← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Petr

"Atheist Abolitionist Serpents in Slaves' Eden" - nice stuff from a hostile witness

Thread ID: 19243 | Posts: 18 | Started: 2005-07-21

Wayback Archive

Petr [OP]

2005-07-21 18:21 | User Profile

[I]This typically one-sided atheist rant happens to contain some nice information on how militant abolitionists were out of touch with mainstream Christianity in the pre-Civil War America:[/I]

[url]http://www.secularhumanism.org/Library/aah/sierichs_13_3.htm[/url]

[FONT=Arial][SIZE=5]The Christian Origin of Racism: Atheist Abolitionist Serpents in Slaves' Eden Part 4[/SIZE]

[SIZE=3]by William Sierichs, Jr.[/SIZE]

The Christian god ordained slavery in the Bible. Therefore, criticism of slavery is criticism of the Christian god, which is blasphemy—even atheism.

That’s the basic argument Christians threw at abolitionists before the Civil War. [B]Scholars say that the “Abolitionism is atheism” claim gained prominence among the clergy—particularly in New England—in the 1830s.[/B] For example, Episcopal clergyman Calvin Colton collected anti-abolition arguments in an 1839 book, Abolition as Sedition.

The origin of the argument, however, lay in the eighteenth-century French Revolution, which declared the equality of all while denying the existence of gods, and even earlier in the American Declaration of Independence, which announced that “all men are created equal” while offering only deistic references to divinity. Although Christians were among the critics of slavery, so were many deists or Unitarians—atheists in Christian eyes—such as Benjamin Franklin, Tom Paine, and John Adams and even slaveholders themselves such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. [B]Nineteenth-century abolitionists such as Abraham Lincoln and Robert Ingersoll likewise were considered atheists.[/B]

Thus, in a November. 21, 1861, sermon, Thomas Smyth, minister of the Second Presbyterian Church of Charleston, attacked the Declaration of Independence, according to scholar H. Shelton Smith in In His Image, But . . . Smyth summarized the argument like this:

[I]“God is introduced to give dignity and emphasis . . . and then He is banished,” said [Thomas Smyth]. It was this very atheistic Declaration which had inspired the “higher law” doctrine of the radical antislavery men. If the mischievous abolitionists had only followed the Bible instead of the godless Declaration, they would have been bound to acknowledge that human bondage was divinely ordained. The mission of southerners was therefore clear; they must defend the word of God against abolitionist infidels.[/I]

In an 1860 defense of slavery, “Cotton Is King,” President E.N. Elliott of Planters’ College, Mississippi, claimed:

[I]The agitation of the abolition question had commenced in France during the horrors of the first revolution, under the auspices of the Red republicans. . . . [B]It is here worthy of remark, that most of the early abolition propagandists, many of whom commenced as Christian ministers, have ended in downright infidelity [i.e., atheism]. [/B] Let us then hear no more of this charge, that the defenders of slavery have changed their ground; it is the abolitionists who have been compelled to appeal to “a higher law,” not only than the Federal Constitution, but also, than the law of God. This is the inevitable result when men undertake to be “wise above what is written.”[/I]

He later charged that, “Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, their wresting the Scriptures from their plain and obvious meaning to compel them to teach abolitionism. Finally, the duty of all Christians: from such withdraw thyself.”

That’s exactly what the Christian South tried to do. You might argue that 2 Corinthians 6:14–17 and Ephesians 5:6–7 ultimately triggered the Civil War.

R.H. Rivers, professor of moral philosophy at Wesleyan College, Alabama, claimed in an 1860 book, Elements of Moral Philosophy, that his god established slavery. He wrote: “We maintain that God’s law is always right, and that whatever God established is right, not because he established it, but we maintain that God established it because he saw that it is right.” Rivers declared, “no one should place conscience above God, or above his law . . . [man does not have a] higher law in his moral nature which is above God’s revealed law.”

Bishop Stephen Elliott of Georgia claimed in an 1862 sermon that the American Revolution had laid down principles contrary to biblical revelation:

[I]Carried away by our opposition to monarchy and an established Church, we declared war against all authority and against all form. The reason of man was exalted to an impious degree and in the face not only of experience, but of the revealed word of God, all men were declared equal, and man was pronounced capable of self-government.[/I]

[B]Elliott demanded a theocracy because “subordination rules supreme in heaven and must rule supreme on earth.” He claimed Boston was the source of “every accursed heresy” from false clergy and that Southern clergy had “never corrupted the gospel of Christ” by claiming a “higher law.”[/B] He helped write an 1862 pastoral letter for the General Council of the Confederate Protestant Episcopal Church that described abolitionism as a “hateful infidel pestilence.”

