a lot of the misunderstandings about Christianity come from a lack of wisdom about human nature

That's not necessarily true.
If you believe sin is only a sin because it is defined that way in some religious law, then it will be impossible for you to see the point in the OP.

Even atheists should be able to agree in the concept and existence of sin, even if they do not define it exactly the same way, or see it in every situation where religious people might.

If you refuse to agree with that, I think you are just obstinately making a pathetic argument based on semantics.

 

That's as absurd as saying beating your wife would be okay as long as you didn't know it was wrong. (which is actually the situation in certain "cultures")

 

Well, the word "sin" has a definition.

I think you are referring to people breaking accepted moral or ethical standards or breaking the law.

Whether such acts are sin is up to religions to define.

Sloth, gluttony, pride, envy - these are sins, because they were added into Catholic devotions as such.

One can see other sins in the 10C - which don't all translate to modern laws or even codes of morality or ethics.

 

Let's not confuse knowledge with social conditioning, as if the latter controls the individual, it is only by usurping of the role of conscience.

 

"Sins' are actions that produce bad results. People learned from observation what actions caused trouble and wrote up some rules that would allow people to live together without too much mayhem and chaos. To get people to pay attention to the rules they said they came from God who they had already defined as a guy you did not want to mess with.

 

Was slavery wrong or sinful? Being subjective as you say?

 

Slavery was accepted in Biblical times, so it can't have been sinful to those believers.

Since then, sins have been added by various religious institutions. For example, Catholics added the "seven deadly sins". So, sloth, pride, gluttony, etc. became sin for Catholics. Do other Christian denominations see pride, etc., as sin? I don't know. Do Americans see the Catholic sin of pride as immoral? I don't think so.

I don't know if any branch of Christianity added slavery as a sin. It might be covered in some other more general sin.

Whether or not that is the case, we in the USA can progress to cover slavery as illegal, immoral, etc., regardless of whether it is a sin under any religion. And, of course there are sins that are not illegal and probably not considered immoral by most citizens.

 

So it's sinful to eat a tuna sandwich and to pick up sticks on Sunday?

 

Prior to the agricultural revolution, slavery was necessary in order to produce enough food to maintain cities.

 

Yes, I would say the practice of imposing slavery onto other human beings, as generally practiced in the ancient world, was a sinful practice.
Now, if the Bible tells slaves how to deal with the situation they find themselves in, that's a far cry from "condoning slavery".

Should the Bible have said "Kill your overlords in their sleep, if you have the opportunity"?

 

So had you lived in ancient times, you would have preferred mass starvation, the non-existence of cities, and the crippling of human progress that derives from cities?

 

I'm just saying that the issue of whether slavery is sinful or whether you believe the Bible condones slavery is irrelevant to the point being made in the Opening Post.

Just yet another red herring that zealous atheists are so fond of throwing out there because they don't have any particular arguments against the topic being discussed.

 

Your understanding of Atheism is sadly confused, and "Wisdom" is not gained from a book...especially one full of fables.

 

I just said that was one of the misunderstandings.

By stating that you just implicitly admitted you believe human nature is inherently sinful and deserving of punishment.

If that's not what you believe, then you admit my understanding of atheism is not confused.

Don't try to play vague semantic games with implicit meanings to squirm out of this.

 

The Old Testament, which is part of the Bible, most definitely condones slavery.

 

Even if that were true, it has nothing directly to do with the argument being made in the OP, now does it?

 

Wow....you just made up quite a bit about me from my simple statement.

 

It's called logic, and you got entrapped in it.

I'm tired of arguments carrying obviously implicit meanings, but then when I point out the logical fallacy of those implicit meanings, the person turns around and denies they said that.

It falls into the logical fallacy category of semantic arguments.

If I wrongly stuffed words into your mouth, maybe you would care to tell us exactly what you did mean by that?

 

But what was my actual question?

 

If it was wrong/sinful. No, prior to the agricultural revolution, slavery was neither. It was necessary for society to produce enough food to support cities. The innovations that made slavery obsolete would never have occurred without the food surplus slavery provided.

 

We are ALL clueless to our connection to each other. We think that it is ZERO SUM GAME. And, comfort is our almost entire aim. Therefore, it is expected, that folks will do evil.

Jesus had it right. Take up your cross and follow me. This means, don't expect comfort, or success. Expect failure, and hardship. Do it for him. This is taking the focus off of the EGO.

If man understood his connection to nature and other beings, he would NOT consider doing harm.

We are blind to it though.

 

[QUOTE="Questerr, post: 1070504980, member: 870"]If it was wrong/sinful. No, prior to the agricultural revolution, slavery was neither. It was necessary for society to produce enough food to support cities. The innovations that made slavery obsolete would never have occurred without the food surplus slavery provided.[/QUOTE]

Exactly.

It occurs to me you are explaining how George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and 10 more presidents saw this condition. Visit Mt. Vernon or Monticello when you can and notice neither are cities, yet one had 300 slaves and the owner was extremely wealthy and the slaves at Jefferson's house had decent quarters for those days (600 slaves are reported). So to did Washington's slaves. I believe the crops supporting the South mostly were Cotton along with Tobacco. I saw gardens at both Mt. Vernon and Monticello which gives the idea both places were self sufficient. I believe then they smoked meat to make it last longer.

I saw the era or food surpluses mostly as caused by the tractor on farms.

 

The agricultural revolution occurred in the 15th/16th centuries. By the time, Jefferson, Washington, et al lived, slavery had been unnnecessary for food production for several centuries. Which is why they used it for cash crops.

Tractors post-date the food surpluses of the agricultural revolution by even more time.

 

I'll pass....Have A Nice Day

 

straight and narrow, is salvation by EFFORT. You cannot WILL yourself into heaven. To be freee of sin, is to be joyous, not forlorn, and resentful of the things you aren't allowed.