TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "Ultimate authority rests with people, and people ultimately decide what is moral based upon cultural norms."

So the mob drives morality?

I disagree.

Just from what I have read, moral thought starts with individuals who disagree with the crowd and think through the moral issues, then state concepts which lead in new directions. Historically, such individuals have been philosophers and religious leaders. Socrates and MLK Jr are examples of such individuals who stood against the common practice of their time.

Cultural norms are often at odds with moral values, which causes problems in its own right.

---

Quote:

---

So the mob drives morality?

---

No.

Quote:

---

Cultural norms are often at odds with moral values, which causes problems in its own right.

---

Better stated: Cultural norms (values) are often at odds with others' values, which causes problems ...

---

What you call "cultural norms" is simply what the mob decides is OK. The problem is that mob mentalities are seldom based on altruism or deep consideration of a moral foundation. Those have always come from individuals.

---

There is a really big difference between cultural norms and mob mentality. Cultural norms play out in large numbers, but they also come into play one on one. Hardly a mob.

---

It's not a 'norm' until it's done by most people, ergo while a crude way to put it, yes 'mob' is a sound description.

---

No more of a mob than a gathering for instruction at a seminary is a mob. Cultural norms and values do not rise out of mob gatherings.

---

Of course they do. You simply don't want to admit that morals come from the behavior of common people, rather than elites.

TS: "Morality should be objective."

Morality cannot be objective, due to its value to the individual. If you or I choose to do a thing because we see virtue in it, or not do a thing because we believe it is wrong, we make our choice because of our personal decision.

That makes it subjective, even if we agree that a concept is a moral absolute.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "Morality should be objective."

Morality cannot be objective, due to its value to the individual. If you or I choose to do a thing because we see virtue in it, or not do a thing because we believe it is wrong, we make our choice because of our personal decision.

That makes it subjective, even if we agree that a concept is a moral absolute.

---

Morality should be objective. Objectivity is a philosophical concept of being true independently from individual subjectivity caused by perception, emotions, or imagination. A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject. Wikipedia

TS: "Morality should be objective. "

By definition, that is impossible.

Think it through.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "Morality should be objective. "

By definition, that is impossible.

Think it through.

---

Humans are capable of objective truth.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "Morality should be objective. "

By definition, that is impossible.

Think it through.

---

Humans are capable of objective truth.

---

We are discussing morality.

I know.

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "Ultimate authority rests with people, and people ultimately decide what is moral based upon cultural norms."

So the mob drives morality?

I disagree.

Just from what I have read, moral thought starts with individuals who disagree with the crowd and think through the moral issues, then state concepts which lead in new directions. Historically, such individuals have been philosophers and religious leaders. Socrates and MLK Jr are examples of such individuals who stood against the common practice of their time.

Cultural norms are often at odds with moral values, which causes problems in its own right.

---

Moral values do change, thus the "moral arc".

---

But it's not an arc, if you pay attention to history. Human behavior changes according to location, culture, and leaders of the day.

For example, Jon of Arc was a female leader who could have opened a new era in social consciousness, but instead she was an outlier because the establishment killed her. For another, Slavery was opposed by Christians early in their history, but Rome corrupted social practices so that it was more than a thousand years before people actively worked to end Slavery,

What we see in history is individuals who start moral debates, which are opposed by the mob and so some movements falter and fail for a time. There simply is no "moral arc" in actual practice.

---

Quote:

---

Human behavior changes according to location, culture, and leaders of the day.

---

As do morals. What's moral in one culture is immoral in another culture.

When and how was slavery opposed in early Christian history?



What he is saying is that, innate human desire is for moral justice, fairness, and equity, and given time, morality trends in that direction.

---

There are multiple references in Scripture, including Paul's command to Philemon to treat Onesimus as "a brother beloved," a status obviously incompatible with being a slave, and the special condemnation given to slave traders in 1 Timothy.

