Who is more evil?

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Venom

Some people = the largely anonymous writers of the NT.

The Bible is a patchwork of often clashing narratives and instructions. It's just as wrong to attack it by telling believers "why aren't you doing it this way!" when you don't actually know their beliefs.

Again it can be a useful talking point when honestly discussing the problems of Biblical authority. But you gotta know your audience.

I don’t attack believers. I do however attack the belief. There is nothing wrong about that.

What I see from believers is either ignorance or over the top post hoc rationalizations.

Speaking of post hoc rationalizations.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

So when God was giving his messages to mankind he was okay with slavery?

Originally Posted by acbytesla

If God can tell you not to eat shellfish, you would think he could tell you not to own human beings as property.

You are posting as if God is real.

If God is just the creation of people then there is unlikely to be any blinding moral insight. He will simply reflect the values of that time.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by psionl0

You are posting as if God is real.

No, I am posting as if people act as if he is real

Originally Posted by psionl0

If God is just the creation of people then there is unlikely to be any blinding moral insight. He will simply reflect the values of that time.

I agree. There isn't.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Darat

That will have been what arthwollipot was taught but don't confuse that for being an all-encompassing answer for Christians, many would rather strongly object to what he was taught.

Thank you for saying this. I meant to mention that myself, but in the posting, forgot. Yes, this was what was taught in my Pentecostal church and may not be true for other theologies. I think that it makes a certain amount of sense, though, and it's hard to argue with the passage from Galatians.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by psionl0

That's another one of those cases of "which part of the bible do you want to believe"?

In Matthew 15:11 Jesus pretty much declares all things edible: " Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man".

In Matthew 22:37-40 Jesus also said that there were only two commandments - love they God and love thy neighbour. Those other ten from before aren't that important any more.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by xjx388

This is exactly what I’m talking about when I say we have to play by the rules of the game. These “favorite argument(s) among atheists,” are wholly unconvincing among Christians. Once you’ve broken free from the Christianity, then you can look back and see that none of these ideas actually make sense. But you have to break free first. These little gotchas aren’t going to cause many people to break free.

So other than atheist entertainment, I really don’t see the point of these kinds of “arguments.” It’s preaching to the choir.

Absolutely. This is why I don't tend to join atheist communities any more. This is basically the only arena in which I talk about it.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

How do you get that? Heaven and Earth did not pass.

No, but all was fulfilled.

I should mention that under some traditions, the law was fulfilled when John the Baptist was born, per Luke 16:16.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

No, but all was fulfilled.

I should mention that under some traditions, the law was fulfilled when John the Baptist was born, per Luke 16:16.

I get that Christianity has rationalized passage after passage of their religion. Paul was doing this in all of his writings and Christians do that today. Christianity is really Paul's religion.

Paul is making this religion for the Gentiles.

But, it's not like saying Jesus fulfilled the law so now there is no law.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

No, I am posting as if people act as if he is real

This seems pointless to me. To a believer it is a matter of faith rather than logic or interpretation and to an atheist - well it has already pointed out that you are just rehashing an old topic.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

I get that Christianity has rationalized passage after passage of their religion. Paul was doing this in all of his writings and Christians do that today. Christianity is really Paul's religion.

Paul is making this religion for the Gentiles.

But, it's not like saying Jesus fulfilled the law so now there is no law.

It is kind of exactly like that. Jesus himself didn't give very many laws. There were a bunch of homilies, sermon on the mount touchy-feely stuff, but the only two "laws" he spoke about were the aforementioned two.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

It is kind of exactly like that. Jesus himself didn't give very many laws. There were a bunch of homilies, sermon on the mount touchy-feely stuff, but the only two "laws" he spoke about were the aforementioned two.

Actually, Jesus did list 5 of the 10 commandments to the rich man in Matthew 19 together with the "love thy neighbour as thyself" maxim (not to mention "sell everything you have and give the money to the poor").

In Romans 13:9 Paul describes the maxim "love thy neighbour as thyself" as a summary of the 10 commandments (and others not listed).

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Darat

. No and no.

If the believers are wrong about their god's properties than they were wrong about their god period, so whatever god "does exist" we know it can't be Zeus.