[B]One prominent Southern Methodist, August B. Longstreet of Georgia, called abolitionism “one of the most frightful, disgusting monsters that ever reared its head among a Christian people.”[/B] [B]Another Methodist, Whitefoord Smith, told the General Assembly in South Carolina that abolitionists abandoned Christianity for a “higher law” that succumbed to “the doctrines of devils.” In 1861, the North Carolina Christian Advocate blamed the impending war on “‘the demon spirit of abolitionism.’ Southern Methodists had ‘tested it fully, and found it to be heartless, inhuman and Christless.’”[/B]

One of the most widely reprinted demands for secession was a November 29, 1860, sermon at the First Presbyterian Church in New Orleans, Louisiana, when the Reverend Benjamin Morgan Palmer declared it a duty to defend slavery. He criticized abolitionist ideas, then:

[I]Last of all, in this great struggle, we defend the cause of God and Religion. The Abolition spirit is undeniably atheistic. The demon which erected its throne upon the guillotine in the days of Robespierre and Marat, which abolished the Sabbath and worshipped reason in the person of a harlot, yet survives to work other horrors, of which those of the French Revolution are but the type. Among a people so generally religious as the American, a disguise must be worn; but it is the same old threadbare disguise of the advocacy of human rights. From a thousand Jacobin Clubs here, as in France, the decree has gone forth which strikes at God by striking at all subordination and law. . . . This spirit of atheism, which knows no God who tolerates evil, no Bible which sanctions law, and no conscience that can be bound by oaths and covenants, has selected us for its victims, and slavery for its issue. Its banner-cry rings out already upon the air: “liberty, equality, fraternity,” which simply interpreted, means bondage, confiscation, and massacre. With its tricolor waving in the breeze—it waits to inaugurate its reign of terror. To the South the high position is assigned of defending, before all nations, the cause of all religions and of all truths. In this trust, we are resisting the power which wars against constitutions and laws and compacts, against Sabbaths and sanctuaries, against the family, the state, and the church, which blasphemously invades the prerogatives of God, and rebukes the Most High for the errors of his administration. . . .[/I]

In the 1845 “Letter to an English Abolitionist,” James Henry Hammond—a U.S. representative, a U.S. senator, and South Carolina governor—offered standard Bible-based defenses of slavery. He blamed abolitionism on:

[B][I]a transcendental religion . . . a religion too pure and elevated for the Bible; which seeks to erect among men a higher standard of morals than the Almighty has revealed, or our Saviour preached; and which is probably destined to do more to impede the extension of God’s kingdom on earth than all the infidels who have ever lived. Error is error.[/I][/B]

Hammond concluded:

[I]And to sum up all, if pleasure is correctly defined to be the absence of pain—which, so far as the great body of mankind is concerned, is undoubtedly its true definition—I believe our slaves are the happiest three millions of human beings on whom the sun shines. Into their Eden is coming Satan in the disguise of an abolitionist.[/I]

It’s safe to say that never were people happier to be expelled from Paradise than were America’s slaves.

[I]William Sierichs, Jr. is a copy editor at The Advocate in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. This final installment is from a book he is writing, The Christian Origin of Totalitarianism.[/I][/FONT]

Petr

2005-07-23 19:20 | User Profile

Ping!

Okiereddust

2005-07-24 03:09 | User Profile

Yup, the "secular Humanists" (generally leftists, often strongly influenced by jews) claim Christianity was a hopelessly hard-headed reactionary religion of racial subjugation. The pagan WN's claim Christianity is a hopelessly soft-headed sentimental religion of racial egalitarianism.

If WN's were significant, the debate might be amusing, but as it is it just reinforces the general feeling about pagan WN's, that they are basically lacking in both human intelligence and personal honesty and integrity.

G.Larson

2005-07-24 06:18 | User Profile

Slavery is pointless, too bad the capitalist big shots where not more athiest then, then they would have never brought over the hordes of black slaves. But then they would have had to pay White Men a wage to do the same work.