With regard to the early Church, this might interest you:


In the second and third centuries after Christ, tens of thousands of slaves were freed by people who converted the Christ, and then understood the inherent wrongness of the slave condition. Melania is said to have freed 8,000 slaves, Ovidus 5,000, Chromatius 1400, and Hermes 1200.[10] One popular Christian book of the early church said that Christians should not attend heathen gatherings "unless to purchase a slave and save a soul" (by teaching the slave of Christ and then freeing him or her).[11]

Church law in the early fifth century allowed for liberation (called manumission) of slaves during church services.[12] This happened because many Christian converts at that time were people of considerable wealth. Converted out of a decadent, totally self-centered society, many Christians sold their goods and lands and used the proceeds to help the poor, support hospitals, take in orphans, free prisoners, and liberate slaves. Liberation was frequent, and freedmen soon became a prominent feature of society.[13]

Augustine led many clergy under his authority at Hippo to free their slaves "as an act of piety." [14] He boldly wrote a letter urging the emperor to set up a new law against slave traders and was very much concerned about the sale of children. Christian emperors of his time for 25 years had permitted sale of children, not because they approved of it, but as a way of preventing infanticide when parents were unable to care for a child (The Saints, Pauline Books, 1998 p. 72). In his famous book, "The City of God," the development of slavery is seen as a product of sin and contrary to God's divine plan".[15]

Freeing slaves in those days took great conviction and courage, since the Roman emperors issued edicts unfavorable to it, and keeping on the good side of the emperor was essential to survival. Not until Justinian (527-565 A.D.) did Christians find an emperor who was sympathetic to what they had been doing [16]

The practice of freeing slaves began quite early, for Clement of Alexandria, who was probably a contemporary of the Apostle Paul, said in his Epistle to the Corinthians no. 55, "Some Christians surrendered their own freedom to liberate others or even money to provide food for others." He talks as if it is common knowledge of which he is reminding them. He also says it was a church custom in his time to redeem prisoners of war from servitude. He wrote that Christians should not have too many domestic slaves. He said men did this because they disliked working with their own hands and serving themselves.[17]

Ignatius, in his epistle to Herodustus, urges believers to "despise not servants, for we possess the same nature in common with them." [18] Basil (330-379) wrote of slaves and masters as all being fellow slaves of our Creator and spoke of "our mutual equality of rank." [19] Lactantius in the fourth century wrote that in God's eyes there were no slaves.[20]

In the fourth century, Chrysostom wrote that Christ annulled slavery and admonished Christian to buy slaves, teach them a marketable skill, and set them free. The freeing of slaves by Christians was so common in his time that some people complained Christianity had been introduced just for that purpose.[21] In the fifth century, Patrick, Celtic Christian missionary to Ireland, actually condemned slavery.[22]

https://www.conservapedia.com/Slavery_in_the_early_church

---

No where, including 1Timothy, is slavery condemned in the Bible, the supposed inspired word direct from God himself. What Christians have done and advocated regarding slavery down through the years has been all over the place. All the way down to preaching slavery from the pulpit in the South.

---

A first-century mind would have no difficulty seeing the condemnation of slavery. Certainly the antebellum South read it the way they wanted to, but it's hardly a coincidence that the anti-slavery movements in both England and America were directly founded on the Bible.

Atheist sounds alarm and it falls on deaf, defensive ears. He's doing you a favors and you get huffy and closed up. Closed up? I've seen it a hundred times. A chance to open up to new life.
It was that way between Jesus and the Pharisees. Jesus had a new of looking at the law. It was was called love. It was buried in the OT and Law. Jesus unearthed it and offered it as new hope

Be thankful for this atheist and his alarm

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "Ultimate authority rests with people, and people ultimately decide what is moral based upon cultural norms."

So the mob drives morality?

I disagree.

Just from what I have read, moral thought starts with individuals who disagree with the crowd and think through the moral issues, then state concepts which lead in new directions. Historically, such individuals have been philosophers and religious leaders. Socrates and MLK Jr are examples of such individuals who stood against the common practice of their time.

