General Discussions

[LP]

Too many good people remain silent, having sold their soul to radicals as an excuse for making some progress.

[Mav]

Oh and for the discussion on slavery:

https://restavekfreedom.org/2018/09/11/t...20221%20BC.

Slavery's origins predate a lot of the religious argument that has been bandied about on here too.

I’m glad you did a bit of research. The link you provided stresses that slavery remains a problem today and needs to be confronted. In fact, the history of slavery leads the reader towards the article’s main purpose: “Join Us to Help Enslaved Haitian Children”. I assume you realise this and you’re walking away from the assertion you previously made:

The world is a very different place today.  No one gets forced to do anything they don't want to, and this discussion about slavery is about as relevant as gay bashing is.

The only slaves I see are slaves to the wage.

By the way, I’m struggling to understand why you point out that slavery predates the “religious argument” (I’m assuming you mean the observation that the Bible doesn’t condemn slavery but instead attempts to make it ethical by setting out the obligations of slave owners). As you know, I noted that in doing so the Bible took the pragmatic course of allowing a practice that was widespread in those days to continue. In other words, it predated the Bible. So why are you suggesting the article undermines my point when I made that point myself?

Here’s a question for you. Is slavery always morally wrong or does it depend on circumstances?

[Lods]

Or do you think it was a bottom up, long concerted effort by First Nations people mainly, putting in long hours over decades, raising money, raising awareness, raising profile etc. I'd say the latter.

Or do you think it was a bottom up, long concerted effort by women mainly, putting in long hours over decades, raising money, raising awareness, raising profile etc. I'd say the latter.

Yep
Definitely the latter
I've probably had more contact with indigenous people over the last forty years than most on this site.
I've had discussions with Teachers, teacher's aides, students, parents and elders.

The argument is not so much on the rights of equality, respect and acceptance as the best method to achieve that.
That varies considerably from a semi-militant approach to a discussion and education.

Do you change minds by shaming, threatening, belittling or by educating.
And the task of educating is often best handled by those directly affected with the experience to tell their stories.

[PaulP]

Yep
Definitely the latter
I've probably had more contact with indigenous people over the last forty years than most on this site.
I've had discussions with Teachers, teacher's aides, students, parents and elders.

The argument is not so much on the rights of equality, respect and acceptance as the best method to achieve that.
That varies considerably from a semi-militant approach to a discussion and education.

Do you change minds by shaming, threatening, belittling or by educating.
And the task of educating is often best handled by those directly affected with the experience to tell their stories.

I agree with pretty much all that. But I'm not sure that a site like this has any educational value. I would say that irrespective of whether I or others take a softly softly approach, or a tougher approach, the chances of changing a mind with either are basically zero. By the time people get to this site, opinions and values, beliefs etc. are pretty much set. I don't think anyone on here has any capacity to influence folks. But those Sea Eagles players do absolutely have that power.

[LP]

How would excluding discussion in various forums add value to the debate?

[Thryleon]

I’m glad you did a bit of research. The link you provided stresses that slavery remains a problem today and needs to be confronted. In fact, the history of slavery leads the reader towards the article’s main purpose: “Join Us to Help Enslaved Haitian Children”.

Thats your inference.  I actually brought this up to show you and your mate PaulP that lining up the Christians for slavery is poppycock.

I assume you realise this and you’re walking away from the assertion you previously made:
By the way, I’m struggling to understand why you point out that slavery predates the “religious argument” (I’m assuming you mean the observation that the Bible doesn’t condemn slavery but instead attempts to make it ethical by setting out the obligations of slave owners). As you know, I noted that in doing so the Bible took the pragmatic course of allowing a practice that was widespread in those days to continue. In other words, it predated the Bible. So why are you suggesting the article undermines my point when I made that point myself?

  Slavery pre-dates Christianity.  The reason I state this, is to present the idea, that potentially observing scripture in Christianity regarding the morality of slavery, is simply lining up the usual suspects and targetting them through a prejudicial agenda.  You hate religion, ergo, you attack them at each opportunity.

Finally, if you read the scripture in Greek as it was intended, people will determine fairly quickly the juxtaposition of many of the arguments.  Religion was and has always been about observing different attitudes in society, and asking people to question the morality of their decision making.

Here’s a question for you. Is slavery always morally wrong or does it depend on circumstances?

I am unqualified to answer this question.  Philosophically speaking, you need to define what slavery is, to determine how wrong it is.  We are all slaves to society after all.  Is that wrong?

[PaulP]

Thats your inference.  I actually brought this up to show you and your mate PaulP that lining up the Christians for slavery is poppycock.
................................

Nice try. I never once stated nor implied that slavery was the exclusive preserve of the Israelites or early Christians.

[Mav]

Maybe it’s a blind spot for Christians, then. I’m happy to say slavery is wrong. Why can’t you?

Perhaps it was one of the 20 commandments, but, as Mel Brooks suggested, Moses dropped the tablet containing commandments 11-20. Maybe the commandments should have read:

1. I am the LORD your God: you shall not have strange Gods before me.
2. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
3. Remember to keep holy the LORD'S Day.
4. Honour your father and your mother.
5. You shall not kill.
6. You shall not commit adultery.
7. You shall not steal.
8. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
9. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife.
10. You shall not covet your neighbor's goods.
11. You shall not keep slaves.
…

Maybe “You shall not be gay” made it into the top 20 as well.

I can understand why politicians back in Biblical times didn’t want to get on the wrong side of the populace (or at least the rich and powerful) by banning slavery. But should God have been so pragmatic? If the Bible represents the word of God and applies for all time, why would God temper statements of morality to fit into the practices of the day? Aren’t Good and Evil unchanging through time?

On the other hand, if we accept that what is Good and Evil changes with time and cultural values, maybe that means that any supposed Biblical view that homosexuality is an abomination can also be seen as a reflection of cultural values that are 2000 years out of date. Presumably, if Jesus returned to Earth now he’d have no difficulty stating that slavery is evil. And maybe he’d have no difficulty accepting that homosexuality is part of the human condition and is accepted in the eyes of God …

[LP]

Well if nothing else this thread is pretty much proving my assertion about the extremes people are prepared to take in the whole debate! ;D

[Mav]

Religious extremism?