No. That's obviously also untrue. Do you really not realise that? You are claiming that if people say mistaken or invented/untrue things about someone or something, then that someone or something cannot exist at all. You are claiming that if Christians are wrong about some things which they say about a God, then the God cannot exist at all ... that's obviously not true …

… you are presenting what philosophy-people call the Black Swan Fallacy … ie the claim that there are no black swans because when we later looked (as on Mount Olympus), all the swans we found were white!

Originally Posted by Darat

Secondly we have satellite and ariel photos of Mount Olympus and we see there is no temple, therefore there is no temple, therefore the god they say they believe in doesn't exist.

What date are we talking about for the people who you previously mentioned as believing in Zeus? That's a religion from pre-biblical times. There was no satellite surveillance at the time when you said people began to believe Zeus lived in a temple on a mountain, was there! You switched from Christianity (for some reason), and stated talking about Zeus instead, but it's not an absolute proof against the existence of any such God just because 3000 years later people take photos of the top of a mountain.

Originally Posted by Darat

.
I think you are trying to create a "Platonic" version of knowledge that is simply not one we ever use for anything else bar "god existence" discussions.

I'm not trying to “create” anything. And I have no interest in what anyone like Plato might ever have said. The issue here is that you were claiming that it's certain that a Christian God could not possibly ever exist. But when I asked how you could claim any such certainty, you changed your claimed certainty to say that it just meant 99.9% likely in your opinion!

Why on earth do you think it's a good idea to claim that you know things as absolutely certain fact, when you so obviously do not know that at all?

Originally Posted by Darat

.
I say the sun, Sol exists. I am certain of that fact by any sensible, useable definition of certainty and knowledge. I am just as certain that the god of the RCC, Zeus and Devi don't exist. My claims about gods do not go beyond my knowledge.

In the case of the Sun, that is something we can directly test and check scientifically today. And in fact, we do actually make all sorts of scientific observations & examinations monitoring it every day. But the religious claims of a God that supposedly created the universe billions of years ago are not something that we can so easily test or observe in any similarly direct way. So your analogy is just not comparable/reasonable at all. And … you don't need any flawed analogies here – the position is simple; you know what a Christian God is supposed to be & you can just deal with that; ie it's primarily claimed to be the creator of this universe & the creator of Mankind … that is the main and most fundamental essential basis of the entire belief.

How are you going to show that you know that sort of creator-God to be literally impossible?

Look - I also don't think there is any evidence to support any such religious claims. And I don't believe it for one moment. But that's not the same thing as me trying to claim that I have proved it untrue.

If I am being charitable, then I could say that what I think you mean is that you feel certain in your own mind that no such God could possibly ever have existed. OK, fine. But that's an opinion … that's not a universal fact that you can declare for the world.

[sphenisc]

I had an ex-friend who was sentenced last week. He got five years for rape. He died a couple of days ago. The law hasn't changed, but he's no longer in prison.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by theprestige

No, it's not. And the atheist answers you'll get here are already well-known. Why re-hash them? Did you really think this choir was going to sing some new and interesting song, in response to the same old sermon?

And yet somehow we still manage to hash out a (so far) 9-page conversation about it.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by psionl0

A world without slavery was unthinkable in the times when the biblical texts were being written. Why would an atheist expect the bible to challenge that view?

The question in the OP was, which (fictional) character was most evil? Which I think only makes sense if you define the moral framework and underlying values from which you define good and evil.

An argument made today that God could do whatever he wanted to with Job because he made Job is one that is based on an abhorrent moral framework.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by jimbob

An argument made today that God could do whatever he wanted to with Job because he made Job is one that is based on an abhorrent moral framework.

It is today. It wasn't when it was written.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

It is today. It wasn't when it was written.

And JoeMorgue, correctly, pointed out that this argument is still being used. At least I have come across it when at university.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by IanS

No. That's obviously also untrue. Do you really not realise that? You are claiming that if people say mistaken or invented/untrue things about someone or something, then that someone or something cannot exist at all. You are claiming that if Christians are wrong about some things which they say about a God, then the God cannot exist at all ... that's obviously not true …

If I define a thing to be a thing and say it has to have these 5 specific qualities, and I examine something and it only has 4 of the qualities it is not a thing.