Cultural norms are often at odds with moral values, which causes problems in its own right.

---

Moral values do change, thus the "moral arc".

---

But it's not an arc, if you pay attention to history. Human behavior changes according to location, culture, and leaders of the day.

For example, Jon of Arc was a female leader who could have opened a new era in social consciousness, but instead she was an outlier because the establishment killed her. For another, Slavery was opposed by Christians early in their history, but Rome corrupted social practices so that it was more than a thousand years before people actively worked to end Slavery,

What we see in history is individuals who start moral debates, which are opposed by the mob and so some movements falter and fail for a time. There simply is no "moral arc" in actual practice.

---

Quote:

---

Human behavior changes according to location, culture, and leaders of the day.

---

As do morals. What's moral in one culture is immoral in another culture.

When and how was slavery opposed in early Christian history?



What he is saying is that, innate human desire is for moral justice, fairness, and equity, and given time, morality trends in that direction.

---

There are multiple references in Scripture, including Paul's command to Philemon to treat Onesimus as "a brother beloved," a status obviously incompatible with being a slave, and the special condemnation given to slave traders in 1 Timothy.

With regard to the early Church, this might interest you:


In the second and third centuries after Christ, tens of thousands of slaves were freed by people who converted the Christ, and then understood the inherent wrongness of the slave condition. Melania is said to have freed 8,000 slaves, Ovidus 5,000, Chromatius 1400, and Hermes 1200.[10] One popular Christian book of the early church said that Christians should not attend heathen gatherings "unless to purchase a slave and save a soul" (by teaching the slave of Christ and then freeing him or her).[11]

Church law in the early fifth century allowed for liberation (called manumission) of slaves during church services.[12] This happened because many Christian converts at that time were people of considerable wealth. Converted out of a decadent, totally self-centered society, many Christians sold their goods and lands and used the proceeds to help the poor, support hospitals, take in orphans, free prisoners, and liberate slaves. Liberation was frequent, and freedmen soon became a prominent feature of society.[13]

Augustine led many clergy under his authority at Hippo to free their slaves "as an act of piety." [14] He boldly wrote a letter urging the emperor to set up a new law against slave traders and was very much concerned about the sale of children. Christian emperors of his time for 25 years had permitted sale of children, not because they approved of it, but as a way of preventing infanticide when parents were unable to care for a child (The Saints, Pauline Books, 1998 p. 72). In his famous book, "The City of God," the development of slavery is seen as a product of sin and contrary to God's divine plan".[15]

Freeing slaves in those days took great conviction and courage, since the Roman emperors issued edicts unfavorable to it, and keeping on the good side of the emperor was essential to survival. Not until Justinian (527-565 A.D.) did Christians find an emperor who was sympathetic to what they had been doing [16]

The practice of freeing slaves began quite early, for Clement of Alexandria, who was probably a contemporary of the Apostle Paul, said in his Epistle to the Corinthians no. 55, "Some Christians surrendered their own freedom to liberate others or even money to provide food for others." He talks as if it is common knowledge of which he is reminding them. He also says it was a church custom in his time to redeem prisoners of war from servitude. He wrote that Christians should not have too many domestic slaves. He said men did this because they disliked working with their own hands and serving themselves.[17]

Ignatius, in his epistle to Herodustus, urges believers to "despise not servants, for we possess the same nature in common with them." [18] Basil (330-379) wrote of slaves and masters as all being fellow slaves of our Creator and spoke of "our mutual equality of rank." [19] Lactantius in the fourth century wrote that in God's eyes there were no slaves.[20]

In the fourth century, Chrysostom wrote that Christ annulled slavery and admonished Christian to buy slaves, teach them a marketable skill, and set them free. The freeing of slaves by Christians was so common in his time that some people complained Christianity had been introduced just for that purpose.[21] In the fifth century, Patrick, Celtic Christian missionary to Ireland, actually condemned slavery.[22]

https://www.conservapedia.com/Slavery_in_the_early_church

---

No where, including 1Timothy, is slavery condemned in the Bible, the supposed inspired word direct from God himself. What Christians have done and advocated regarding slavery down through the years has been all over the place. All the way down to preaching slavery from the pulpit in the South.