Angler

2005-07-24 08:54 | User Profile

R.H. Rivers, professor of moral philosophy at Wesleyan College, Alabama, claimed in an 1860 book, Elements of Moral Philosophy, that his god established slavery. He wrote: “We maintain that God’s law is always right, and that whatever God established is right, not because he established it, but we maintain that God established it because he saw that it is right.” Rivers declared, “no one should place conscience above God, or above his law . . . [man does not have a] higher law in his moral nature which is above God’s revealed law.” This guy talks about "whatever God established," yet he hasn't the slightest clue that God has ever "established" anything. What evidence is there that God has ever spoken to man? All this talk about "God's revealed law" is :dung: until someone coughs up a bit of evidence that God has ever revealed anything to anyone. No, a book doesn't prove a thing other than that someone once wrote a book. Especially a book filled with inconsistencies and silly stories that have been utterly and thoroughly debunked (at least as far as rational people are concerned).

The Bible says that slavery is okay because the Bible is a Jewish book that reflects Jewish thought and Jewish moral sense (or lack thereof). None of that for me, thanks. I'll follow my natural conscience and leave all that "God said this, God said that" BS to those who are willing to let their minds be enslaved.

Okiereddust

2005-07-24 09:40 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Angler]This guy talks about "whatever God established," yet he hasn't the slightest clue that God has ever "established" anything. What evidence is there that God has ever spoken to man? All this talk about "God's revealed law" is :dung: until someone coughs up a bit of evidence that God has ever revealed anything to anyone. I think we've discussed this, (the matter of evidences) with you before Angler, but your too hard headed.

[QUOTE]No, a book doesn't prove a thing other than that someone once wrote a book. Especially a book filled with inconsistencies and silly stories that have been utterly and thoroughly debunked (at least as far as rational people are concerned).[/QUOTE]No, it hasn't been debunked (rational people ad hominem excluded). Why don't you do like a lot of atheists have done, debunk it yourself (which means coming up with genuinely "rational" explanations for the storis in the Bible about Christ? They became believers). Don't just talk the talk, walk the walk.

The Bible says that slavery is okay because the Bible is a Jewish book that reflects Jewish thought and Jewish moral sense (or lack thereof). None of that for me, thanks. I'll follow my natural conscience and leave all that "God said this, God said that" BS to those who are willing to let their minds be enslaved.[/QUOTE]Or it says slavery is wrong because its a jewish book.

You don't sound too rational yourself there Angler.

Angler

2005-07-24 10:39 | User Profile

No, it hasn't been debunked (rational people ad hominem excluded). Why don't you do like a lot of atheists have done, debunk it yourself (which means coming up with genuinely "rational" explanations for the storis in the Bible about Christ? They became believers). Don't just talk the talk, walk the walk. One rational explanation for those stories is that they are legends. Legends exist about many other mythological and religious figures as well -- e.g., the prophet Mohammed. These legends may be based on some actual events or figures, but that's no reason to take them as factual.

I know for a fact that the Bible contains fiction. Some of its tales, like the ones about the worldwide flood and the Tower of Babel, are patently silly. Anyone who doubts this ought to ask himself if it would be possible even today to cram two of each of the millions of species on earth -- Asian and African elephants, white and black rhinos, giraffes, 30000 species of beetles, and all the rest -- into a boat the size of Noah's Ark. And why would God feel the need to stop the building of a mere tower by confusing peoples' language when He foresaw that one day mankind would build skyscrapers, fly airplanes, and even land on the moon in spite of His best efforts?

These stories are every bit as ridiculous as the tale about Paul Bunyan making the Grand Canyon by dragging his giant axe. [u]RIDICULOUS[/u]. I'm not the one being hardheaded; the hardheaded ones are those who refuse to admit (even to themselves) that these things are all obviously fairytales.

As to the stuff about Jesus walking on water and raising the dead, I can't disprove that. But neither can I disprove that Mohammed is God's last and greatest prophet. Should I believe in him, too? Why not?

I could go on and on, just as I have in the past. I could write volumes of arguments about why belief in the Bible isn't rational. But what would be the point? You can't reason with people who, when the subject of religion arises, automatically switch off their brains and run on the autopilot of Biblical dogma. Even some very intelligent people do this.

I don't want to upset anyone by saying this stuff, but consider this. If anyone here DOES get upset by what I say, then that merely lends weight to something I've been saying all along: they believe in the Bible because they have emotional stock in it.

Or it says slavery is wrong because its a jewish book. Where in the Bible does it say slavery is wrong?

You don't sound too rational yourself there Angler.[/QUOTE]How am I being irrational?

Anyway, I didn't really mean to go off on a religious tangent. My main point is that slavery is wrong simply because people instinctively know it's wrong. Those instincts might have come from some God (though not the God of the Bible), or they may have been honed by evolution, or both. In any case, I follow my conscience, since I trust it FAR more than any book or any other product of man -- even those spuriously attributed to God.

