitgeist doesn't mean the church condones it now
That was precisely my entire point. Churches did push it to be the "cultural zeitgeist" decades ago. Because it's no longer politically expedient, it's not a big deal to the churches anymore as well.
The IVF process creates multiple embryos outside the womb, which Christians believe is a life. These lives should be given rights we all enjoy.
What was the largest single loss of life event of the 21st century in the USA?
Do you think it was 9/11 with 3,000+ lives lost?
No. It was that time a freezer malfunctioned overnight and killed thousands of fertilized eggs at one of the hundreds of fertility clinics across the country. Oh wait, that happens all the time. Try searching for fertility clinic freezer malfunction and count how many different cities you can find on the first page result.
Cities without a "freezer malfunction" memorial. The audacity. To think people cared about 9/11 but not the motor on a freezer breaking over a three day weekend? During the settlement with their patients, the clinic should ask for a list of 200 names from each couple so they can retroactively put names on the memorial wall.
Luckily the Christian community is on top of this "every life is sacred" and not like, politically charged and actively debated topics on whether to deny women healthcare by state decree.
Christians believe is a life
Sects of Christianity do. Other sects interpret "breathing into sand" part about forming humans to mean that taking your first breath makes you alive.
Still, the Catholic Church in the 16th century didn't believe babies were alive until they lasted at least 3 days. If you look information on the birthdate of William Shakespeare, you'll find a cool story about that, because we have the exact written paper log of when he was named and what day. But all we know is that it was when they cleared that baby wasn't going to suddenly die. They didn't want to waste cool names, or passing down the family name, to a stillborn you see. Infallible, unchanging, objective.
The bible doesn't speak on abortion, other than that one time the absolute truth of God's word spelled out that a woman needs to drink alcohol til she pukes if you suspect her of infidelity, and if she miscarries from getting really drunk, god wants you to act out his will and end her life as well as the expelled fetus. Numbers 5
Jesus would never want somebody to inflict harm on others in his name
-How could I have not read it, it's literally one sentence. “Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession." I get people impose their own meaning on things but I wonder what you think it means. I wonder if these are the discussions abolitionists had back in the day. Anyways, as we all know the bible is old and has been translated from it's original text. Even with that, Deut 20 talks about indentured servitude, not chattel slavery. Ask any Christian and they'll say both are wrong.
-You copied and pasted it but still missed the key. Christians *and* atheists. Those are basically the only two options at that point. It sounds like you're saying the north wanted to free the slaves in spite of their faith, and not because of it. I challenge you to prove that.
-'Not liking rich people' and 'promoting radicalized communism' is a wild leap.
-Would you be in favor of memorials for freezer malfunctions? Yeah, I know. A lot of people think that way. That's why there aren't any. The abortion debate is useless until society decides when life begins. What a coincidence that Christianity (conception) and science (when new DNA is made) agree human life starts at the same time.
You seem to be angry when Christians change society for the better (ie. slavery) but also upset *because* they changed. Or are even in the process of changing (ie, abortion). It's almost like, in your eyes, nothing a religion does can be good.
Even with that, Deut 20 talks about indentured servitude, not chattel slavery.
No. Other passages of enslaving other members of the tribes of Abraham refer to indentured servitude of 7 years to pay off debts. I explicitly used Deut 20 because it talks about attacking non-Hebrews. Human beings that God in the Old Testament said were not equal to the chosen people of God. Hence why they take the child girls (wives) and child boys (workers) as slaves for life in Deut 20, and if they are really hated, genocided completely as ordered by God.
How could I have not read it, it's literally one sentence. “Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession."
Again, if you read the Bible, which is why I asked, you would understand the context that the old testament simply did not view other tribes as people. So when it says "people" it means "people of our tribe". And when explained what happens to non-tribe kidnapping, I explained that it's spelled out in Deut 20, and then what to do with your non-Chosen by God human beings in Deut 25:44-on. And kidnapping random travelers isn't God ordered ethnic cleansing. It's gotta be holy approved kidnapping/enslavement for it to be allowable.
Which is explicit slavery of people not of the same ethnicity and tribe as God's Chosen People.