---

A first-century mind would have no difficulty seeing the condemnation of slavery. Certainly the antebellum South read it the way they wanted to, but it's hardly a coincidence that the anti-slavery movements in both England and America were directly founded on the Bible.

---

Then why didn't they condemn it, in the writings of the Bible?

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "Ultimate authority rests with people, and people ultimately decide what is moral based upon cultural norms."

So the mob drives morality?

I disagree.

Just from what I have read, moral thought starts with individuals who disagree with the crowd and think through the moral issues, then state concepts which lead in new directions. Historically, such individuals have been philosophers and religious leaders. Socrates and MLK Jr are examples of such individuals who stood against the common practice of their time.

Cultural norms are often at odds with moral values, which causes problems in its own right.

---

Moral values do change, thus the "moral arc".

---

But it's not an arc, if you pay attention to history. Human behavior changes according to location, culture, and leaders of the day.

For example, Jon of Arc was a female leader who could have opened a new era in social consciousness, but instead she was an outlier because the establishment killed her. For another, Slavery was opposed by Christians early in their history, but Rome corrupted social practices so that it was more than a thousand years before people actively worked to end Slavery,

What we see in history is individuals who start moral debates, which are opposed by the mob and so some movements falter and fail for a time. There simply is no "moral arc" in actual practice.

---

Quote:

---

Human behavior changes according to location, culture, and leaders of the day.

---

As do morals. What's moral in one culture is immoral in another culture.

When and how was slavery opposed in early Christian history?



What he is saying is that, innate human desire is for moral justice, fairness, and equity, and given time, morality trends in that direction.

---

There are multiple references in Scripture, including Paul's command to Philemon to treat Onesimus as "a brother beloved," a status obviously incompatible with being a slave, and the special condemnation given to slave traders in 1 Timothy.

With regard to the early Church, this might interest you:


In the second and third centuries after Christ, tens of thousands of slaves were freed by people who converted the Christ, and then understood the inherent wrongness of the slave condition. Melania is said to have freed 8,000 slaves, Ovidus 5,000, Chromatius 1400, and Hermes 1200.[10] One popular Christian book of the early church said that Christians should not attend heathen gatherings "unless to purchase a slave and save a soul" (by teaching the slave of Christ and then freeing him or her).[11]

Church law in the early fifth century allowed for liberation (called manumission) of slaves during church services.[12] This happened because many Christian converts at that time were people of considerable wealth. Converted out of a decadent, totally self-centered society, many Christians sold their goods and lands and used the proceeds to help the poor, support hospitals, take in orphans, free prisoners, and liberate slaves. Liberation was frequent, and freedmen soon became a prominent feature of society.[13]

Augustine led many clergy under his authority at Hippo to free their slaves "as an act of piety." [14] He boldly wrote a letter urging the emperor to set up a new law against slave traders and was very much concerned about the sale of children. Christian emperors of his time for 25 years had permitted sale of children, not because they approved of it, but as a way of preventing infanticide when parents were unable to care for a child (The Saints, Pauline Books, 1998 p. 72). In his famous book, "The City of God," the development of slavery is seen as a product of sin and contrary to God's divine plan".[15]

Freeing slaves in those days took great conviction and courage, since the Roman emperors issued edicts unfavorable to it, and keeping on the good side of the emperor was essential to survival. Not until Justinian (527-565 A.D.) did Christians find an emperor who was sympathetic to what they had been doing [16]

The practice of freeing slaves began quite early, for Clement of Alexandria, who was probably a contemporary of the Apostle Paul, said in his Epistle to the Corinthians no. 55, "Some Christians surrendered their own freedom to liberate others or even money to provide food for others." He talks as if it is common knowledge of which he is reminding them. He also says it was a church custom in his time to redeem prisoners of war from servitude. He wrote that Christians should not have too many domestic slaves. He said men did this because they disliked working with their own hands and serving themselves.[17]

