What Is The Argument Against Slavery?

.Also, biblically, all men are slaves whether it is to a human master, an addiction, their own ego, etc and Christians are urged to become slaves to Christ. Paul introduces himself as a prisoner of Christ in his letter to Philemon.

And yeah the letter is to Philemon who owns a slave, Onesimus, who Has run away to Paul and Paul is sending back to his human master.

 

I agree. It was a step forward at the time. The Bible says you shouldn't beat your slaves to death, and that's an improvement over society in that region prior. But by cannonizing that into religion, it cannonized that you can still have and take slaves, so later it held back further progress.

It shows that even when meaning well, religion ends up holding us back instead of pushing us forward.

 

Islam looks at it the same way. The whole of Abrahamic religion is slave/master mentality. It may be one reason why it spread as virulently as it did. It was a very useful tool for rulers. You need only convince the people that you speak for God, and they will self monitor to obey your dictates even when you aren't looking.

 

Yes, but I think Islam is different from Christianity on this topic. For one, most Islamic countries did not abolish slavery until international pressure in the 20th century forced them to. Even then it is a formal declaration but in practice there continues to be slaves in the Islamic world and I have read that some Imams still consider Muslims to have the right to keep slaves.

There are multiple declarations in the Bible, NT of course, that all men are equal in the eyes of god. I guess in God’s eyes though, all are slaves

https://www.openbible.info/topics/all_men_are_created_equal

‘None of these declarations go so far as saying “hey! Idiots! Stop enslaving each other!” You are just left to deduct that if we are all equal we probably shouldn’t hold slaves.

the other thing I guess is that Christians are urged to give up all their possessions and spend their life proselytizing. That would include giving up your servant I reckon.

 

Yet Paul still told slaves to obey their masters. The same verses that talk about slaves and masters being equal also talk about men and women being equal in the same way . . . while Paul obviously taught that women should be obedient to men. The equality he was talking about clearly wasn't a true, earthly equality. He was talking about equality in ultimate salvation. There's a reason why it took Christianity more than a millennium and a half to start thinking about abolishing slavery.

 

Those are two very salient points!

It is consistent with other biblical statements that what happens to you on earth really doesn’t matter as long as you serve God. Cut off your hand if it offends you, give away all your earthly possessions, hate your parents, sacrifice your children etc…

 

Quite true, but it is also important to remember that we all bring our "stuff" to the dance so what is most prescient about religion for you [or people who think like you] might not be for others [and be just as legit]. IOW, we have a tendency to give ourselves the benefit of the doubt.

Best to keep an open mind.

 

Providing you are understanding His meaning.

Buddhism is quite different though. It is not the same type of religion [although Christian mystics do make for some of the most serious Zen students]. Having said that [and in the final analysis], it's all the same, i.e., different paths, same destination.

 

Although I do not consider myself a religious person, I posted this thread to point out that religion has had [and will continue to have] a profound effect on everything we humans are and everything we humans do. It forms the basis of our morality, our law, our economics, and the relationships we cherish [?] with our families, significant others, friends, and others.

There are too many people who only see the bad that religion has wrought on the world [equal amount of good and bad in everything] and ignore the benefits that billions have received. Religion has given hope and salvation to those enmeshed in dire straits going through times a thousand times more desperate than we will ever know. As it is said, there are no atheists in the foxhole.

Open your minds and just maybe you might find a spark that will change your life. At the very least, try not to dissuade others who are looking for answers to the really tough questions in life. After all, it's probably better than wasting all this time writing who knows what to who knows who.

Thank you to those who participated in the conversation!

 

yes it will, we all have it!

BRAVO!

YAHTZEE! DING DING DING! lol

To say that, you are guilty of reading some very good material!

The cheap seat definition of religion is belief in a deity, the academic/philosophical version however just happens to agree with you:

Religion

is best characterized as the non-empirical homologue of ideological beliefs, by contrast with science or philosophy the cognitive interest is no longer primary, but gives way to the evaluative interest.

Acceptance of a religious belief is then commitment to its implementation in action in a sense in which acceptance of a philosophical belief is not.

Or, to put it more accurately a philosophical belief becomes a religious belief insofar as it is made the basis of a commitment in action.

Religious ideas may be speculative in philosophical sense, but the attitude toward them is not speculative in the sense that well "I wonder if it would make sense to look at it this way?"

Religious ideas then may be conceived as answers to the 'problems of meaning' in both senses discussed above.

On the one hand they concern the cognitive definition of the situation for action as a whole, including the cathetic and evaluative levels of interest in the situation.

This they share with ideological beliefs.

