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.
At least I would say rather than 'Lying', Ozzy has gone to absurd extremes of apologetic to excuse Christianity from being too doctrinally tolerant of slavery. It is. Not just because of the OT which regards slavery (both of foreigners, and also fellow Jews) as something to be regulated, not banned, but the NT regards slavery as something to be accepted, not denounced.
It is of course changes in human ethics that led to abolition, and the religious could side with it (and pretend that the religion deserved the credit) or oppose and find plenty of support in the Bible - and still do, on the quiet.
But again, I find is intriguing and amusing to see Ozzy, who is by no means your cover -to cover Bible -believer, becomes such an extreme batter for the Bible, even to the extent of compromising his own reputation as a reasonable and unbiased debator.
Why, Ozzy, is excusing the Bible and Christianity of faults that it obviously has, so important to you?
I think that there is an Emotional attachment to it, rather the way there is an Emotional attachment (in the UK and even former colonies) to the Royals, so Republicans who would like to see them Gone are regarded rather as atheists were, say - before the 90's. Even though we all know they are a white elephant and a bit of an embarrassment these days.
...
A also don't think the Ozzy is "lying". And I agree that changes in human ethics led to the abolition of slavery, and that christian churches were most often not leading that change, but rather well behind the curve.
I think you accurately point out that Ozzy, despite his frequent protestations, in the end ultimately goes to bat for the bible, and that negates any claim of his that he is simply an unbiased debater.
And I agree that changes in human ethics led to the abolition of slavery, and that christian churches were most often not leading that change, but rather well behind the curve.
After the Nat Turner rebellion of 1831, having received a big scare, the US southerners re-wrote their slave codes and repackaged the manner in which they justified slavery. Before it had been marketed as a "necessary evil", after 1831 it was presented as a positive good. The Negroes were an inferior race went the new doctrine, and white people were doing them an enormous favor by taking care of them and introducing them to Jesus. They were incapable of making it on their own, but with strict white supervision they would get by. This idea was pushed from southern pulpits from this point through the end of the war.
In the north in the meantime, the abolitionist movement was definitely being promoted the hardest by New England ministers. So religion was on both sides of the issue, but religion conformed to the regions in which it was practiced.
The change in ethics regarding slavery had its roots in economics. When slavery became less economically viable in the north, as opposed to hiring labor, then suddenly slavery's immorality became clear. I would argue that industry had more to due with the change in ethics than did the ethics.
I don't want this to become a slavery thread, and I haven't made much of a study of it, but I got the impression that it was economics rather than racism (though that was pretty much universal amongst whites at the time) that was behind the South wanting to become a separate nation, in fact.
I've always wondered whether the Slaveowners who so assiduously spoonfed Christianity to their slaves along with the gruel and molasses really believed they's all be together in heaven.
I recall 'History Buffs' and the review of "Gettysburg" (and it is so good I might post it) and it touched on how some critics saw it as Confederate Apologetics. It wasn't quite that, but when the South is going on about their Rats, they wouldn't have cared about secession if it hadn't been for the slavery issue.
That was at the bottom of it and let nobody tell you it was anything else.
And if you want to know which way I wag, I'd support the North. But as Buster Keaton said, explaining why he changed the story of "The general" to a Southern Railways driver foiling a Northern plot, "You can't make a villain out of the South".
It's the same with Cavaliers here.
Cavaliers - Wrong but Wromantic
Roundheads - Right but Repulsive
("1066 and all that").
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-02-2018 at 11:15 AM..
I don't want this to become a slavery thread, and I haven't made much of a study of it, but I got the impression that it was economics rather than racism (though that was pretty much universal amongst whites at the time) that was behind the South wanting to become a separate nation, in fact.
Southern political power was joined at the hip with slavery. As long as there were as many slave states as there were free states, in the Senate where every state got two representatives regardless of population, this gave the South a defacto veto power over legislation they didn't like, it gave them a veto power over the nominees of both major political parties, and gave them control over Supreme Court appointments. The GOP threat to curb the expansion of slavery would put an end to this imbalance of power. No new slave states, no new slavery supporting senators. It was the election of a party which promised to keep slavery out of the territories and new states which triggered secession.
Quote:
I've always wondered whether the Slaveowners who so assiduously spoonfed Christianity to their slaves along with the gruel and molasses really believed they's all be together in heaven.
