If you remove monuments of slave owners, then also don't endorse the books they wrote (Bible).

If you remove monuments of slave owners, then to be intellectually consistent, also don't endorse the moral guide-books they wrote (Bible - Moses, etc., Qur'an - Mohammad). In fact, those religious heroes, unlike, say Thomas Jefferson, were allegedly inspired by "GOD" no less, and of course "god" would KNOW BETTER than to approve of slavery - this makes their approval of slavery even more egregious, arguably.

Question: if we remove monuments of slave owners, to then be intellectually consistent, wouldn't we need to also NOT endorse moral guide-books that slave owners wrote (Bible/Qur'an, etc)? Otherwise we are hypocrites.

Me, as a Modern Secular Humanist, I need intellectual consistency, so of course if I believe that if we take down monuments of slave owners then we should not endorse the moral guide-books that slave owners wrote (Bible/Qur'an), obviously. I'm not a hypocrite.

Your opinion?

 

Good question...

... including the Constitution...

... which Thomas Jefferson, a slave owner and the father of Sally Jennings children,...

... helped to write.

 

While Jefferson did own slaves and bought and sold a number of them, I've heard it is actually unlikely he fathered any of Jenning's children. Problems with the time lines. Probably were fathered by another male in the Jefferson family.

 

Ex slaves wrote large chunks of the Bible if you wish to insist on Human authorship.

 

Jesus didn't encouraged to enslave people, at the opposite, he said that everybody was equal in front of god, poor, rich, slaves, owners.

At the opposite, Muhammed encouraged multiple time to enslave people and enslaved people (while killing their family).

 

You afraid of a statue? Is your ideology that weak?

 

It's not the statue, it's the ideology that the statue represents (slavery is ok)....Jesus/Moses/god/Allah/Mohammad all also, like the Confederacy approved of slavery (Bible/Quran), so I abhor them, as well.

 

So let's discredit him.

 

You can't condemn slavery, can you?

 

Like the Bible and Qur'an, Jefferson didn't know right from wrong.

 

Christianity was the greatest force for human and civil rights - and greatest force in opposition to slavery.

It was the Catholic Church that ended the outright slaughtering of indigenous peoples of the Americas by declaring they had souls. Prior to this, Spanish human secularism held that the indigenous people of the Americas were no different than any other animals.

Why does the OPer endorse an ideology that declares humans are no different than animals? The OPer should explain why he promotes the secular humanist ideology of among the greatest mass murderers of the modern era - Mao and Stalin?

 

This is so tiring. They weren't just slave owners, they waged war against the US.

Why is this too complicated for people to understand? The Confederacy assassinated Lincoln.

And yes, the bible has no problem with slavery. That is one of the cultural biases that further confirms it is all bs.

 

Isnt battling statues kind of like the guy that battled windmills??????????

 

Incorrect on two points.

1) The Confederacy did not assassinate Lincoln. Confederate sympathizers assassinated Lincoln. big difference.

2) The Bible did not "have no problem with slavery". It simply accepted it as existing and then advised both slave masters and their slaves regarding how to get along better.

The purpose of the Bible was not to eliminate social wrongs in this world but to prepare people for the next world.

 

So it's a mental distraction? I suppose I can see your point! It's like when I drive by a billboard of a huge breasted women sucking the juice out of a Carl's Jr triple bacon cheese burger, sure some folk with weak convictions might be swayed towards believing if "THEY" grab a triple bacon cheese burger they will attract huge breasted women, but those with common sense knows that the thing they will attract is a Cardiologist and a few bypasses

So yes, it's best to keep these confusing things away from the average Leftists, until they are more comfortable in their skins!

 

In other words it's not from an all-knowing god, because an all-knowing god would not just accept the barbaric human norms of a barbaric time, but would of course have taken a mere 15 seconds out of his busy schedule of killing innocent first-born children in Egypt (in Exodus in the Bible) and said "write this down - end slavery w/in the next 25 years". I would have if I was all-powerful like god....would YOU have, Dayton3? I assume that you would do what's best for the world (saying that simple sentence), no? Please let us know.

 

You couldn't BE more wrong: the Bible approves, to this very day (they lack the ethical balls to change it) of BEATING SLAVES TO DEATH AS LONG AS THE DEATH DRAGS OUT PAST A DAY OR TWO! Nothing could be more barbaric than not only APPROVING of slavery, but giving the ethical advice that one should get away Scot-free when they BEAT A SLAVE TO DEATH! Obviously I couldn't remain in an incredibly immoral religion, with an incredibly immoral god/messiah, o I left.