A believer in a god such as Zeus is the one that says what Zues is, they give him 5 qualities. We go and look and can't find a thing with the 5 qualities that makes it a Zeus according to the believer or we find something that contradicts one of those qualities therefore the Zeus the believers believe in doesn't exist.

Something else could of course exist but it isn't the Zeus the believers believe in.

You are trying to broaden what I claim, my claims about gods are always limited to being about the gods I know people do or have worshipped, not about any "theoretical type" of gods we can think about. Why we even use the term god for those types of speculations is beyond me. Keep "god" to what it has always meant - beings of some description that people do or have believed in.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by jimbob

The question in the OP was, which (fictional) character was most evil? Which I think only makes sense if you define the moral framework and underlying values from which you define good and evil.

An argument made today that God could do whatever he wanted to with Job because he made Job is one that is based on an abhorrent moral framework.

Yes, getting back to the topic of good and evil, to say that it exists but God cannot/does not exist because 'he must have been the one who created eveil!' begs the question. If we take Plato and his examination of the virtues, we can see that by consensus (as in consensus of what makes for beauty, great art or great music) we have, prudence, justice, temperance and fortitude {or Courage}. This predates Christianity by a long chalk. So, are these concepts learnt or do they come with being human (nature vs nurture again)? If we look at history, England was in the Dark Ages until Christian King Alfred came along and established England and codified morality into proper laws. You might not like the Crusaders but they did establish education (via Churches teaching latin grammar in order to udnerstand the scriptures), the early press was formed later by Tyndall et al making the Bible accessible in English to the common man and later by Martin Luther promulgating his Augsberg Confessions and ideas for reformation, etcetera, etcetera.

As for Job, actually this is an excellent philosophical treatise on the nature of good versus evil, using God versus Satan as the prop. If you want to read something more contemporary then Bulgakov's The Master and Margarita is the go-to book.

Quote:

The story concerns a visit by the devil to the officially atheistic Soviet Union. The Master and Margarita combines supernatural elements with satirical dark comedy and Christian philosophy, defying categorization within a single genre. Many critics consider it to be one of the best novels of the 20th century, as well as the foremost of Soviet satires

wiki

Going back to Job, we have the Wicked One, who informs us that he roams the earth here and there. So is this a metaphor for the seemingly senseless acts of random evil (say, you get caught up in gunfire by a random supermarket killer or high school shooter, entirely at random chance) or can you claim to be atheist yet still claim that evil and good exist as concepts in their own right, like the Devil stalking the earth, or St Michael-style angels fighting evil in the heavens, over and separate from merely thinking about them?

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Yes, getting back to the topic of good and evil, to say that it exists but God cannot/does not exist because 'he must have been the one who created eveil!' begs the question. If we take Plato and his examination of the virtues, we can see that by consensus (as in consensus of what makes for beauty, great art or great music) we have, prudence, justice, temperance and fortitude {or Courage}. This predates Christianity by a long chalk. So, are these concepts learnt or do they come with being human (nature vs nurture again)? If we look at history, England was in the Dark Ages until Christian King Alfred came along and established England and codified morality into proper laws. You might not like the Crusaders but they did establish education (via Churches teaching latin grammar in order to udnerstand the scriptures), the early press was formed later by Tyndall et al making the Bible accessible in English to the common man and later by Martin Luther promulgating his Augsberg Confessions and ideas for reformation, etcetera, etcetera.

As for Job, actually this is an excellent philosophical treatise on the nature of good versus evil, using God versus Satan as the prop. If you want to read something more contemporary then Bulgakov's The Master and Margarita is the go-to book.

wiki

Going back to Job, we have the Wicked One, who informs us that he roams the earth here and there. So is this a metaphor for the seemingly senseless acts of random evil (say, you get caught up in gunfire by a random supermarket killer or high school shooter, entirely at random chance) or can you claim to be atheist yet still claim that evil and good exist as concepts in their own right, like the Devil stalking the earth, or St Michael-style angels fighting evil in the heavens, over and separate from merely thinking about them?

