"I provided evidence that slavery was quite profitable right up to the end so pretending it would have died without the anti-slavery movement doesn't wash.
Now you are putting an entirely new construct on EVERYTHING! The issue was the support of slavery by Christianity and the difficulty free thinkers, humanists, rationalists, and various religious persuasions (including Christian sects such as Unitarians, Mennonites, and Quakers) had in bringing down this inhuman institution. Somewhere (in one of a particularly long resource I appended), you culled a reference to profitability being a factor (and this included the changing dynamics of legalities as well as ubiquitous social changes and slave economics being impacted by revolts, sabotage...and many other factors). You made a capital issue out of that tiny aside and I cooperated in your desire to "argue".
You included an argument that the religious based anti-slavery movement wasn't so important as the institution was dying for economic reasons. There isn't much merit for that argument and if you're dropping it thats wise.
------------------------------------------------------------
If you had read some of the information both posted and available otherwise you would realize that Southern Slavery for the Christians had to do with much beyond profit. You could start with googling "southern slavery +christian +honor +dogma +sin". I am sure you will come up with ample study material along the lines of Christians pridefully stating that Southern Slavery was Conscientious Christianity as preached and commanded in GOD'S WORD.
Some may have, but that was just rhetoric dreamed up by slavery advocates. Here's a secret. Advocates of something often employ false arguments and attempt to cloak their movement in righteousness. Some southern advocates of slavery also claimed it was better for workers who were essentially wage slaves and at the mercy of a cold callous market ... as opposed to having a caring master to care for them. A bogus argument but no more bogus than the argument that slavery was " preached and commanded in GOD'S WORD".
----------------------------------------------------------
Did I repeatedly mention that it only died out after the bloodiest family feud in history with 92,000,000 dead?
I'm not sure what that 92 million "family feud" reference is based on.
----------------------------------------------------------------
And does this last have anything to do with your misconception that someone was "pretending it would have died without the anti-slavery movement"??
But you mounted the argument to discount the success of the religious based antislavery movement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Its that fallenness thing."
I don't know what you mean.
I have a hard time believing you're that ignorant. Its that man has a fallen nature and does things he knows are wrong.
Its possible to argue about the word "fallen" but you can't say that people don't do things they know to be wrong.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"A freethinker might decide there was nothing wrong with him doing anything he can get away with."
I suppose it might be possible, although you must realize that an informed and rational person of 1861 (and unencumbered by religious dogma or superstition) can hardly be compared to someone from an ancient culture where it actually was considered moral by the vast majority of freethinkers.
Yes he can. The ancient Greeks dealt with philosophical and political and moral ideas and concepts we still wrestle with today. We know a lot about their opinions and thoughts because they've been preserved and studied. We know ancient Chinese scholars had similar thoughts and its likely that many other peoples have too.
Morality, which you acknowledge is the real issue, isn't a matter of being informed and "rational". Everyone thinks they're informed and rational.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"My kingdom is not of this world."
He was either here to teach and guide in godly principles or he was not. If he was not a reliable moral guide then I hope your preacher or priest is.
His followers don't think he was here only to teach and guide but to save by his sacrifice. Yes, he was a guide and teacher but its clear that there were many areas of morality that weren't addressed in the writings left to us.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Now you will damn him for what you say you fail to find in his teachings. Did he speak of every example of human sin? Then he must have been indifferent, perhaps even immoral.
Let me help you out: There's no passage where he tells people not to beat little children, therefore beating little children was okay with him. There's a new argument for you."
My wife is clambering for her laptop back. This last is so absurd that I will address it in another post. Lord love a duck...
Sure its absurd, but its absurd to illustrate the absurdity of your claim Jesus was pro-slavery.
By all means stop hogging her laptop. She probably has more important things to do online that you do. |