Petr

2005-07-24 12:03 | User Profile

[COLOR=Purple][FONT=Arial][B][I] - "And why would God feel the need to stop the building of a mere tower by confusing peoples' language when He foresaw that one day mankind would build skyscrapers, fly airplanes, and even land on the moon in spite of His best efforts?"[/I][/B][/FONT][/COLOR]

The Tower of Babel was a forerunner and prototype of the Satanic totalitarian One-World system, like the "dark tower" of Barad-Dur or that cute Masonic pyramid in your one-dollar bills...

Besides that, Babylonian ziggurats always had an occult purpose as well, they were meant to form a gate to the divine world.

You are approaching the issue with rather childish simplisticness, ignoring the powerful symbolism.

Petr

Okiereddust

2005-07-24 17:04 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Angler]One rational explanation for those stories is that they are legends. Legends exist about many other mythological and religious figures as well -- e.g., the prophet Mohammed. These legends may be based on some actual events or figures, but that's no reason to take them as factual.

.............

As to the stuff about Jesus walking on water and raising the dead, I can't disprove that. But neither can I disprove that Mohammed is God's last and greatest prophet. Should I believe in him, too? Why not?

Legends and other tales of antiquity or history certainly exist. We call them legends because you can't definitively prove they are true. That doesn't mean however they are not based on fact however. Some legends we generally acknowledge as true or probably true, like Travis's "line in the sand" at the Alamo. So it depends.

Real historical analysis doesn't say all legends are false. That is just adolescent bravado, the kind which is what for all your qualifications you basically have to offer.

No real historical analysis looks at the record, and tries realistically to determine what is the best account of what happened. That is what people tried to do with Jesus find "the historical Jesus" (seperate and apart from the supernatural). But they gave up, because it isn't possible.

Much different than with Muhammad if you look at it objectively (which I realize is hard to impossible for you)

[QUOTE]I know for a fact that the Bible contains fiction. Some of its tales, like the ones about the worldwide flood and the Tower of Babel, are patently silly. Anyone who doubts this ought to ask himself if it would be possible even today to cram two of each of the millions of species on earth -- Asian and African elephants, white and black rhinos, giraffes, 30000 species of beetles, and all the rest -- into a boat the size of Noah's Ark. And why would God feel the need to stop the building of a mere tower by confusing peoples' language when He foresaw that one day mankind would build skyscrapers, fly airplanes, and even land on the moon in spite of His best efforts?

These stories are every bit as ridiculous as the tale about Paul Bunyan making the Grand Canyon by dragging his giant axe. [u]RIDICULOUS[/u]. I'm not the one being hardheaded; the hardheaded ones are those who refuse to admit (even to themselves) that these things are all obviously fairytales.

[/QUOTE]Yes the Bible is a big book, with a great variety of accounts. I don't need to belabour myself trying to defend everyone to anyone, let alone someone who demonstrates such emotional bias that he will hardly listen to you anyway.

[QUOTE]I could go on and on, just as I have in the past. I could write volumes of arguments about why belief in the Bible isn't rational. But what would be the point?[/QUOTE]Yes what is the point? You already have gone on and on. We were talking about a historical thread really, which you cannot discuss in any sense, because it contains mention of Christianity, which you can do nothing but attack.

There is obviously an element of deep self-guilt which you have absorbed into your psyche

[QUOTE]You can't reason with people who, when the subject of religion arises, automatically switch off their brains and run on the autopilot of Biblical dogma. Even some very intelligent people do this.[/QUOTE]And you claim you are soooo superior. I seldom meet such boorish, unoriginal cartoon Christian dispising arguments. Even though I know they're out there.

[QUOTE]I don't want to upset anyone by saying this stuff, but consider this. If anyone here DOES get upset by what I say, then that merely lends weight to something I've been saying all along: they believe in the Bible because they have emotional stock in it.[/QUOTE]No we're upset with you because you are incapable of doing amything on this forum regarding religion but run on with your tired cartoon Bible/Christian bashing.

[QUOTE]Where in the Bible does it say slavery is wrong?[/QUOTE]Gosh, a man like you, such an expert on eveything, hasn't studied the question. Read it yourself.

[QUOTE]How am I being irrational?[/QUOTE]Jst because you act like Damien entering a Church every time the subject of religion is mentioned in any way, and must return to Bible bashing, with your fairly transparent culturallyTalmudic tyraids?