Interesting points but irrelevant to the idea that any moral system which is happy with the ownership of people is based on a set of values that I find abhorrent. The existence or otherwise of the being said to promote that moral system is irrelevant to me.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by jimbob

Interesting points but irrelevant to the idea that any moral system which is happy with the ownership of people is based on a set of values that I find abhorrent. The existence or otherwise of the being said to promote that moral system is irrelevant to me.

I wonder if you could expand on this?

For thousands of years you had different versions of serfdom and slavery. We can probably agree that serfdom and slavery are different versions of the same thing. Classical Greece was based on slavery, classical Rome was based on slavery, most of the rest of European history has been based on serfdom. Go beyond Europe and you see the same patterns being repeated.

When the peasants were thrown off the land, you replace serfdom with debt and poverty. Now the same class of people who previously owned the serfs get to employ their former serfs on the equivalent of zero hours contracts. Is there some great and noble sense in which these people are now free? There is a way of looking at it that sees this less as freedom, and more as abandonment of responsibility. As you move through the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, you have the offshoring of slavery/serfdom followed by the offshoring of zero hours/debt/poverty style serfdom.

It seems a lot like some form of slavery is something human cultures simply produce. If it is often less explicit today, I would say that had more to do with the Adam Smith argument that wage slavery is a far more efficient system than actual slavery as it carries with it no long term obligation to support the slave beyond the contracted work. Constructing moral systems that view that as intolerable is fine, but it seems very much harder to construct the great pyramid of society in a way that doesn't have something a lot like slavery at its base.

Do you see a big difference in terms of freedom between a slave and a serf? Do you see a great step up in freedom for the former serf who is thrown off the land so that sheep can graze there and must now work in a factory or starve?

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by psionl0

This seems pointless to me. To a believer it is a matter of faith rather than logic or interpretation and to an atheist - well it has already pointed out that you are just rehashing an old topic.

Faith is the excuse people use when they don't have a good reason.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

It is today. It wasn't when it was written.

No, it was abhorrent then as well. Might makes right has always been abhorrent. People accepted it basically because they had no choice.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Faith is the excuse people use when they don't have a good reason.

I guess you have stopped judging fictional characters for now.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by psionl0

I guess you have stopped judging fictional characters for now.

No, I'm just saying that faith is the excuse people give when they don't have a good reason. Because if they did had a good reason they would give the reason.

Faith is not a reliable process for determining truth.

Bringing this full circle to the thread, it's why theists have determined that the devil is bad.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

I wonder if you could expand on this?

For thousands of years you had different versions of serfdom and slavery. We can probably agree that serfdom and slavery are different versions of the same thing. Classical Greece was based on slavery, classical Rome was based on slavery, most of the rest of European history has been based on serfdom. Go beyond Europe and you see the same patterns being repeated.

When the peasants were thrown off the land, you replace serfdom with debt and poverty. Now the same class of people who previously owned the serfs get to employ their former serfs on the equivalent of zero hours contracts. Is there some great and noble sense in which these people are now free? There is a way of looking at it that sees this less as freedom, and more as abandonment of responsibility. As you move through the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, you have the offshoring of slavery/serfdom followed by the offshoring of zero hours/debt/poverty style serfdom.

It seems a lot like some form of slavery is something human cultures simply produce. If it is often less explicit today, I would say that had more to do with the Adam Smith argument that wage slavery is a far more efficient system than actual slavery as it carries with it no long term obligation to support the slave beyond the contracted work. Constructing moral systems that view that as intolerable is fine, but it seems very much harder to construct the great pyramid of society in a way that doesn't have something a lot like slavery at its base.

Do you see a big difference in terms of freedom between a slave and a serf? Do you see a great step up in freedom for the former serf who is thrown off the land so that sheep can graze there and must now work in a factory or starve?

What acbytesla says

Originally Posted by acbytesla

No, it was abhorrent then as well. Might makes right has always been abhorrent. People accepted it basically because they had no choice.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

I wonder if you could expand on this?

