Christian terrorist attack in Pakistan kills 57.....

[Billie]

Look moron....

Honored...

yeah, that is uncalled for. Cali, really? :huh:

 

[Kieran]

The only times Rafa was a slave to Daveed was when the Argentine ordered him deep into the corners to fetch another whizzing forehand winner...

Yeah, it happened once in a blue moon, didn't it?

Maybe more than once...

 

[britbox]

I may oppose the welfare state, but I also know that overnight abolition of it would be a disaster. Many welfare dependents are not ready to lead independent lives and they don't have the opportunities or the character to just start being self-sufficient tomorrow. Effectively and smartly abolishing the welfare state would be a process of decades, if not a couple centuries, and it would take hard work from a large number of people of good conscience.

The same applies to slavery and how it had to be abolished.

If you remove the welfare state you'd create a crime epidemic and the "the haves" would be less safe from the "have nots". Pragmatism isn't one of your virtues.

You must have just skimmed my post, because I said the exact same thing as you. We agree!

My bad - I was skimming.

 

[calitennis127]

Cali, are you seriously comparing the acceptance or denial of someone to a university based on his academic achievements to how a master and a slave is (was) determined? Please tell me you are not. They did not determine a slave by an SAT test, you know. You had a certain genetic lineage, you had a certain social level, you were a slave. Nobody cared how clever you were.

Murat, again, this shows just how narrow and ignorant your view of slavery is. All you think of when it comes to slavery is "slavery = white man whipping black slaves in the South". That's all that slavery means to you. You have no perception of it beyond one historical episode out of hundreds, and then because of some of the worst abuses, you look back at Christ and say that he was morally inadequate for not being a politicized freak about it.

Maybe if he based his philosophy off of reading detective novels like Ayn Rand did he could have seen how wicked slavery was!! That's how you develop a moral philosophy.

Now, as for your more fundamental question, as Jefferson and other minds much wiser than yourself knew, human beings are inherently unequal based on talent and a number of other factors. Equality is a complete myth. In the modern West, we pretend that if you are born to two welfare-dependent parents you have just as much of a chance in life as you do if you are born as Chelsea Clinton or Mitt Romney's son, but anyone with a dime's worth of common sense knows what the truth is.

Part of the Communists' grave era was not just suppressing the free market, but trying to explicitly eradicate class and status. This resulted in the most vicious and hypocritical oligarchy man has ever seen robbing the masses and inflicting misery. You can try to re-write these basic realities, but they don't go away.

Therefore, the justification for slavery that the Romans used is something that doesn't necessarily mean slavery must exist or should exist, but it makes sense as a reason for why it could exist. That's why we should have much more respect for the great minds in the past who examined slavery and didn't become screaming abolitionists.

Before I studied Roman history, I was heavily influenced by the ahistorical, mind-numbingly shallow view that slavery = Aushwitz, but there were a couple professors in various courses on Roman history who made me think outside the box of Al Sharpton and Susan Sontag. For the Romans, slavery was such a natural part of society that it wasn't even questioned. No one even made moral arguments against it.

So were they savages? Was Cicero a savage?

No.

The fact is, intelligent and good people in different eras have disagreed on the ethics of slavery. We can certainly believe that in our world slavery is immoral and make the argument that this is the case, but we shouldn't sneer at those who lived in a different time and culture either and took it for granted. They had their reasons and they were not evil people.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

All you think of when it comes to slavery is "slavery = white man whipping black slaves in the South". That's all that slavery means to you. You have no perception of it beyond one historical episode out of hundreds, and then because of some of the worst abuses, you look back at Christ and say that he was morally inadequate for not being a politicized freak about it.

Now, as for your more fundamental question, as Jefferson and other minds much wiser than yourself knew, human beings are inherently unequal based on talent and a number of other factors. In the modern West, we pretend that if you are born to two welfare-dependent parents you have just as much of a chance in life as you do if you are born as Chelsea Clinton or Mitt Romney's son, but anyone with a dime's worth of common sense knows what the truth is.




Before I studied Roman history, I was heavily influenced by the ahistorical, mind-numbingly shallow view that slavery = Aushwitz, but there were a couple professors in various courses on Roman history who made me think outside the box of Al Sharpton and Susan Sontag. For the Romans, slavery was such a natural part of society that it wasn't even questioned. No one even made moral arguments against it.

Again, what I am saying and what you are understanding are different things...either you do that on purpose, since you like the straw man, or you just plain old do not get it.