Anyway, I didn't really mean to go off on a religious tangent. Even though you always do. Uh-hmm. right :rolleyes:

My main point is that slavery is wrong simply because people instinctively know it's wrong. Those instincts might have come from some God (though not the God of the Bible), Why the prejudice?> or they may have been honed by evolution, or both. In any case, I follow my conscience, since I trust it FAR more than any book or any other product of man -- even those spuriously attributed to God.[/QUOTE]Well, I'll just leave you with this Bible verse, since you love the Bible so much

He who trusts his own heart is a fool Like everything else, conscience at the bottom has some rational base. If you can't defend where it comes from, your basis of reasoning, and living is certainly less than mine.

Petr

2005-07-24 17:29 | User Profile

It is a fact that some pagan Nazis loathed Christianity so much that even their racial prejudices gave way to it - in his "Table Talks," Adolf Hitler himself rated even [I]pagan Africans[/I] above Roman Catholics: [COLOR=DarkRed][B]

"But Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery. [U]A negro with his tabus is crushingly superior to the human being who seriously believes in Transubstantiation[/U]."

TT, 12/13/41[/B][/COLOR]

Another example would be Revilo Oliver, who thought that Rabbinic "Toledoth Yeshu" with its absurd anti-Christian calumnies contained more reliable information about the life of Jesus Christ than the Gospels! He trusted the word of Rabbis more than that of Apostles.

Want to see Revilo Oliver celebrating [B]an abolitionist[/B] mentioned in the thread-starting piece, Robert Ingersoll? Check out this link:

[url]http://www.faem.com/oliver/rpo153.htm[/url]

Oliver was actually delusional enough to suggest that atheists are being persecuted in modern America and denied of freedom of speech! [B][I][COLOR=Indigo] "Can you imagine today an editor of any large daily newspaper who would have the courage to publish the "Sermon"? Who wouldn't fall in a dead faint at the hint of a boycott by the Jesus-boys and the omnipotent Jews?"[/COLOR][/I][/B]

Another point where anti-Christian extreme Right and ultra-Left meet is in their hostility to the very concept of [B]transcendence[/B]. One of the most devious Communist thinkers, Antonio Gramsci, understood this: [COLOR=Red]

"Gramsci (1891–1937) considered Christianity to be the "force binding all the classes—peasants and workers and princes and priests and popes and all the rest besides, into a single, homogeneous culture. It was specifically Christian culture, in which individual men and women understood that [B][U]the most important things about human life transcend the material conditions in which they lived out their mortal lives.[/U]"1 [/B]

..

"Even after all of these successes, Gramsci still understood that Christianity remained his biggest obstacle in achieving his newly formulated Marxist goals. [B]He had to strip the mind of any notion of the transcendent—"that there is nothing beyond the matter of this universe. [/B]There is nothing in existence that transcends man—his material organism within his material surroundings."7"[/COLOR]

[url]http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/12-07-04.asp?vPrint=1&vPrint=1[/url] [B] [I]" Imagine there's no heaven, It's easy if you try, No hell below us, Above us only sky, Imagine all the people living for today..."[/I][/B]

(A sign on how Gramscian Communism has managed to infiltrate Christian churches is the popularity of the "social gospel" that emphatically places the material welfare of the people above in importance of their spiritual welfare.)

On the other hand, one of the main beefs that paganistic "New Right" has with Christianity is its idea of [B]transcendent God[/B]. Instead, they propose pagan deities that are basically just [I]personifications of natural phenomenons[/I].

They prefer "nature" to Biblical transcendence just like Gramsci did, but with some made-up mythology to cover up the materialistic coarseness of their worldview... in this regard, Nazis can be considered to be more hypocritical about their ultimate values than Communists.

Petr

Okiereddust

2005-07-24 18:18 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr]It is a fact that some pagan Nazis loathed Christianity so much that even their racial prejudices gave way to it - in his "Table Talks," Adolf Hitler himself rated even [I]pagan Africans[/I] above Roman Catholics: ................... Another example would be Revilo Oliver, who thought that Rabbinic "Toledoth Yeshu" with its absurd anti-Christian calumnies contained more reliable information about the life of Jesus Christ than the Gospels! He trusted the word of Rabbis more than that of Apostles.

Want to see Revilo Oliver celebrating an abolitionist mentioned in the thread-starting piece, Robert Ingersoll? Check out this link:

[url]http://www.faem.com/oliver/rpo153.htm[/url]

Interesting actually how we can see both jew and pagan Arican are preferred to white Christian at times.