I would not call my mother a racist, but she was someone who accepted the norms around her and for her, black people were wonderful waiters, car parkers, yardmen, maids etc. When my paternal grandmother, a woman everyone despised, died, we were sitting in the funeral home limo outside of the church before the funeral. It was raining. Bertha, my other grandmother's semi-slave, showed up for the funeral, something no one expected, but that was the sort of good hearted person Bertha was. The church doors had not been opened yet, so Bertha was standing in the rain waiting. I suggested that I go get her and bring her to the limo so she could wait with us out of the rain. This idea absolutely horrified my mother. It wasn't the idea of a black person in the car with us so much as the idea of a maid in the car with us. That simply wasn't done according to my mother. I ignored her, went and got Bertha anyway, and nothing evil happened as a consequence, if you don't count my mother being pissed at me for a few days afterward.
I suspect that this is how the southern slave owners imagined heaven. There would be a first class section composed of the white Christians, and a separate but not really equal sub section for the servants. Maybe they thought that the former slaves would still be serving them in the afterlife, albeit serving while being perfectly content.
It does christian apologists little good to attempt to excuse christianity from its complicity in slavery since the Southern Baptists, Methodists, catholics, and Episcopals have formally apologized for slavery and/or racism.
I read something interesting not long ago that caught my eye as someone who attends an Episcopal Church. There is a well-known story about an Episcopal Church in Richmond, VA, right after the end of the Civil War. It is told that when it came time to approach the rail for communion, a newly-freed black man went up and knelt first that Sunday. The congregation froze because this had never happened before. No one quite knew what to do.
Then a white southern gentlemen went forward and knelt at the rail beside the black man. It was Robert E. Lee. The other white parishioners then followed suit.
Sounds like a nice story, doesn't it? It's a story meant to show how Lee was accepting of the fact that slavery was over and everyone was equal.
However, this same story told by a southerner who witnessed this event had the take that what Robert E. Lee was demonstrating was "pretend the black man isn't even there." Cynical me tends to think that's probably the more accurate version.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander
<snipped the interesting historical part>
I would not call my mother a racist, but she was someone who accepted the norms around her and for her, black people were wonderful waiters, car parkers, yardmen, maids etc. When my paternal grandmother, a woman everyone despised, died, we were sitting in the funeral home limo outside of the church before the funeral. It was raining. Bertha, my other grandmother's semi-slave, showed up for the funeral, something no one expected, but that was the sort of good hearted person Bertha was. The church doors had not been opened yet, so Bertha was standing in the rain waiting. I suggested that I go get her and bring her to the limo so she could wait with us out of the rain. This idea absolutely horrified my mother. It wasn't the idea of a black person in the car with us so much as the idea of a maid in the car with us. That simply wasn't done according to my mother. I ignored her, went and got Bertha anyway, and nothing evil happened as a consequence, if you don't count my mother being pissed at me for a few days afterward.
I would not call my mother a racist, either, and she tried very hard not to be because her father was Archie Bunker and it embarrassed her. But I still remember her telling me how back in her day her friends who went to mixed-race schools said that during high school dances, all the black kids stayed at one end of the gym and all the white kids at the other, "and everyone was perfectly fine with it being that way."
Really, Ma? You sure about that?
Eventually she had to face her own views when my sister dated and then later married an African-American man. To her credit, she did, though it took some time. My dad, on the other hand, didn't seem to pay much attention to the whole problem in the first place except to say, "Racism is just stupid". He had no problem with my brother-in-law, who is pretty much just like my father personality-wise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander
I suspect that this is how the southern slave owners imagined heaven. There would be a first class section composed of the white Christians, and a separate but not really equal sub section for the servants. Maybe they thought that the former slaves would still be serving them in the afterlife, albeit serving while being perfectly content.
It was a little different in the north, at least in among the Dutch and their Reformed Church.
The Dutch slaveowners in New Jersey were in a dilemma because they weren't sure it was OK to baptize their black slaves, so they asked for advice from the mother church in the Netherlands. Word came back that one Christian could not hold another Christian in slavery, so yes, they could baptize their black slaves, but then they would have to free them. You can figure out which way this went.
I read something interesting not long ago that caught my eye as someone who attends an Episcopal Church. There is a well-known story about an Episcopal Church in Richmond, VA, right after the end of the Civil War. It is told that when it came time to approach the rail for communion, a newly-freed black man went up and knelt first that Sunday. The congregation froze because this had never happened before. No one quite knew what to do.