Of course I am aware that maybe a good %40 of slaves in Ancient Rome were just...Romans, mostly white. But the slave trade between Africa and North America were basically black slaves and white masters. I asked you if you have ever seen a black slave owner with white slaves in the South US to make a point. You did not answer. MY point was not to say all slaves were black, all masters are white...it was just to highlight how it was in North America, nothing more, nothing less.

You must know from our previous debates that I DO agree equality is a myth, when it comes to people's talents , incomes, chances they may or may not get in life. But one thing they should be equal at is that their lives should not be for sale. Nobody should be born into slavery. People should not be property. You know I am not a welfare state defender. I believe in deserving what you get. But to do that, you must at least be free, no?

 

[Riotbeard]

Oh Cali :cover

I generally try and avoid these things...

Great minds like Jefferson: "I advance it as a suspicion only, that the blacks, whether originally a distinct race, or made distinct by time and circumstance, are inferior to whites, both in body and mind." from Notes on the State of Virginia

Slavery found defenders and critics amongst atheists and religious people alike. Although for U.S. history religion was used to defend slavery far longer and more frequently. I would say the problem is zealotry writ large. Anybody who believes any dogma dogmatically is a fool. It is that belief whether in progress, nation, God, etc. that allows people to think they have a right to dominate others.

There is something disingenuous when Christians argue Islam is inherently violent, when the old testament reads like "great moment in genocide." You can find passages in both the bible and koran to justify peace or war. Both books are pretty horrifying in my opinion. I grew up Christian and know the bible pretty well, and there are passages were God tortures his most loyal follower Job to prove a point to the devil (the alleged villain in the story, who in spite of that title tortures no one) and asks Abraham to murder his son (just to make sure that Abraham really does love God, needy much?).

Also, based on your free market philosophy Cali, it is quite surprising you can't get past Ayn Rand's atheism. I can't stand the woman, but she would agree with most of what you are saying.

 

[Riotbeard]

All you think of when it comes to slavery is "slavery = white man whipping black slaves in the South". That's all that slavery means to you. You have no perception of it beyond one historical episode out of hundreds, and then because of some of the worst abuses, you look back at Christ and say that he was morally inadequate for not being a politicized freak about it.

Now, as for your more fundamental question, as Jefferson and other minds much wiser than yourself knew, human beings are inherently unequal based on talent and a number of other factors. In the modern West, we pretend that if you are born to two welfare-dependent parents you have just as much of a chance in life as you do if you are born as Chelsea Clinton or Mitt Romney's son, but anyone with a dime's worth of common sense knows what the truth is.




Before I studied Roman history, I was heavily influenced by the ahistorical, mind-numbingly shallow view that slavery = Aushwitz, but there were a couple professors in various courses on Roman history who made me think outside the box of Al Sharpton and Susan Sontag. For the Romans, slavery was such a natural part of society that it wasn't even questioned. No one even made moral arguments against it.

Again, what I am saying and what you are understanding are different things...either you do that on purpose, since you like the straw man, or you just plain old do not get it.

Of course I am aware that maybe a good %40 of slaves in Ancient Rome were just...Romans, mostly white. But the slave trade between Africa and North America were basically black slaves and white masters. I asked you if you have ever seen a black slave owner with white slaves in the South US to make a point. You did not answer. MY point was not to say all slaves were black, all masters are white...it was just to highlight how it was in North America, nothing more, nothing less.

You must know from our previous debates that I DO agree equality is a myth, when it comes to people's talents , incomes, chances they may or may not get in life. But one thing they should be equal at is that their lives should not be for sale. Nobody should be born into slavery. People should not be property. You know I am not a welfare state defender. I believe in deserving what you get. But to do that, you must at least be free, no?

While I am not in any way endorsing Cali's overall argument, there were rare cases in the U.S. South of black masters. It is pretty well documented. There were no white slaves, at least none legally enslaved.

U.S. slavery (I can't believe it needs to be said) was empirically a white supremacist institution, and philosophical foundation was the notion that blacks were specifically fit for plantation labor.

 

[calitennis127]

Of course I am aware that maybe a good %40 of slaves in Ancient Rome were just...Romans, mostly white. But the slave trade between Africa and North America were basically black slaves and white masters. I asked you if you have ever seen a black slave owner with white slaves in the South US to make a point. You did not answer. MY point was not to say all slaves were black, all masters are white...it was just to highlight how it was in North America, nothing more, nothing less.

And what on earth does that have to do with your original point that Christ should be viewed with skepticism because he wasn't an ACLU president screaming for the end of slavery overnight?

That is what originally began this debate.

You must know from our previous debates that I DO agree equality is a myth, when it comes to people's talents , incomes, chances they may or may not get in life.