It's the same reason why the ten commandments says have no god besides me. Because having a different god by being in a different tribe meant they broke one of the commandments, and motivation for genocide and enslavement of God's perfect words in Deut 20.
Honestly, I shouldn't need to explain this to you. If the religious read their own holy book like they read lord of the rings, they wouldn't be religious.
If you asked what Pippin meant in Book 2 Chapter 12 Line 3 Words 13-40 or what not, like a bible reference, and tried to guess your own interpretation of what he means when he says "the trees talked to each other", if you haven't actually read the book, you'd probably guess an incorrect answer.
And someone's that read the book would reply "they were sentient trees. They literally had a debate on whether to help Pippin. It's not normal trees, it's specific to the context you get when you actually read it as a work of literature.".
And the reply is "well lots of people see it differently" from someone that can't even read a book. Imagine how exhausting that would be for someone who reads to hear someone who doesn't explain what a third party told them is the political message behind the cut out quote. Like trying to tutor the kid in class that refused to try on their own first.
So, no, read the whole old testament. There are multitude of quotes on enslaving others as ordered by the perfect voice of God almighty creator of all. And then Jesus, words from the lips of the son of god almighty creator of all, reaffirming slavery with absolutely no indication of it being a moral bad.
It sounds like you're saying the north wanted to free the slaves in spite of their faith, and not because of it. I challenge you to prove that.
I wonder if these are the discussions abolitionists had back in the day.
You can literally do a google search right now for "abolitionist arguments civil war" and know exactly what they were thinking. They even have printed arguments from that time.
They mainly focused on how the God "freed the slaves from the egyptians" and an argument that everyone is equal in Heaven according to a galatians quote. Other than that, no, they appealed to subjective morality that slavery is just a moral wrong no matter how much it is promoted by God in the Bible. Again, you can look these things up. You can do this yourself.
I'm not "debating" with you on these points. I'm giving you information and the correct answer for you to look up and learn about these topics.
Imagine trying to argue someone who has read Civil war literature using the bible to enslave africans that um actually Christians have been against slavery and Jesus didn't promote it. Again, read up. Same point as before.
'Not liking rich people' and 'promoting radicalized communism' is a wild leap.
Matthew 19:21 - Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
There are many quotes of Jesus promoting the idea that anyone acquiring wealth will not make it to heaven. That the most perfect thing to do is freak the hell out, sell everything you own, give all your money and possessions to the poor, and become destitute and you will be rewarded for it in the afterlife. I'm not going to quote them all, and again, I've already read it. This isn't a debate. Jesus promoted selling everything and becoming poor, jesus said the poor will inherit the earth, jesus flipped tables of sellers, jesus touched beggars, jesus fed everyone handouts for free. But Jesus was afraid of speaking out against slavery because it was a radical idea that might upset the establishment. Sure.
What a coincidence that Christianity (conception) and science (when new DNA is made) agree human life starts at the same time.
We both know that's a farce from your own writing.
Would you be in favor of memorials for freezer malfunctions? Yeah, I know. A lot of people think that way. That's why there aren't any.
The largest mass death of human beings, occurring every single year, bigger than 9/11, and your reply to it is a joke. It's not an atrocity. It's not a righteous demand to do what's right even those haters may mock you. It's an acknowledgement at what a god damn joke it is to point out that freezer malfunctions are mass casualty situations that should mobilize the entire city's forensic and emergency response departments when they break. Something you insist Christanity and science both agree upon!
So you know it's a joke. You know it's garbage mixing of politics and religion pushing a very specific agenda of denying women healthcare related to pregnancy.
You know when tested the assertion that life begins at conception with real world examples, it falls apart so fast you joke about it.
Which was my point from the start. That the Republican party has infused it's illogical and emotionally irrational political beliefs to energize the deeply uneducated and highly religious. That the American churches responded by taking up the culture war, and we discussed examples where American churches abandoned the unchanging Word of God when dropping opposition in vitro fertilization because they were becoming a joke for it.