It certainly makes the claim of pagan WN's that they are "true friend of western man, heritage, and culture hypocritical, as you note below.

Its especially hypocritical the way Nazi's can whine and rave on and on about Christianity, then complain assert how Hitler was a devout Catholic and that Christians should all support NS/WN.

Maybe its just Nietszchien arrogance and madness. But in any sense it does seem to me that their anti-Christian frothings transcend and trump anything else really about them, Clearly for a lot of them WN is just another clever way to bash western man and our culture, while posing as its putative friends.

The philosemetism of a lot of the Christian clearly owes I think a lot to this demonstration that the loudest alternative to philosemitism is rather transparently almost demonic.

They prefer "nature" to Biblical transcendence just like Gramsci did, but with some made-up mythology to cover up the materialistic coarseness of their worldview... in this regard, Nazis can be considered to be more hypocritical about their ultimate values than Communists.

Petr[/QUOTE]Some academics have actually tried to rationaly synthesize the atheism of Marx and Nietszche. I think more properly though the unity may as Richard Wurmbrand suggests, lie in the demonic. At times in the WN world it gets pretty transparent.

Petr

2005-07-24 18:43 | User Profile

[COLOR=Sienna][FONT=Arial][I][B] - "Some academics have actually tried to rationaly synthesize the atheism of Marx and Nietszche."[/B][/I][/FONT][/COLOR]

Both Marx and Nietzsche considered Christianity to be a religion for slaves that confident freemen could do without.

The actual difference between them was that Nietzsche was, behind his posturing, a rather effeminate character that was content of sneering at ordinary people from his Olympian heights, whereas Marx possessed some demonic energy to transform the world into his own image.

Some Fascists might object that their worldview is not actually "materialistic" in the sense that it idealizes continuous struggle more than Epicurean hedonism, but many Communists ALSO idealize even self-destructive violence as means for the oppressed classes to recover their dignity, so I guess they are not that "materialistic" either.

For example, Lenin wrote that an oppressed class that refuses to actively find out ways to overthrow its oppressors [B]deserves[/B] to be oppressed. Frantz Fanon taught that bloody uprisings gave a meaning of life and self-dignity for rebels, even if their rebellion would lead to their own destruction.

(The same idea as in Mussolini's saying: "[I]It is better to live one day as a lion, than a hundred years as a sheep[/I].")

Petr

Texas Dissident

2005-07-25 17:14 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Angler]I don't want to upset anyone by saying this stuff, but consider this. If anyone here DOES get upset by what I say, then that merely lends weight to something I've been saying all along: they believe in the Bible because they have emotional stock in it.[/QUOTE]

There's not a soul on this earth that doesn't have emotional stock in what they believe. It cannot be otherwise.

To construct a palace of reason and yet live in the stable-barn out back is simple foolishness. There's no existence in the purely objective, Angler. Indeed, the very idea that there could be strikes me as utterly jewish and antithetical to two thousand years of Western Christian thought and practice.

Texas Dissident

2005-07-25 17:17 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Maybe its just Nietszchien arrogance and madness. But in any sense it does seem to me that their anti-Christian frothings transcend and trump anything else really about them, Clearly for a lot of them WN is just another clever way to bash western man and our culture, while posing as its putative friends.

Yes.

The philosemetism of a lot of the Christian clearly owes I think a lot to this demonstration that the loudest alternative to philosemitism is rather transparently almost demonic.

It may well be our calling in this present age and setting to build and provide the right alternative for our brothers in Christ.

Petr

2005-07-25 20:37 | User Profile

Here is a take by a Greek church father on the slavery issue - I'm pretty sure it would be characterized as "paternalistic" nowadays...

[B]From "[I]Readings in Late Antiquity - a sourcebook[/I]" by Michael Maas, page 65:[/B]

[COLOR=DarkRed][FONT=Georgia][SIZE=3]"[COLOR=DarkRed]1.11.7 Slavery is taken for granted[/SIZE]

"Slavery pervaded late antique society and was generally accepted without question. Here Basil of Caesarea, bishop of the late fourth century, gives a Christian interpretation of the institution.[/COLOR][/COLOR] [COLOR=Indigo]

[SIZE=4]Basil of Caesarea, On the Holy Spirit 20[/SIZE]

[I]B[/B][/I]

[B]Some say that the Spirit is neither master or slave, but like a freeman. What miserable nonsense! What pitiful audacity! What shall I lament, their ignorance or their blasphemy? They insult the dogmas pertaining to the divine nature by confining them within human categories. They think they see the differences of dignity among men, and then apply such variation to the ineffable nature of God. [/B]

Do they not realize that even among men, no one is slave by nature? Men are brought under the yoke of slavery by either because they are captured in the battle or else they sell themselves into slavery owing to poverty; as the Egyptians became the slaves of Pharaoh.