Well then maybe you should have more regard for the ethicists of very different eras and times from all races who used this precise reasoning for justifying slavery. You may not agree with their ultimate conclusions, but you do concede (as you just said) that they at least saw part of reality accurately.

But one thing they should be equal at is that their lives should not be for sale. Nobody should be born into slavery. People should not be property.

And it is all well and good to make this argument. Many Christians have said the exact same thing. This doesn't mean though that you should see every moral philosopher who justified or condoned slavery (and there were many) as the equivalent of Heinrich Himmler.

 

[calitennis127]

Of course I am aware that maybe a good %40 of slaves in Ancient Rome were just...Romans, mostly white.

No, it wasn't that 40% of slaves were white. It was that 40% of the ENTIRE ROMAN POPULATION consisted of slaves, and they were overwhelmingly white. Two-fifths of the entirety of Roman society was enslaved. It was a deeply ingrained political, social, and cultural institution that everyone took for granted and no one questioned, not even the loftiest political minds.

But the slave trade between Africa and North America were basically black slaves and white masters. I asked you if you have ever seen a black slave owner with white slaves in the South US to make a point. You did not answer. MY point was not to say all slaves were black, all masters are white...it was just to highlight how it was in North America, nothing more, nothing less.

Fair enough, but then what would that have to do with the larger debate about the moral justification for slavery and Christ? My point, over and over, has been that slavery in human history amounts to much more than what happened in the South and most of it was one race imposing it on its own demographic - which is a significant fact, given how everyone just thinks slavery occurred one time in human history, from 1600 to 1860 with Europeans exploiting Africans.

 

[calitennis127]

There is something disingenuous when Christians argue Islam is inherently violent, when the old testament reads like "great moment in genocide." You can find passages in both the bible and koran to justify peace or war.

This is the type of nonsense Murat says over and over, but at best, it is a trivial argument. Of course the Old Testament is loaded with violent passages. But how can you compare the lives of Christ and Muhammad?

Muhammad personally beheaded around 700 people. He ordered for assassinations. He was a warlord.

When Christians and Muslims turn to their respective prophets, they find very different examples.

The prevalence of violent jihadism in the world today has almost made everyone numb to it. There is a new attack every month somewhere in the world. There is no parallel whatsoever in Christianity's impact in the modern world.

Show me Christians bombing trains every other month somewhere across the globe. Then we can compare the two as equals.

The fact is, the likes of Murat and you riotbeard do not want to face these basic realities. Why else do you think my sarcastic thread on Boko Haram was deleted?

It isn't Christians who are shooting up the Candian Parliament, blowing up subway trains, beheading people in Iraq and Oklahoma, kidnapping girls in Nigeria, and blowing up or taking hostages at schools.

 

[shawnbm]

I will give one thing to Murat that is an interesting piece of historical evidence in the Christian canon. Although Jesus did speak specifically on hypocrites, adulterers, divorce, against homosexuality (by direct implication as He said marriage was between man and wife, forming one person a la Christ and His Bride--the Church), not being afraid and, over all else, that the Kingdom of God was at hand, He did not say anything about slavery being inherently bad or improper. Again, these societal constructs that have existed in every era on slavery (with varying degrees of ruthful or ruthless"ness") were of no concern to Him. He was teaching at a much higher level, beyond slave or free, Greek or Jew, male or female; He was concerned with the heart and soul and mind of believers. If that was in the right place, it appears He knew the rest would take care of itself until the Son of Man returns in glory. Apart from that, I can't answer Murat's pointed inquiry on why Jesus of Nazareth was silent on the institution of slavery.

 

[Riotbeard]

It's news to me that only the gospels are the only relevant portions of the bible...

I am a personal fan of the Jeffersonian bible . (In case you don't know about this, Jefferson cut up his personal bible leaving only about 30 pages of Jesus quotes). I consider Jesus's philosophy generally of love as highly influential on my beliefs just non of the higher power stuff.

I am more than willing to concede that Islam is in a violent era right now (At least there are millions of muslims worldwide that buy into jihadism generally, and a much smaller portion that actually act on it), and don't think most Christian groups/state behave as violently for reasons of faith (although Western nations for non-religious purposes have killed over a million people in the middle east for geopolitical purposes in the last 20 years).

The fact that Christians on this board don't confine their spouses/girlfriends when they are menstruating, doesn't mean it's not in the same book (allegedly infallible book written by God) as the Jesus quotes. Also the fact that it's in the old testament isn't compelling. What? Did your all knowing infallible God decide he was wrong about shellfish?

My point is when people argue that Islam is doctrinally violent compared to Christianity are talking about the fact that many Christians today do not follow the violent parts. They are both big books with significant contradictions.