Ignatius, in his epistle to Herodustus, urges believers to "despise not servants, for we possess the same nature in common with them." [18] Basil (330-379) wrote of slaves and masters as all being fellow slaves of our Creator and spoke of "our mutual equality of rank." [19] Lactantius in the fourth century wrote that in God's eyes there were no slaves.[20]

In the fourth century, Chrysostom wrote that Christ annulled slavery and admonished Christian to buy slaves, teach them a marketable skill, and set them free. The freeing of slaves by Christians was so common in his time that some people complained Christianity had been introduced just for that purpose.[21] In the fifth century, Patrick, Celtic Christian missionary to Ireland, actually condemned slavery.[22]

https://www.conservapedia.com/Slavery_in_the_early_church

---

No where, including 1Timothy, is slavery condemned in the Bible, the supposed inspired word direct from God himself. What Christians have done and advocated regarding slavery down through the years has been all over the place. All the way down to preaching slavery from the pulpit in the South.

---

A first-century mind would have no difficulty seeing the condemnation of slavery. Certainly the antebellum South read it the way they wanted to, but it's hardly a coincidence that the anti-slavery movements in both England and America were directly founded on the Bible.

---

Then why didn't they condemn it, in the writings of the Bible?

---

Pretty much the same reason people don't condemn slavery in personal letters. The New Testament books are the Gospels and letters to the churches from apostles.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "Ultimate authority rests with people, and people ultimately decide what is moral based upon cultural norms."

So the mob drives morality?

I disagree.

Just from what I have read, moral thought starts with individuals who disagree with the crowd and think through the moral issues, then state concepts which lead in new directions. Historically, such individuals have been philosophers and religious leaders. Socrates and MLK Jr are examples of such individuals who stood against the common practice of their time.

Cultural norms are often at odds with moral values, which causes problems in its own right.

---

Moral values do change, thus the "moral arc".

---

But it's not an arc, if you pay attention to history. Human behavior changes according to location, culture, and leaders of the day.

For example, Jon of Arc was a female leader who could have opened a new era in social consciousness, but instead she was an outlier because the establishment killed her. For another, Slavery was opposed by Christians early in their history, but Rome corrupted social practices so that it was more than a thousand years before people actively worked to end Slavery,

What we see in history is individuals who start moral debates, which are opposed by the mob and so some movements falter and fail for a time. There simply is no "moral arc" in actual practice.

---

Quote:

---

Human behavior changes according to location, culture, and leaders of the day.

---

As do morals. What's moral in one culture is immoral in another culture.

When and how was slavery opposed in early Christian history?



What he is saying is that, innate human desire is for moral justice, fairness, and equity, and given time, morality trends in that direction.

---

There are multiple references in Scripture, including Paul's command to Philemon to treat Onesimus as "a brother beloved," a status obviously incompatible with being a slave, and the special condemnation given to slave traders in 1 Timothy.

With regard to the early Church, this might interest you:


In the second and third centuries after Christ, tens of thousands of slaves were freed by people who converted the Christ, and then understood the inherent wrongness of the slave condition. Melania is said to have freed 8,000 slaves, Ovidus 5,000, Chromatius 1400, and Hermes 1200.[10] One popular Christian book of the early church said that Christians should not attend heathen gatherings "unless to purchase a slave and save a soul" (by teaching the slave of Christ and then freeing him or her).[11]

Church law in the early fifth century allowed for liberation (called manumission) of slaves during church services.[12] This happened because many Christian converts at that time were people of considerable wealth. Converted out of a decadent, totally self-centered society, many Christians sold their goods and lands and used the proceeds to help the poor, support hospitals, take in orphans, free prisoners, and liberate slaves. Liberation was frequent, and freedmen soon became a prominent feature of society.[13]

