Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (2889)	10/28/2000 1:19:10 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

I think that what you said was that some Christians used the Bible to justify slavery. And you pointed to three things, quotations from the Old Testament, the silence of Christ, and quotations from the New Testament. And I pointed to quotations from the Old Testament and quotations from the New Testament that went the other way. So I think I refuted those two theses, although I realize that you don't think so. Then there is the silence of Christ on the issue, which you consider to be damning, and I don't. His silence would have been damning if there was anything in the record to show that the issue was brought up, and there isn't. So His silence is just silence. Then you make much of the fact that some Christians used Christianity to justify slavery, and I pointed out that some Christians used Christianity to condemn slavery. I don't defend the behavior of the Christians who used Christianity to defend slavery. I have said, and will continue to say, that they were in error. You assert that "we sue people for not acting in a reasonable manner to prevent injury or harm." This is not correct. Injured people (not "we") sue people who 1) had a duty not to injure the person, and 2) whose negligence was the proximate cause of the injury. If you are able to swim, and see a child, not your own, who is drowning, in a river, you have no legal obligation, no duty, to save the child. Believe it or not. You may have a moral obligation, but you are immune to suit. Your argument, as I understand it, is that Christ had a duty to tell people not to own slaves and since He didn't it's His fault that people owned slaves. Whereas I argue that by telling people that their highest duty was to love their neighbors as themselves, He laid upon them a commandment which made it impossible for them to own slaves. It is not possible to simultaneously own another person and love that person as yourself. You may, indeed, love your slave, but not as you love yourself. All humans desire freedom. If you love your neighbor as yourself, you want him to be free. Anyway, I gotta go.

To: Solon who wrote (2889)	10/28/2000 1:51:16 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

I just realized that you left out a whole laundry list of things that Christ must be responsible for because He didn't specifically say they were wrong - War. Now that's a biggie. Much worse than slavery, and yet Christ never said "don't wage war." Many Christians justify war based on the Bible, look at Ireland and Yugoslavia. Boy, Christ sure has a lot to answer for there. Pollution. A lot of Christians justify pollution by pointing out the "dominion" statement in Genesis. Same thing for hunting animals into extinction. Spousal abuse and child abuse. Same thing, a lot of Christians say it's justified by the Bible. I'm sure you can think of more, probably already have.