On the other hand, however, they also must include the problems of 'meaning' in the larger philosophical sense of the meaning of the objects of empirical cognition, of nature, human nature, so the vicissitudes of human life etc from their point of view. durkhiem


I like to sum it up as the moral compass ie the 'value' system a person uses for self governance/preservation etc. Value cannot be proven scientifically therefore fails the rigors of scientific examination.

Sorry pal, compassion and reason are not compatible with each other in logic.
If you think they are:
Scientifically 'prove' that compassion is logical.
Compassion is based and grounded in 'RELIGION' NOT logic lol

 

Nope, your cynicism is a provable observation.

I’m close? Monkeys have been observed to become angry when treated unfairly. They have an innate sense of fairness. It is essential for smooth social interactions. There are other factors in social interaction like status, kin and friendship but fair play holds it together. It is the golden rule.

You may think our innate morality comes from some mystical being but I think that is because you don’t like humans very much.

 

if you agree that its 'inherent' not only in man but also monkeys then you cant also claim it comes from man, or is man made.

youve just proven the atheist "man made" claim to be false.

From your post we now know it comes from something 'other' than man.

 

(also @impermanence ) Definitely, and even rats have been shown to show concern for the welfare of their friends, even when they put themselves at risk to do so, and whales and elephants have been shown to protect other species from predators. Concern for others appears to be a thing among all social species, no religion required.

 

You misunderstand me.

I said that our innate morality is subject to change [in that our self-interest seems to wedge itself in and among all those critical decisions].

Human beings have demonstrated throughout history that they need guidance in the moral arena so when really difficult situations appear [as they always do], folks can have something to refer to that is not going to change [regardless of interests]. For example, if you are epic-ly tempted to [fill in the blank] and you feel yourself caving, it might be nice to have some moral guidance that can get you through to the other side [of course, perhaps you are not tempted to do anything you shouldn't be doing, but it works pretty well for everybody else].

 

Projecting onto life-forms much higher than our own can be very dangerous.

Because we depend so highly on our intelligence [which is so poorly developed], I have always considered our species to be at the bottom of the barrel [along with the slugs, maggots, and whatnot].

If you observe any species out in the wild [or your household cat or dog, for that matter], you will soon realize how primitive we are despite [because of] our intelligence. We think when we should just do. Of course, today, we could substitute "think" with eat, 'cause that's all most people seem to be interested in doing anymore.

 

I encourage you to learn more about social species. Your characterization is ill-informed. Social species show social concerns. A concern for the wellbeing of others is both common in our species and can easily be found in other social species.

 

I understand what you are saying but your comments assume that you actually understand infinite complexity [of which we have no capacity]. It might seem to you that this is that and that is this, but you have no way of really knowing this. Our ability to understand even the simplest of things is incredibly lacking [again due to the notion that all things come into being because of the infinite number of things preceding].

I get that it makes sense to you, but that's only in the context of what is thought to be known...and this changes all the time.

 

No "infinite capacity" has been required for anything I've said. Not even remotely close.

Again, I'm talking about observed animal behavior, not "infinite capacity."

I'm talking about observed behavior. I'm talking about actual observation and experimentation. And you can't actually object to any of it besides throwing up your hands and claiming that observed behavior doesn't matter.

 

Again, you are assuming that the interpretation of what you are observing is correct. That's a huge leap of faith! [I guess there is a little religion in you after all! ]

 

I'm talking about direct observation.

 

So am I.

 

And direct observation involves such things as rats helping their social partners despite disadvantages to themselves and elephants and whales protecting other species from predators.

 

I think it's instructive to be familiar with the history of what people have thought to be the case over time. 100, 500, 1000, 10,000 years from now, I would believe that people will have a considerably different interpretation of the events you observe [describe].

You can certainly describe what's going on [within the context of contemporary thinking], but you cannot understand what's going on or why [the truth of the matter]. After all, can't you understand the complexity of even the simplest of things, how can you understand something infinitely complex?

 

I wasn't even talking about people or their impressions. I was talking about animals.

If that's what you need to tell yourself to avoid the fact that compassion exists and exists outside our species.

 

I am not doubting that compassion exists [or anything else for that matter]. The best we can do is see things as close as we can to the way they are [no interpretation necessary]. Human understanding [albeit primitive] is a fluid process which must change with the inputs that are in constant flux.

This is not to suggest that we cannot judge right from wrong, to the contrary, it is our moral imperative to do just that. Understanding what 'right and wrong' means is key...similar to compassion which is not an act of sympathy or empathy, instead, the manifestation of realizing truth.