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

 

Yet no Muslims will condemn him as being a poor role model for TODAY, in the TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY.....incredible.

 

I'm a Modern Secular Humanist - we oppose totalitarian political ideologies such as communism and monarchies. God, on the other hand, approves of monarchies in the Bible. That's because he's not actually real, or he's too stupid to simply take 15 seconds out of his busy schedule of creating "acts of god" (i.e. deadly tornadoes that kill innocent people, the Aceh Tsunami that killed 240,000 innocent people, etc.) and tell us "write this down - end monarchies, and replace them with democracies."
I would do that if I had his all-powerful skills, but most Christians, when asked, can't find the moral courage to agree with me on that.
Have a nice day.

 

No.

Because if you want humans to be free moral agents and come to love and worship you of their own volition, they have to be allowed to make their own mistakes.

That's the difference between having children and having a pet turtle.

 

No, it's important to condemn symbols of hate, such as statues to those who fought to keep slavery, and the Bible/Quran which teach sheer hatred towards towards most people (most people don't follow their religion.)

The Bible OOZES with sheer hatred - so of course Jesus approves of hatred or he'd have encouraged, in 2000 years, they to remove the sheer hatred in the main book about him. If there was a book about, me, and it oozed with hatred, I of course would encourage them in no uncertain words to remove those hateful parts (but I'm more ethical than Jesus, however):

Examples of hate literature in the Christian Scriptures (New Testament):
Matthew 27:24-25: "When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it. Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children." This passage, probably more than any other text in the Christian Scriptures fueled anti-Judaism, and later anti-semitism. Matthew records that a crowd of Jews said a most improbable statement: that they and their children were responsible for Jesus' death. This inspired the church father Origen (circa 185-254 CE) to write: "Therefore the blood of Jesus came not only upon those who lived formerly but also upon all subsequent generations of Jews..." The Christian church taught until recently that all Jews -- past, present and future -- are equally responsible for the death of Christ. 2
John 8:44: "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." In this passage, Jesus is speaking to Jews who, like the majority of the residents of Palestine, rejected his teachings. He says that they are sons of Satan.
1 Corinthians 10:20-21 "But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils." Here, Paul writes that the Gods and Goddesses of other religions are actually demons. In modern terms, they are Satanists. He taught that Christians are to isolate themselves from non-Christians.
2 Corinthians 6:14 "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?" Paul is recommending that Christians have minimal contact with non-Christians. He compares Christians to light and non-Christians to darkness. This may promote hatred of non-Christians.
1 Thessalonians 2:14-15: "...ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men." This passage has been used to promote anti-Judaism and anti-semitism up to the present time. In reality, Jesus' death sentence was ordered by Pilate, a Roman official, and was carried out by soldiers in the Roman Army. Only they had the authority to crucify slaves and non-slaves who were considered to be insurrectionists and terrorists by the occupying Roman authorities.
Revelation 2:9: "I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan." Here, Jesus "claims the name of Jews for himself and his church," and is condemning other Jews as followers of Satan.

 

"Of their own volition"!? Are your serious!? THEY GET TORTURED IN JESUS' BARBARIC "LAKE OF FIRE" IF THEY DON'T "WORSHIP YOU"!

If you were in Jesus' current position, would you, Dayton3, say this?: "I've decided to become more loving and so I'll now allow ethical non-believers into heaven and avoid hell."
Would you, Dayton3? I would, because Modern Secular Humanism obviously loves more than Jesus does - clearly.

 

You realize that you're hardly qualified to interpret the bible, especially when you have to CUT & PASTE it and then have the audacity to miss interpret it LOL

 

So which is a higher PRIORITY, Dayton3, "not coveting your neighbor's ass", or ending slavery? In other words, if you wrote the 10 Commandments, can we at least agree that you (like me) would have put ending slavery in the 10 Commandments, as a higher priority than not coveting someone's donkey? I think we can agree that slavery causes more harm than coveting, no?

 

So how CORRECTLY should the sheer hatred of Jesus be interpreted? In other words, give us an ACCURATE (and non-hateful) interpretation of the seemingly hateful verses that I quoted. I'm not going to let you just condemn the messenger (me) w/out demanding that you give us the CORRECT interpretation (seeing how I'm so unqualified to claim that those verses teach sheer hatred.) Please tell us.