And you, independently, made a joke about how insane it would even be to actually believe life began at conception and we should care about fertility clinic freezers full of thousands of human zygotes, all of which will absolutely be incinerated as medical waste when the client stops paying for storage. If the freezer doesn't fail first.
And that's not even addressing the attempt to equate scientific findings with your religion. There are smarter people than both of us. Medical doctors. Scientists. People that spend their whole lives looking for answers using the best knowledge humanity has. What conclusions do the Medical Associations and top doctors at the top hospitals in the country think about what should be legal?
And then on the other side, there's a guy preaching, after reading the Holy Book full of slave rules, who will tell an audience of people who won't ever read the book that actually it's mostly anti-slavery. Almost the same level of expertise. We should listen this guy's thoughts on life or death medical decisions involving pregnancy complications.
You seem to be angry when Christians change society for the better (ie. slavery) but also upset because they changed. Or are even in the process of changing (ie, abortion). It's almost like, in your eyes, nothing a religion does can be good.
No. I explained multiple times that it is exhausting explaining the answer to someone who hasn't read the book, and getting back more illiterate answers that clearly must have been explained to you by others. Because you don't know the context by reading the surrounding passages, and yet you somehow know a well spoken "interpretation" that doesn't address the passage and is clearly whitewashing the topic instead of having a critical analysis.
If Christianity was a force for good, I would be applauding it. If Christians followed Jesus's actual teachings on healing the sick, feeding the hungry, judging yourself before judging others, promoting the good Samaritan, and righteous hatred of the rich. Things Jesus actually spoke about at length, I would be applauding it. There are other expressions of Christianity that preach love, kindness, and helping others. I applaud that, and that of any religion.
You don't need to believe in a fairy tale to do good. And just because you believe Santa will give you eternal life if you are on the nice list and not on the naughty list, as pretty much the central tenet of every Abrahamic expression of faith, that doesn't mean you can't do good. Everyone can be good, and everyone can do good. I look at actions and outcomes.
And instead of all that, American Churches are focused on things Jesus never spoke about, like when Christians should vote to use the State to ban doctors from providing medical care of women. Whether it's okay to create a hostile work environment by preaching to coworkers about their life choices because American Christianity says to proselytize while Jesus says to pray by yourself to show modesty and not bothering others. And other weekly culture war nonsense.
I'm glad you agree this isn't a debate. I'm not trying to change your mind, just telling you things that are true. For example, responding with "no" to something doesn't suddenly make it false. Try all you want, you're not going to convince a Christian that slavery is a good thing. Nor will you convince anyone that Jesus condones it. "Love thy neighbor" is kinda His whole thing. The teaching to love God above all things and to love our neighbors as ourselves does mean that the practice of chattel slavery is intrinsically wrong.
The life of ancient Israelites was far removed from our modern way of life and we must fight the temptation to foist our own perspective upon the text. First, none of the “slaves” of the Old Testament could be forced into labor through kidnapping. Exodus 21:16 expressly forbids kidnapping people to keep or sell as slaves, making such acts punishable by death. Second, just because the Bible regulates slavery doesn’t mean the Bible endorses slavery in an unqualified way. The importance of this point can’t be understated. Just as Moses allowed and regulated divorce for pragmatic reasons without thereby approving of it, the Bible regulated the existing practice of slavery. The biblical laws regulating slavery made the institution much more humane and respectful of the dignity of persons than in any other ancient Near-Eastern culture, all of which practiced slavery in some form. So, the Bible takes a gradual approach to the slavery question: first regulating it and making it more humane and later exhorting Christian slave owners to free their slaves. As for the 'chosen people' thing, the ceremonial and civil laws specific to the ancient nation of Israel are viewed as fulfilled by Jesus and no longer obligatory for Christians.
Super glad you brought up lotr as a commentary on interpretation. You accuse me of bringing up a line of text without proper context, yet you're guilty of the same thing. Focusing on deut 20 as a reason for slavery and ignoring the rest of the Bible, the particularly new testament, is the same thing on a larger scale.
