Atheists; what do you base your morals on?

[Ryantology]

Without fail, you presuppose the methods that are furthest away from your own approach to ethics

Can you rearrange this word salad so that it makes sense? I'm not awed by your vocabulary, and I can recognize when someone is making use of linguistic prestidigitation to distract one's attention from a lack of substance.

proving that you do not want to understand Christianity, you want to debate.

You assume that I do not understand Christianity correctly, and the only basis you have to make that assumption is that my understanding conflicts with your interpretation of Christian dogma. Until you can prove that your version is objectively true, shove your condescension up your ass.

[jstrodel]

you assume a certain kind literal hermeneutics (fundamentalist, non Amish or Anabaptist let alone Neo-orthodox or Origenian), which are the furthest away from your own assessment of morality.

I love words.

[Ryantology]

No shit.

[smax]

200 years ago, the majority of the world (even the "godly religious" people) felt slavery was acceptable and not morally objectionable. Now, the opposite is true.

Thank you Wilber Wilberforce and Christian abolitionists.

Good things can happen when religious people value human decency over their religion.

---

John Wesley was against slavery, he wasn't influenced by the enlightenment, he was against it is a Christian. So were many others.

The enlightenment to a great degree was a product of the parent Christian civilization anyways (Descartes, Locke, Bacon, Newton, etc)

The Bible is very clear in it's advocacy of slavery, both in the old and new testament. So John Wesley's position was not that of a practicing Christian, but rather that of a humanitarian.

The truth is, MANY of John Wesley's positions directly opposed scripture. Why do you think that is?

Could it be that John Wesley was really more of a humanitarian at heart than a practicing Christian?

I feel strongly that he was. In fact, I suspect that John Wesley would not be religious at all in today's society, where the consequences of not being religious are far less severe.

The man wanted to reach and reason with people. Christianity was merely the tool of influence he used to get through the door.

That's my opinon anyway.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I love words.

I just wish they'd love me back.

[Whateverist]

My morals come from the Jackson Pollock school of ethics, so about 50% trance and 50% bullshit.

[Neo-Scholastic]

The Bible is very clear in it's advocacy of slavery, both in the old and new testament. So John Wesley's position was not that of a practicing Christian...

Completely false. The Bible does not advocate slavery. No where does it say to go out and enslave others. It does however regulate an existing evil to make it more humane. Considering that over 1/3 of people in the ancient world were slaves, the practice wouldn't disappear over-night. God was fully aware that change would take a long time and advised people accordingly.

[NoraBrimstone]

ORLY?

As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property. These you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness.

These are the ordinances that you shall set before them: When you buy a male Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, but in the seventh he shall go out a free person, without debt. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s and he shall go out alone. But if the slave declares, “I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out a free person,” then his master shall bring him before God. He shall be brought to the door or the doorpost; and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him for life.

When a slaveowner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner’s property.

[Neo-Scholastic]

All your references relate to people who are already slaves. None of them are about turning free people into slaves.

[FallentoReason]

All your references relate to people who are already slaves. None of them are about turning free people into slaves.

So that makes everything a-ok? That's a very trivial thing to say... pretty sure that participating in the act of slavery is just as wrong even if you didn't make a free person a slave, unless you're a moral relativist.