It's also worth pointing out that Jesus is a very significant profit for Muslims too.

I don't call myself an atheist. I am not interested in telling people there religion is stupid, but then again I didn't start a thread to criticize a group of people that have nothing to do with me... If it were up to me, everyone in all walks of life would keep their religion to themselves and not impose it on other people. But I would just as quickly defend Christians, if I thought they were getting an unfair shake.

 

[calitennis127]

It's news to me that only the gospels are the only relevant portions of the bible...

No one said that. What I said was that when Christians and Muslims turn to their respective prophet/Messiah for examples, they get very different models to aim for. In significant respects, it is night and day. I am not saying that the Old Testament is irrelevant. What I am saying though is that the most important element of the Bible is the story of Christ. And the stories of Christ and Muhammad are markedly different.

The fact that Christians on this board don't confine their spouses/girlfriends when they are menstruating, doesn't mean it's not in the same book (allegedly infallible book written by God) as the Jesus quotes.

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As I have said over and over, this fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible is pure nonsense. Who on earth said that the Bible is "infallible"? Certainly not the Catholic Church. Not even Luther and Calvin.

I had to explain this over and over to Murat, but there is a difference between the Bible being inspired by God and being literally written by God. It is Muslims who think that every word of the Qu'ran is the perfect word of Allah.

It's also worth pointing out that Jesus is a very significant profit for Muslims too.

In a convoluted, historically inaccurate way.

I don't call myself an atheist. I am not interested in telling people there religion is stupid, but then again I didn't start a thread to criticize a group of people that have nothing to do with me... If it were up to me, everyone in all walks of life would keep their religion to themselves and not impose it on other people. But I would just as quickly defend Christians, if I thought they were getting an unfair shake.

Well, all these Christian terrorists really should stop killing 50 Nigerian kids at a time in schools, blowing up trains in Pakistan, and shooting members of the Canadian Parliament before I keep running my mouth, don't you think?

 

[calitennis127]

I will give one thing to Murat that is an interesting piece of historical evidence in the Christian canon. Although Jesus did speak specifically on hypocrites, adulterers, divorce, against homosexuality (by direct implication as He said marriage was between man and wife, forming one person a la Christ and His Bride--the Church), not being afraid and, over all else, that the Kingdom of God was at hand, He did not say anything about slavery being inherently bad or improper. Again, these societal constructs that have existed in every era on slavery (with varying degrees of ruthful or ruthless"ness") were of no concern to Him. He was teaching at a much higher level, beyond slave or free, Greek or Jew, male or female; He was concerned with the heart and soul and mind of believers. If that was in the right place, it appears He knew the rest would take care of itself until the Son of Man returns in glory. Apart from that, I can't answer Murat's pointed inquiry on why Jesus of Nazareth was silent on the institution of slavery.

The answer is simple, shawn. He was morally inadequate for not being a 21st-century civil rights activist.

 

[Riotbeard]

I don't call myself an atheist. I am not interested in telling people there religion is stupid, but then again I didn't start a thread to criticize a group of people that have nothing to do with me... If it were up to me, everyone in all walks of life would keep their religion to themselves and not impose it on other people. But I would just as quickly defend Christians, if I thought they were getting an unfair shake.

Well, all these Christian terrorists really should stop killing 50 Nigerian kids at a time in schools, blowing up trains in Pakistan, and shooting members of the Canadian Parliament before I keep running my mouth, don't you think?

I specifically said (in a portion you did not quote) that Muslims far more often kill people for their religion in the contemporary world, but I guess you ignored that portion...

All I am pointing out is that both books can be used for a variety of reasons, barbaric or nice...

Also Jesus is a prophet to Muslims, he is not the son of God. So that they do view him differently than Christians does not mean is not a muslim prophet.

 

[shawnbm]

Jesus and Mary are quoted and referred to many times in the Qu'ran, which is something many westerners do not know. He is seen as the last of the prophets before Mohammed in the seventh century. Islam views itself as the primordial religion--the root from which other religions of "the people of the Book" [referring to Jews and Christians] sprang. Muslims look at Jews and Christians as misinterpreting "the Book" insofar as they fail to see Islam as the return to the primitive religion of Abraham--who is the father of all three religions. So, this is in the background of the call of all Muslims to hasten the submission of all the world to Allah and Islam. There is an obvious tension present in this, which, when coupled with a seventh century mindset of jihad (for that purpose) of far too many in the Arab world, creates a recipe for violence and war. Not all Muslims subscribe to this, of course, but the squeaky wheel gets the grease, especially when it threatens even fellow followers of Islam if they don't get on board with the jihad to subdue the world.