Sometimes, by a wise and inscrutable providence, worthless children are commanded by their father to serve their more intelligent brothers and sisters. Any upright person investigating the circumstances would realize that such situations bring much benefit, and are not a sentence of condemnation for those involved.

[B]It is better for a man who lacks intelligence and self-control to become another's possession. Governed by his master's intelligence, he will become like a chariot driven by a skilled horseman or a ship with a seasoned sailor at the tiller. [/B]

That is why Jacob obtained his father's blessing and became Esau's master: so that this foolish son, who had no intelligence properly to guide him, might profit from his prudent brother, even against his will. Canaan became a "slave of slaves to this brother", because his father Ham was void of understanding, unable to teach his son any virtue.

That is why men become slaves, but those who escape poverty, war, or the need of a guardian, are free. [B]And even though one man is called master, and another a slave, we are all the possessions of our Creator; we shall all share the rank of slave[/B].[/FONT][/COLOR]

Angler

2005-07-25 21:53 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Legends and other tales of antiquity or history certainly exist. We call them legends because you can't definitively prove they are true. That doesn't mean however they are not based on fact however. Some legends we generally acknowledge as true or probably true, like Travis's "line in the sand" at the Alamo. So it depends.

Real historical analysis doesn't say all legends are false. That is just adolescent bravado, the kind which is what for all your qualifications you basically have to offer. Strawman. When did I say all legends were false? In fact, I explicitly stated that they can be based on fact, but you chose to ignore that.

The point is that if I'm going to base my life around a story, it had better have more evidence supporting it than just another legend.

No real historical analysis looks at the record, and tries realistically to determine what is the best account of what happened. That is what people tried to do with Jesus find "the historical Jesus" (seperate and apart from the supernatural). But they gave up, because it isn't possible. Right. That's my point: very little is known about the historical Jesus. And yet I'm supposed to make a judgment about whether he was the Son of God based on nearly nonexistent evidence? Or am I just supposed to take a few ancient authors' word for it?

Much different than with Muhammad if you look at it objectively (which I realize is hard to impossible for you) Um, no. It is you who can't look at the question objectively. If I were that much against Christianity and found it so intolerable, then I wouldn't have been a Catholic for the first 30 years of my life. I would have deconverted much sooner. What caused me to deconvert when I did was the way I forced myself to think about my religion honestly and objectively. Ironically, my original intent had been to investigate the origins of my religion in order to strengthen my faith, as I had already been feeling twinges of doubt. My unbiased investigations and soul-searching had the opposite effect.

Yes the Bible is a big book, with a great variety of accounts. I don't need to belabour myself trying to defend everyone to anyone, let alone someone who demonstrates such emotional bias that he will hardly listen to you anyway. I am reading and listening to your every word and have no emotional bias whatsoever. I am perfectly calm and cool as I write this. Why should I be concerned about someone trying to convince me that I'm wrong and that the Bible is true? I would be happy if someone could do that. That would mean that eternal life with all of my loved ones was a possibility, and I would like that very much. So if I have any emotional bias at all, it's IN FAVOR of God-belief and Christianity.

Yes what is the point? You already have gone on and on. We were talking about a historical thread really, which you cannot discuss in any sense, because it contains mention of Christianity, which you can do nothing but attack. I have said positive things about Christianity before -- e.g., you might remember on another thread how I agreed that Christianity was very civil-libertarian in nature and that I thought that was one of its strong points. But if it seems like I'm attacking the plausibility of Christianity every time the subject comes up, that's because I honestly can't think of any evidence or argument that makes it plausible.

There is obviously an element of deep self-guilt which you have absorbed into your psyche I didn't know you were a psychoanalyst. :) Seriously, guilt has nothing to do with any of this.

And you claim you are soooo superior. I do?

I seldom meet such boorish, unoriginal cartoon Christian dispising arguments. Even though I know they're out there. "Unoriginal" -- that's one of Petr's favorite words. But you should understand that I'm not out to score points for originality. I'm saying things that make sense to me. If other people have covered the same ground, then that just means what I'm saying makes sense to other people, too.

