Tooth Fairy Bullshit

[Cecelia]

Also Christians brought slavery to the Americas, and slaughtered countless number of Native Americans. Then let's not forget the Spanish Inquisition. (Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition). Religion clearly inspired these things, yet you're not so quick to claim them. But you'll quickly lay claim to any good they do--even when they're clearly not the first.

[Lek]

Also Christians brought slavery to the Americas, and slaughtered countless number of Native Americans.  Then let's not forget the Spanish Inquisition.  (Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition).  Religion clearly inspired these things, yet you're not so quick to claim them.  But you'll quickly lay claim to any good they do--even when they're clearly not the first.

It is estimated that 1.4 to 1.6 percent of Americans owned slaves at the peak of slavery in the US.  Of that percentage, we don't know how many were christians.  When it comes to the religious views of the fathers of the country, people are quick to claim that most of them were not christians, but rather deists, but when it comes to slave owners they want to claim that they were all christians.  Probably some who claimed to be christians owned slaves and some of them were just not christians.  It also means that 98.6 to 98.4 percent of the population did not own slaves at all be they christians or not.  How many non-christians supported slavery at the time?

[Cecelia]

It is estimated that 1.4 to 1.6 percent of Americans owned slaves at the peak of slavery in the US.  Of that percentage, we don't know how many were christians.  When it comes to the religious views of the fathers of the country, people are quick to claim that most of them were not christians, but rather deists, but when it comes to slave owners they want to claim that they were all christians.  Probably some who claimed to be christians owned slaves and some of them were just not christians.  It also means that 98.6 to 98.4 percent of the population did not own slaves at all be they christians or not.  How many non-christians supported slavery at the time?

Well, your bible says that slavery is A-OK.  So I think it's safe to say that Christianity was pretty pro-slavery.  Some Christians like to believe it's not.  But while Christians may have had something to do with ending slavery (At least in America)--CHRISTIANITY did not.

[Catholic_Lady]

If you look at some specific texts, especially in the OT, it is favorable to slavery. But the message of the Bible, in its enitrety, and especially the message of Jesus, was very much about loving your neighbor as yourself and treating others the way you want to be treated. Which goes against kidnapping ppl, forcing them to work, and treating them like property.

I don't doubt that many Christians throughout history have used anything they could in the Bible as an excuse to own slaves, but many also came to the realization that all life is sacred and that we have an inherent god given right to freedom, also through the bible.

To suggest that christian principles, as a whole, are pro slavery, is dishonest.

It is also important to put things into context. A Lot of the times, the word that was used for "slave" was the same word used for servant. Or ppl who voluntarily work for someone else to pay off some sort of debt to them.

With that being said, as a Catholic, I agree that the bible alone should not be considered the main pillar of truth or authority. Bc many things are confusing, not clear, and can be interpreted many different ways. Unfortunately that is why we have so many different denominations to christianity.

[Cecelia]

Maybe instead of saying "Slaves obey your earthly masters" Jesus should have said "Slave owners release your slaves!". Much like with Paul saying "A woman should not be permitted to teach" should have said "Women and Men should be seen as equals." But you know... I'm sure it was all very confusing.

[Lek]

Well, your bible says that slavery is A-OK.  So I think it's safe to say that Christianity was pretty pro-slavery.  Some Christians like to believe it's not.  But while Christians may have had something to do with ending slavery (At least in America)--CHRISTIANITY did not.

If you're speaking of slavery as practiced in America, then it doesn't support slavery. If you're speaking of voluntary slavery, then it does because of the circumstances of survival at the time. Do you know if there were any atheists who supported slavery?

[Crossless2.0]

With that being said, as a Catholic, I agree that the bible alone should not be considered the main pillar of truth or authority. Bc many things are confusing, not clear, and can be interpreted many different ways. Unfortunately that is why we have so many different denominations to christianity.

But different sects have plagued Christianity from the start. Not all "Christians" were on board with Paul's preachments, for instance, and that reaches back to the very start of the movement. There seems to be a considerable difference between Paul's brand of Christianity and that of James the Just, for example. The early Church was constantly marginalizing this or that group as heretics, even before there was a 'Bible' over which they could squabble. It makes sense that you, a Catholic, would argue that extra-Biblical authority is needed to avoid heresy, but you must admit that Catholicism's claim to authority in the first place is the result of the historical winners in that early contest of ideas/interpretations driving out conflicting views, planting a flag, and declaring victory.