For thousands of years you had different versions of serfdom and slavery. We can probably agree that serfdom and slavery are different versions of the same thing. Classical Greece was based on slavery, classical Rome was based on slavery, most of the rest of European history has been based on serfdom. Go beyond Europe and you see the same patterns being repeated.

When the peasants were thrown off the land, you replace serfdom with debt and poverty. Now the same class of people who previously owned the serfs get to employ their former serfs on the equivalent of zero hours contracts. Is there some great and noble sense in which these people are now free? There is a way of looking at it that sees this less as freedom, and more as abandonment of responsibility. As you move through the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, you have the offshoring of slavery/serfdom followed by the offshoring of zero hours/debt/poverty style serfdom.

It seems a lot like some form of slavery is something human cultures simply produce. If it is often less explicit today, I would say that had more to do with the Adam Smith argument that wage slavery is a far more efficient system than actual slavery as it carries with it no long term obligation to support the slave beyond the contracted work. Constructing moral systems that view that as intolerable is fine, but it seems very much harder to construct the great pyramid of society in a way that doesn't have something a lot like slavery at its base.

Do you see a big difference in terms of freedom between a slave and a serf? Do you see a great step up in freedom for the former serf who is thrown off the land so that sheep can graze there and must now work in a factory or starve?

May I lean in...? Slavery was often a simple case of persons being taken as the spoils of war by the victorious army. Serfdom followed when William the Conqueror to control the country he had just conquered had all land closely registered (the Doomsday Book) and divided amongst his own men, who were called Barons. Enter French into the English language. Slavery was more to do with ownership of chattel, like owning cattle or sheep. You had to feed, house and clothe them. Peasant serfs, had to give up a large part of their yield from toiling on their messuage to the Lord of the Manor, who themselves didn't even own the land (the King did) and were called 'tenants'. So no, nothing much has changed in England or countries that followed a similar model. Most land is in the hands of few. But what has that got to do with good versus evil? Well, yest the New Testament advises that a slave should be happy to serve his master and in hymns such as All Things Bright and Beautiful we have lines about the master and his servants at his gate as being quite natural, ditto Good King Wenceslas.

[bruto]

On the issue of what constitutes what level of slavery etc., while not proposing any particular hierarchy of nastiness to the various objectionable forms of serfdom, binding, forced labor, imprisonment, and whatnot, I would suggest what some now forgotten commentator on American slavery suggested. There is a unique level of slavery at which your master can sell your children.

[Thor 2]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

In Matthew 22:37-40 Jesus also said that there were only two commandments - love they God and love thy neighbour. Those other ten from before aren't that important any more.

I have always had an issue with the idea that you can be commanded to love someone. When I mention this to the faithful I don't get a reaction.

[theprestige]

I don't want to get into the issues with slavery generally, but I think what really hurt black people in America wasn't so much the slavery period itself, as it was the "blacks are subhuman" rationalization that was used to justify it. Even after slavery was abolished, that lie lived on, and justified a lot of other things that persisted for way too long.

The Romans had their own institutions of indentured servitude and slavery, and their own brand of ethnic chauvinism. But anyone from any ethnic background - even if they started out as a slave - was still recognized as fully human, and could still become a first-class citizen of the Roman Empire.

I don't think slavery has a place in the modern world, but it wasn't slavery alone that disenfranchised black people in America.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Thor 2

I have always had an issue with the idea that you can be commanded to love someone. When I mention this to the faithful I don't get a reaction.

"Don't harbor grudges. Don't withhold forgiveness. Don't look for reasons to hate. Be strict when you must, but be kind when you can. Be generous, not grasping. Try to treat people with respect and compassion, even when you don't feel respect or compassion. Try to foster in yourself attitudes of respect and compassion. In short: Love your neighbor."

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I don't want to get into the issues with slavery generally, but I think what really hurt black people in America wasn't so much the slavery period itself, as it was the "blacks are subhuman" rationalization that was used to justify it. Even after slavery was abolished, that lie lived on, and justified a lot of other things that persisted for way too long.

I would say more so. Interestingly the negative attitudes towards blacks actually grew worse after the Emancipation. In 1850 blacks were thought to be industrious cordial and family oriented. By 1880, blacks particularly in the South were viewed as lazy and dangerous.