You should also be aware that I do NOT despise Christians. I do think religion enslaves people and stops them from fully living their lives and using their minds, but as I've pointed out before, every single person in my family is Roman Catholic, and they're the people I love most in the world. Most of my friends are also Christian (though none are very religious).

No we're upset with you because you are incapable of doing amything on this forum regarding religion but run on with your tired cartoon Bible/Christian bashing. What do you expect me to do if I don't believe in religion? Post lots of "Hallelujahs"? I'm just expressing my honest opinions, and I fail to see why that should bother anyone. Especially since I do my best to be reasonably polite.

Gosh, a man like you, such an expert on eveything, hasn't studied the question. Read it yourself. Me, an expert on everything? I'm flattered that you think so, but I'm not and don't remember ever claiming to be.

I have read the Bible, but I didn't memorize it, and I don't recall ever reading anything condemning slavery in there. All I remember are lines like, "Slaves, be obedient to your masters."

So, let me ask you again to kindly answer my question: Where in the Bible does it say that slavery is wrong?

Jst because you act like Damien entering a Church every time the subject of religion is mentioned in any way, and must return to Bible bashing, with your fairly transparent culturallyTalmudic tyraids? LOL. I think you're overstating things just a bit. But it's funny that you accuse me being "Talmudic" when the very book you seem to think is above criticism was written by the very same Tribe who wrote the Talmud.

[quote=Angler]My main point is that slavery is wrong simply because people instinctively know it's wrong. Those instincts might have come from some God (though not the God of the Bible)

Why the prejudice? It's not prejudice because no pre-judgment is taking place. The anthropomorphic God of the Bible is about as likely to exist as Zeus or Osiris. Or if he does exist, he certainly doesn't have the ridiculous characteristics the Bible assigns to him -- e.g., punishing people for things that their parents did, repenting of his own past actions, becoming angry about things that he caused himself, etc. Talk about "cartoonish."

Well, I'll just leave you with this Bible verse, since you love the Bible so much

He who trusts his own heart is a fool

And I suppose it's really wise to trust a book full of Jewish mythology instead? LOL

Like everything else, conscience at the bottom has some rational base. If you can't defend where it comes from, your basis of reasoning, and living is certainly less than mine.[/QUOTE]I've already stated where I think it comes from. In any event, it comes from somewhere, and I feel more comfortable following my own conscience than following someone else's (especially ancient Jewish consciences).

Angler

2005-07-25 22:27 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]There's not a soul on this earth that doesn't have emotional stock in what they believe. It cannot be otherwise. It depends on the subject of the belief.

I believe that the solar system has nine planets in it, but if another one were discovered, it wouldn't perturb me a bit. Therefore, I have no emotional stock in my belief about the number of planets in the solar system.

When it comes to religion, my emotional bias is in favor of belief in God and an afterlife. I don't want to cease to exist when I die. But I'm sober-minded enough to know that there's a big difference between what I want and what is.

Emotions are never, ever a reason for believing in anything. Letting one's emotions dictate or even influence one's beliefs is a great way to end up believing something that's false.

To construct a palace of reason and yet live in the stable-barn out back is simple foolishness. I don't see how this analogy applies to anything I'm doing.

There's no existence in the purely objective, Angler. Indeed, the very idea that there could be strikes me as utterly jewish and antithetical to two thousand years of Western Christian thought and practice.[/QUOTE]I'm not sure I follow you. Are you downplaying the importance of objective thinking? I hope not, because to the extent that human beings can know anything at all, they can only know it through empirical observation and objective reasoning (both inductive and deductive). I'm not claiming that these methods are flawless by any means, but they're most certainly all we have. If there's another way for human beings to acquire knowledge, I'd like to know what it is. (Divine revelation, if it exists, would fall under empirical observation -- unless God just plants thoughts in someone's head, which would seem difficult to verify or distinguish from simple imagination.)

Genevan

2005-08-12 08:39 | User Profile

Studies show that atheists are much more likely to be liberal and generally buy into the whole multicultural, Frankfurt School worldview.

An example, from a comprehensive [url="http://www.layman.org/layman/news/news-around-church/why-are-atheists.htm"]study[/url] by Barna Research Group, Ltd. "Adults who say they are politically liberal were much more likely than conservatives to be atheists or agnostics."

Atheists WNs really don't have a leg to stand on when they claim that Christianity is liberal. That is the most ridiculous claim ever. Christians are much more conservative than atheists, on average, and more likely to be opposed to homosexuality, miscegenation etc.