Augustine led many clergy under his authority at Hippo to free their slaves "as an act of piety." [14] He boldly wrote a letter urging the emperor to set up a new law against slave traders and was very much concerned about the sale of children. Christian emperors of his time for 25 years had permitted sale of children, not because they approved of it, but as a way of preventing infanticide when parents were unable to care for a child (The Saints, Pauline Books, 1998 p. 72). In his famous book, "The City of God," the development of slavery is seen as a product of sin and contrary to God's divine plan".[15]

Freeing slaves in those days took great conviction and courage, since the Roman emperors issued edicts unfavorable to it, and keeping on the good side of the emperor was essential to survival. Not until Justinian (527-565 A.D.) did Christians find an emperor who was sympathetic to what they had been doing [16]

The practice of freeing slaves began quite early, for Clement of Alexandria, who was probably a contemporary of the Apostle Paul, said in his Epistle to the Corinthians no. 55, "Some Christians surrendered their own freedom to liberate others or even money to provide food for others." He talks as if it is common knowledge of which he is reminding them. He also says it was a church custom in his time to redeem prisoners of war from servitude. He wrote that Christians should not have too many domestic slaves. He said men did this because they disliked working with their own hands and serving themselves.[17]

Ignatius, in his epistle to Herodustus, urges believers to "despise not servants, for we possess the same nature in common with them." [18] Basil (330-379) wrote of slaves and masters as all being fellow slaves of our Creator and spoke of "our mutual equality of rank." [19] Lactantius in the fourth century wrote that in God's eyes there were no slaves.[20]

In the fourth century, Chrysostom wrote that Christ annulled slavery and admonished Christian to buy slaves, teach them a marketable skill, and set them free. The freeing of slaves by Christians was so common in his time that some people complained Christianity had been introduced just for that purpose.[21] In the fifth century, Patrick, Celtic Christian missionary to Ireland, actually condemned slavery.[22]

https://www.conservapedia.com/Slavery_in_the_early_church

---

No where, including 1Timothy, is slavery condemned in the Bible, the supposed inspired word direct from God himself. What Christians have done and advocated regarding slavery down through the years has been all over the place. All the way down to preaching slavery from the pulpit in the South.

---

A first-century mind would have no difficulty seeing the condemnation of slavery. Certainly the antebellum South read it the way they wanted to, but it's hardly a coincidence that the anti-slavery movements in both England and America were directly founded on the Bible.

---

Then why didn't they condemn it, in the writings of the Bible?

---

Pretty much the same reason people don't condemn slavery in personal letters. The New Testament books are the Gospels and letters to the churches from apostles.

---

Luke says it is written to Theophilus. The other gospels don't really say. They supposedly recount the story of Jesus and his message. If slavery is wrong in God's eyes, why didn't he condemn it through the gospels (or epistles), which are supposed to be later written accounts of what was orally being retold about Jesus message in the first century (possibly in writings, from the first century)? Why wasn't it condemned by Paul, the earliest writings of God's supposed revised message? Why wouldn't it be denounced in Acts? Any condemnation of slavery clearly came later from some religious leaders and others and wasn't uniform to Christianity. To excuse the abscence of condemnation by saying people don't address slavery in personal letters is lame at best, and abhorrent in the sense that it is not addressed in any of the early writings. It should have been a head on tenet of a moral Christian ethos. Clearly, Jesus didn't condemn salvery.

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "Ultimate authority rests with people, and people ultimately decide what is moral based upon cultural norms."

So the mob drives morality?

I disagree.

Just from what I have read, moral thought starts with individuals who disagree with the crowd and think through the moral issues, then state concepts which lead in new directions. Historically, such individuals have been philosophers and religious leaders. Socrates and MLK Jr are examples of such individuals who stood against the common practice of their time.

Cultural norms are often at odds with moral values, which causes problems in its own right.

---

Moral values do change, thus the "moral arc".

---

But it's not an arc, if you pay attention to history. Human behavior changes according to location, culture, and leaders of the day.