But slavery in itself was and is subhuman. Slavery outside of the African slavery was almost non-existent in the European North America. There was indentured servitude which pretty much ended simultaneously with the American revolution.

Originally Posted by theprestige

I don't think slavery has a place in the modern world, but it wasn't slavery alone that disenfranchised black people in America.

No it wasn't this alone. But you can't dismiss how horrible slavery was.

[GDon]

Originally Posted by Thor 2

I have always had an issue with the idea that you can be commanded to love someone. When I mention this to the faithful I don't get a reaction.

I like CS Lewis's answer to the question:
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/163...s-yourself-how

"You are told to love your neighbour as yourself. How do you love yourself? When I look into my own mind, I find that I do not love myself by thinking myself a dear old chap or having affectionate feelings. I do not think that I love myself because I am particularly good, but just because I am myself and quite apart from my character. I might detest something which I have done. Nevertheless, I do not cease to love myself. In other words, that definite distinction that Christians make between hating sin and loving the sinner is one that you have been making in your own case since you were born. You dislike what you have done, but you don't cease to love yourself. You may even think that you ought to be hanged. You may even think that you ought to go to the Police and own up and be hanged. Love is not affectionate feeling, but a steady wish for the loved person's ultimate good as far as it can be obtained."

The idea is that: "love" isn't a feeling but an action. For "Love your neighbour as yourself", I might not particularly feel good about myself, but I keep myself warm, dry and fed. That's how we should love our neighbour.

In the NT, Paul writes "And now there remain faith, hope, and charity, these three: but the greatest of these is charity." The word for 'charity' (in Greek: agape) is often replaced with 'love', but the idea is that it is more than just a warm feeling, but something that impels us to action.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

I would say more so. Interestingly the negative attitudes towards blacks actually grew worse after the Emancipation. In 1850 blacks were thought to be industrious cordial and family oriented. By 1880, blacks particularly in the South were viewed as lazy and dangerous.

But slavery in itself was and is subhuman. Slavery outside of the African slavery was almost non-existent in the European North America. There was indentured servitude which pretty much ended simultaneously with the American revolution.



No it wasn't this alone. But you can't dismiss how horrible slavery was.

If in 1850 Blacks were viewed in the south as family oriented, it's the opposite of mitigation considering that slavery was overtly instrumentally and often intentionally destructive of even the most basic family relationships. I would suggest that the actual attitudes may not have changed so much, just the propaganda needed to maintain them. Before emancipation nobody had to say anything to justify destroying families.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by bruto

If in 1850 Blacks were viewed in the south as family oriented, it's the opposite of mitigation considering that slavery was overtly instrumentally and often intentionally destructive of even the most basic family relationships. I would suggest that the actual attitudes may not have changed so much, just the propaganda needed to maintain them. Before emancipation nobody had to say anything to justify destroying families.

I think that is an overstatement as well. Much depended on their owners. Slaves were property. Owners had a financial motive in maintaining a positive environment. It isn't a good idea to break up families. But if a slave owner was in need of money liquidating a few assets wasn't beneath them.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

No, it was abhorrent then as well. Might makes right has always been abhorrent. People accepted it basically because they had no choice.

Under what basis do you claim that morality is the same now as it was then? Are you saying that there's some kind of objective morality?

Originally Posted by Thor 2

I have always had an issue with the idea that you can be commanded to love someone. When I mention this to the faithful I don't get a reaction.

Yeah, I'm afraid I don't have a good answer to that one. CS Lewis is as good as any I've seen.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Under what basis do you claim that morality is the same now as it was then? Are you saying that there's some kind of objective morality?

Do you think the slaves wanted to be slaves?

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

No, I'm just saying that faith is the excuse people give when they don't have a good reason. Because if they did had a good reason they would give the reason.

One reason for faith might be if somebody wanted better than three score and ten years of a meaningless existence.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Do you think the slaves wanted to be slaves?

Do you think that mattered to the slavers?

You didn't answer the question.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Do you think that mattered to the slavers?

You didn't answer the question.

I'm saying the practice of owning human beings as property has always been abhorrent. Just ask the slaves.