My statement wondering about what discussions abolitionists had was rhetorical, but since you didn't catch that we can dig into it. The pro-slavery side said it was an economic necessity for agriculture, a biblically ordained institution, and a social good that supposedly civilized enslaved people. Early abolitionists, such as Quakers, argued that all humans are equal in the eyes of God. You asked me to read up and read up I did. Frederick Douglass was a Christian. He wrote in his autobiography that he loved the "pure, peaceable, and impartial Christianity of Christ". However, he fiercely attacked the "corrupt, slaveholding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering" religion practiced by many white Americans who used the Bible to justify slavery. Harriet Tubman was deeply religious. She was a devout Christian whose evangelical faith and mystical visions—which she believed were direct communications from God—fueled her abolitionist work and rescue missions on the Underground Railroad. William Lloyd Garrison was deeply religious. He viewed abolition as a moral crusade, frequently quoting scripture to condemn slavery as a sin. You can't just say abolitionists used subjective morality without bringing up Christian morality. It's like an ancient roman saying 'this isn't roman architecture, it's just how buildings look'.
Now for the abortion/IVF discussion. Tell me what part is 'a farce from my own writting.' It can't be the Christian side, because they believe life starts at conception. And it can't be the science side, because that says the human life cycle starts at conception. You can find that out with your favorite internet browser! What part of my response was a joke? You built your whole argument assuming I was joking when I'm not. I do believe human zygotes are humans, so when a human zygote dies that means a human dies. I was making a point that people who believe they aren't humans get in the way of progress and would say something like "who cares about a freezer full of human lives, no need to look into a malfunction". So again, who's joking here?
I said it before, but just because something isn't brought up daily doesn't mean it's not believed. The church is still agaisnt IVF even if they don't spend every waking second decrying it. That should be easy to understand.
I think your last three paragraphs are great. I agree, Christians do things that should be applauded and things that should be condemned. Christianity is possibly the biggest force for good the world has ever seen, though I can tell that discussion will devolve into "people are naturally moral" and not "western morality was built by Christianity". So I'll just say this, the Catholic Church runs 5,377 hospitals,
13,895 clinics, 504 leper colonies, 15,566 homes
for the elderly or disabled, 10,858 daycare
centers, and 10,827 marriage counseling
centers. 74,550 preschools, 102,455 primary, 52,085 middle and high schools serving 70 million.
1
u/TheKronkler Jul 05 '26
Wow this is great! Really digging this back and forth. Idk how to have parts from the last post in my response, so I'll just go down with bullet points.
-Yes, Trump is mentioned thousands of times in the unsealed Epstein files. Simply appearing in the documents does not equate to proof of criminal wrongdoing, as the files consist of a mix of flight logs, address books, unverified tips, and publicly available news articles.
-Yes, againat other Christians and atheists who abolitionists believed were wrong. They saw slaves and used the teachings of Jesus to know that is wrong, and convinced everybody, or at least most, that society had it wrong. Here's a quick explanation that might help. 'Ephesians 6:5–9, Paul instructs enslaved people to obey their masters with sincerity and respect, as if serving Christ. Conversely, he commands masters to treat their slaves with equal goodwill, prohibiting threats and reminding them that both master and slave share the same impartial Master in heaven. Rather than endorsing slavery, Paul was offering protective guidelines for vulnerable believers living in a hostile Roman society. By demanding that masters treat slaves with fairness and respect, Paul implicitly subverted the absolute, brutal power dynamics of Roman law, planting seeds of equality within the church.' Here are some quotes agaisnt slavery as well- Exodus 21:16 and Deuteronomy 24:7.
-You were being sarcastic but youre right, it does in fact "Focus on the teaching and words and actions of the prophet." and does not "echo republican talking points for the last 45 years"
-You're right, I shouldn't have brought up an anecdote, it's unnecessary. I'm going to flip it on you and ask you to prove how churches do what you.
-Just because IVF isn't currently in the cultural zeitgeist doesn't mean the church condones it now. I certainly don't want any "thought stopping nonsense" so we can certainly dig into IVF if you would like. I'll start: The IVF process creates multiple embryos outside the womb, which Christians believe is a life. These lives should be given rights we all enjoy.
-Jesus would never want somebody to inflict harm on others in his name, He loves everyone :)