Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,916,433 times
Reputation: 4561
Advertisements
The Bible gives moral authority?
Let's consider the two cases of where Paul returns the slave verses Huck Finn tearing up the letter to the slave owner of Jim.
Paul returns the runaway slave, Onesimus, to his "rightful owner," Philemon. He preaches that this is the right thing to do.
Huck, on the other hand, fully aware of the lessons he learned in Sunday school and Paul's admonition that slaves belong to owners and runaways need to be returned, does the right thing morally stating "All right, then, I'll go to hell!"
Who is giving better moral guidance here? Paul or Huck Finn?
Because slavery was wrong, is wrong, and will always be wrong - despite what the bible says.
And if ever there was evidence that one does not need an ancient book to develop a moral/ethical code, this is it - that we've decided that slavery is wrong, despite the fact that the Bible variously endorses or tacitly condones it.
Let's consider the two cases of where Paul returns the slave verses Huck Finn tearing up the letter to the slave owner of Jim.
Paul returns the runaway slave, Onesimus, to his "rightful owner," Philemon. He preaches that this is the right thing to do.
Huck, on the other hand, fully aware of the lessons he learned in Sunday school and Paul's admonition that slaves belong to owners and runaways need to be returned, does the right thing morally stating "All right, then, I'll go to hell!"
Who is giving better moral guidance here? Paul or Huck Finn?
Why?
Why are you trying to compare 1800's slavery to that of the Roman empire? That's like comparing apples to oranges.
Moderator cut: delete
Last edited by Miss Blue; 05-01-2014 at 09:30 AM..
Reason: attack
Why are you trying to compare 1800's slavery to that of the Roman empire? That's like comparing apples to oranges. Moderator cut: orphaned
I think the atheists, etc are saying that "owning human beings as property" is wrong... No matter how well you might suppose to treat such people whom you have equated with material possessions. The slavery of the Israelite kingdoms and the Roman empire wasn't pretty, which is why rules were designed to control the details, yet even those rules were only easing the evil, not ending it. Both cultures probably thought slavery was necessary to the economy, but I think slavery actually diminishes the respect of work, since labor is made to become the realm of subcitizens.
Either way, I think Mark Twain was likely a smarter and nicer person than Saul of Tarsus.
Last edited by Miss Blue; 05-01-2014 at 09:31 AM..
I think the atheists, etc are saying that "owning human beings as property" is wrong...
OK? First of all...do you know that the idea of Roman slavery in the first century really wasn't "owning a slave" like what the 1800's was? Have you ever really looked at it?
Second of all....by what moral ground can one say that? I'm not suggesting that it is right--I just want to know what you or the OP can appeal to to judge another culture in a different time?
Quote:
No matter how well you might suppose to treat such people whom you have equated with material possessions. The slavery of the Israelite kingdoms and the Roman empires wasn't pretty, which is why rules were designed to control the details, yet even those rules were only easing the evil, not ending it. Both cultures probably thought slavery was necessary to the economy, but I think slavery actually diminishes the respect of work, since labor is made to become the realm of subcitizens.
Either way, I think Mark Twain was likely a smarter and nicer person than Saul of Tarsus.
Maybe he was. Maybe he wasn't. I honestly don't care.
I don't claim to be reading cupper's mind, but I think he was comparing the morals of Paul to the moral of Mark Twain.
I get that. But I don't think comparing slavery in the 1st century to slavery in America of 200 years ago to be a valid comparison. They are as different as apples and oranges. I'm not sure the OP realizes that--or that you do, either. Do you?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