Then a white southern gentlemen went forward and knelt at the rail beside the black man. It was Robert E. Lee. The other white parishioners then followed suit.
Sounds like a nice story, doesn't it? It's a story meant to show how Lee was accepting of the fact that slavery was over and everyone was equal.
However, this same story told by a southerner who witnessed this event had the take that what Robert E. Lee was demonstrating was "pretend the black man isn't even there." Cynical me tends to think that's probably the more accurate version.
I would not call my mother a racist, either, and she tried very hard not to be because her father was Archie Bunker and it embarrassed her. But I still remember her telling me how back in her day her friends who went to mixed-race schools said that during high school dances, all the black kids stayed at one end of the gym and all the white kids at the other, "and everyone was perfectly fine with it being that way."
Really, Ma? You sure about that?
Eventually she had to face her own views when my sister dated and then later married an African-American man. To her credit, she did, though it took some time. My dad, on the other hand, didn't seem to pay much attention to the whole problem in the first place except to say, "Racism is just stupid". He had no problem with my brother-in-law, who is pretty much just like my father personality-wise.
It was a little different in the north, at least in among the Dutch and their Reformed Church.
The Dutch slaveowners in New Jersey were in a dilemma because they weren't sure it was OK to baptize their black slaves, so they asked for advice from the mother church in the Netherlands. Word came back that one Christian could not hold another Christian in slavery, so yes, they could baptize their black slaves, but then they would have to free them. You can figure out which way this went.
I don't want this to become a slavery thread, and I haven't made much of a study of it, but I got the impression that it was economics rather than racism (though that was pretty much universal amongst whites at the time) that was behind the South wanting to become a separate nation, in fact.
I've always wondered whether the Slaveowners who so assiduously spoonfed Christianity to their slaves along with the gruel and molasses really believed they's all be together in heaven.
I recall 'History Buffs' and the review of "Gettysburg" (and it is so good I might post it) and it touched on how some critics saw it as Confederate Apologetics. It wasn't quite that, but when the South is going on about their Rats, they wouldn't have cared about secession if it hadn't been for the slavery issue.
That was at the bottom of it and let nobody tell you it was anything else.
youtube
And if you want to know which way I wag, I'd support the North. But as Buster Keaton said, explaining why he changed the story of "The general" to a Southern Railways driver foiling a Northern plot, "You can't make a villain out of the South".
It's the same with Cavaliers here.
Cavaliers - Wrong but Wromantic
Roundheads - Right but Repulsive
("1066 and all that").
Of course it was. And if you understand that then I think it would be crazy to suggest that religion was responsible. Religion is just a reflection of the culture.
Does this mean that one day in the future, even Jehova will find similar favor with atheists, after he inevitably transforms into a myth?
Yahweh doesn't exist, so he's not going to find favor with anything or anyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
You don't seem to understand that hose "myths" used to be actual "deities" that many people believed in at one time.
So?
The only reason christianity still exists is because it was State-sanctioned.
If Emperor Theodosius doesn't issue his edict in 382 CE making christianity the State religion and banning all others, you wouldn't have a clue what christianity was.
If Emperor Justinian doesn't issue an edict in 533 CE making John, the Bishop of Rome the first pope and the persecutor of heretics, you wouldn't know anything about christianity, either.
The only reason it exists is because people were forced to believe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
The argument is whether the Bible is still relevant.
It's relevant only to the extent that it provides some historical context to Mesopotamia during a certain period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
The church is the backbone of community for many MANY people.
Only because people are compelled to believe that. Churches aren't necessary for anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
The Bible is relevant to me because it has provided spiritual guidance.
How sad you are so limited.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
Any Atheist who tries to say that their belief system is somehow more good or more moral than that of typical religious believers, is living in a dream world.
Anyone who rejected christianity was tortured, murdered, ostracized or had their property confiscated.
In a single day, christians murdered 42,000 men, women and children for having a slightly different belief.
When the military commander asked the local bishop what to do about the innocent men, women and children in the town they were about to slaughter, the bishop coldly replied:
Kill them all. God will know his own.
The only reason christians don't continue to do things like that is because they have been stripped of power.
Any religion that uses torture, murder, imprisonment, ostracism, confiscation of property or coercion or the threat of force or coercion is inherently immoral and unethical.
The christian god in particular is grotesquely immoral and unethical and no moral or ethical person would worship such a deity, much less subscribe to anything the deity has to say.
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.