It doesn't strike me as especially inspired -- just the messy workings of history, as usual.

[Catholic_Lady]

Maybe instead of saying "Slaves obey your earthly masters" Jesus should have said "Slave owners release your slaves!". Much like with Paul saying "A woman should not be permitted to teach" should have said "Women and Men should be seen as equals." But you know... I'm sure it was all very confusing.

Jesus also said to turn the other cheek when someone slaps you. That doesn't mean he thinks it's ok for ppl to slap others. His message here is about being humble and loving/forgiving our enemies. And again, his usage of slave could very much have meant what we would call servent.

He said the most important commandment was to love others as ourselves and treat others as you would have them treat you. That kind of trumps any idea that Jesus would be pro slavery, as we understand it. Ppl can still use the passage you referred to as an excuse to own slaves, and they did, but they'd be deliberately ignoring jesus' most important commandment.

[Lek]

But different sects have plagued Christianity from the start. Not all "Christians" were on board with Paul's preachments, for instance, and that reaches back to the very start of the movement. There seems to be a considerable difference between Paul's brand of Christianity and that of James the Just, for example. The early Church was constantly marginalizing this or that group as heretics, even before there was a 'Bible' over which they could squabble. It makes sense that you, a Catholic, would argue that extra-Biblical authority is needed to avoid heresy, but you must admit that Catholicism's claim to authority in the first place is the result of the historical winners in that early contest of ideas/interpretations driving out conflicting views, planting a flag, and declaring victory.

It doesn't strike me as especially inspired -- just the messy workings of history, as usual.

You're trying to use disagreement among christians as reason to disprove christianity. There's disagreement among scientists on most scientific "truths", as well as disagreement on most all things we accept as true. Catholic Lady and myself disagree on points of doctrine, but we both follow the true Christ. The truth is that we don't have to agree on all points of doctrine; even if you think that God should have made it that way.

[Crossless2.0]

But different sects have plagued Christianity from the start. Not all "Christians" were on board with Paul's preachments, for instance, and that reaches back to the very start of the movement. There seems to be a considerable difference between Paul's brand of Christianity and that of James the Just, for example. The early Church was constantly marginalizing this or that group as heretics, even before there was a 'Bible' over which they could squabble. It makes sense that you, a Catholic, would argue that extra-Biblical authority is needed to avoid heresy, but you must admit that Catholicism's claim to authority in the first place is the result of the historical winners in that early contest of ideas/interpretations driving out conflicting views, planting a flag, and declaring victory.

It doesn't strike me as especially inspired -- just the messy workings of history, as usual.

You're trying to use disagreement among christians as reason to disprove christianity.

Actually, no. My post was specifically in response to CL's point that the Bible alone cannot be the only pillar of truth within the faith. Since she is Catholic, I assume she was making a point in favor of the Church's authority to correctly interpret dogma on behalf of its adherents.  

There's disagreement among scientists on most scientific "truths", as well as disagreement on most all things we accept as true.

Disingenuous insertion of "truths" rather than hypotheses noted.

Catholic Lady and myself disagree on points of doctrine, but we both follow the true Christ.

Way to miss the point. That Christ you both supposedly follow is given to you as the product of those very historical winners I referred to in the post you quoted. You, Lek, being some sort of Bible-believing Protestant have no doubt swallowed Paul's take on Jesus hook, line, and sinker. But what if James's community of believers had become ascendant instead? We'd have a very different Christ, if at all. Your "true Christ" was not given to you in some unfiltered way. It is the result of historical contingency, power grabs, and ultimately a fucking vote over which books made it into your holy tome. That the guys who voted claimed to have been divinely inspired is only to be expected, not believed.
 

The truth is that we don't have to agree on all points of doctrine; even if you think that God should have made it that way.

I don't believe in your god, so I have no strong opinion about how it should have done anything. I'm just amused at Christians who look at their god's Rube Goldberg salvation scheme and think it represents the outcome of a loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful being's careful deliberation, rather than the primitive sacrificial scheme, dreamed up by humans, that it is.