 

[calitennis127]

Jesus and Mary are quoted and referred to many times in the Qu'ran, which is something many westerners do not know. He is seen as the last of the prophets before Mohammed in the seventh century. Islam views itself as the primordial religion--the root from which other religions of "the people of the Book" [referring to Jews and Christians] sprang. Muslims look at Jews and Christians as misinterpreting "the Book" insofar as they fail to see Islam as the return to the primitive religion of Abraham--who is the father of all three religions. So, this is in the background of the call of all Muslims to hasten the submission of all the world to Allah and Islam. There is an obvious tension present in this, which, when coupled with a seventh century mindset of jihad (for that purpose) of far too many in the Arab world, creates a recipe for violence and war. Not all Muslims subscribe to this, of course, but the squeaky wheel gets the grease, especially when it threatens even fellow followers of Islam if they don't get on board with the jihad to subdue the world.

Great post, shawn, and interestingly, the great Catholic historian Hilaire Belloc pursued a similar line of thought to yours to actually characterize Islam as a Christian heresy. Few people today conceive of it in such a manner.

 

[calitennis127]

Oh Cali :cover

Oh Cali what? What have I said that is so troubling to you Riot?

Great minds like Jefferson: "I advance it as a suspicion only, that the blacks, whether originally a distinct race, or made distinct by time and circumstance, are inferior to whites, both in body and mind." from Notes on the State of Virginia

I have stated on numerous occasions in this thread that there was very often disturbing racial exploitation involved with Southern slavery and European colonialism. But that question is not what triggered the conversation on this thread, and I have also said over and over and over that there were numerous episodes of slavery in human history besides what happened in the American South, and most of it was NOT cross-racial. But the question of this thread has been: should the figure of Christ be viewed as morally deficient for not being an ardent abolitionist in his time?

As for broadening the scope of this conversation - how come you and Murat don't bring up the Japanese enslaving 5-10 million Chinese people during World War II and putting them in labor camps? How come you never talk about the Japanese taking nearly 700,000 Koreans as forced-labor slaves between 1944 and 1945? Why is all slavery simply about the American South and European colonialism for 200 years?

Also, based on your free market philosophy Cali, it is quite surprising you can't get past Ayn Rand's atheism. I can't stand the woman, but she would agree with most of what you are saying.

It's not even her atheism as much as her McDonald's-cheap (minus the sweet tea) political philosophy. Hume was a religious skeptic and I consider him to be utterly brilliant and deeply insightful on a number of important matters.

 

[calitennis127]

While I am not in any way endorsing Cali's overall argument

Do you even know what my "overall argument" has been? If so, why do you disagree with it exactly? All I have maintained to Murat is that slavery was a deeply ingrained political-economic institution at the time of Christ's life and that he was not in the business of ushering in overt political revolution like a Jacobin.

Plus, I have pointed out that it was Christian societies which made a debate out of the slavery issue and ultimately ended the institution. Good Christians have come down on both sides of the question over the centuries, based on the limited perspectives they had from their own experiences, and we shouldn't sneer at those who justified it as dunderheads. If we pursue this logic, then we have to equate Aristotle and Cicero with genocidal maniacs.

So what is so off-the-wall about "Cali's overall argument" that you can't endorse it, Riot?

U.S. slavery (I can't believe it needs to be said) was empirically a white supremacist institution, and philosophical foundation was the notion that blacks were specifically fit for plantation labor.

No one ever denied this, but again, the question of slavery's overall ethics goes well beyond what happened in the American South for a hundred years or so. Again, let me ask this question:

How come you and Murat don't bring up the Japanese enslaving 5-10 million Chinese people during World War II and putting them in labor camps? How come you never talk about the Japanese taking nearly 700,000 Koreans as forced-labor slaves between 1944 and 1945? Why is all slavery simply about the American South and European colonialism for 200 years?

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

How come you and Murat don't bring up the Japanese enslaving 5-10 million Chinese people during World War II and putting them in labor camps? How come you never talk about the Japanese taking nearly 700,000 Koreans as forced-labor slaves between 1944 and 1945? Why is all slavery simply about the American South and European colonialism for 200 years?

Dear Cali, when I said explicitly, I was against all slavery, I am sure I covered ALL slavery. Because if we are going into details, I am sure there will be a situation or two that you and I will miss.

As you summarized your position, I will mine as well: Slavery is an evil institution and was practiced by many civilizations who did not know any better (or even if they knew, it was just inconvenient to bring it up), but ignored by all major belief systems and their Gods who were supposed to know better, since they had an idea about pretty much everything else, from gay marriage to if you can mix dairy with meat in your diet or not