For example, Jon of Arc was a female leader who could have opened a new era in social consciousness, but instead she was an outlier because the establishment killed her. For another, Slavery was opposed by Christians early in their history, but Rome corrupted social practices so that it was more than a thousand years before people actively worked to end Slavery,

What we see in history is individuals who start moral debates, which are opposed by the mob and so some movements falter and fail for a time. There simply is no "moral arc" in actual practice.

---

Quote:

---

Human behavior changes according to location, culture, and leaders of the day.

---

As do morals. What's moral in one culture is immoral in another culture.

When and how was slavery opposed in early Christian history?



What he is saying is that, innate human desire is for moral justice, fairness, and equity, and given time, morality trends in that direction.

---

There are multiple references in Scripture, including Paul's command to Philemon to treat Onesimus as "a brother beloved," a status obviously incompatible with being a slave, and the special condemnation given to slave traders in 1 Timothy.

With regard to the early Church, this might interest you:


In the second and third centuries after Christ, tens of thousands of slaves were freed by people who converted the Christ, and then understood the inherent wrongness of the slave condition. Melania is said to have freed 8,000 slaves, Ovidus 5,000, Chromatius 1400, and Hermes 1200.[10] One popular Christian book of the early church said that Christians should not attend heathen gatherings "unless to purchase a slave and save a soul" (by teaching the slave of Christ and then freeing him or her).[11]

Church law in the early fifth century allowed for liberation (called manumission) of slaves during church services.[12] This happened because many Christian converts at that time were people of considerable wealth. Converted out of a decadent, totally self-centered society, many Christians sold their goods and lands and used the proceeds to help the poor, support hospitals, take in orphans, free prisoners, and liberate slaves. Liberation was frequent, and freedmen soon became a prominent feature of society.[13]

Augustine led many clergy under his authority at Hippo to free their slaves "as an act of piety." [14] He boldly wrote a letter urging the emperor to set up a new law against slave traders and was very much concerned about the sale of children. Christian emperors of his time for 25 years had permitted sale of children, not because they approved of it, but as a way of preventing infanticide when parents were unable to care for a child (The Saints, Pauline Books, 1998 p. 72). In his famous book, "The City of God," the development of slavery is seen as a product of sin and contrary to God's divine plan".[15]

Freeing slaves in those days took great conviction and courage, since the Roman emperors issued edicts unfavorable to it, and keeping on the good side of the emperor was essential to survival. Not until Justinian (527-565 A.D.) did Christians find an emperor who was sympathetic to what they had been doing [16]

The practice of freeing slaves began quite early, for Clement of Alexandria, who was probably a contemporary of the Apostle Paul, said in his Epistle to the Corinthians no. 55, "Some Christians surrendered their own freedom to liberate others or even money to provide food for others." He talks as if it is common knowledge of which he is reminding them. He also says it was a church custom in his time to redeem prisoners of war from servitude. He wrote that Christians should not have too many domestic slaves. He said men did this because they disliked working with their own hands and serving themselves.[17]

Ignatius, in his epistle to Herodustus, urges believers to "despise not servants, for we possess the same nature in common with them." [18] Basil (330-379) wrote of slaves and masters as all being fellow slaves of our Creator and spoke of "our mutual equality of rank." [19] Lactantius in the fourth century wrote that in God's eyes there were no slaves.[20]

In the fourth century, Chrysostom wrote that Christ annulled slavery and admonished Christian to buy slaves, teach them a marketable skill, and set them free. The freeing of slaves by Christians was so common in his time that some people complained Christianity had been introduced just for that purpose.[21] In the fifth century, Patrick, Celtic Christian missionary to Ireland, actually condemned slavery.[22]

https://www.conservapedia.com/Slavery_in_the_early_church

---

No where, including 1Timothy, is slavery condemned in the Bible, the supposed inspired word direct from God himself. What Christians have done and advocated regarding slavery down through the years has been all over the place. All the way down to preaching slavery from the pulpit in the South.

---

A first-century mind would have no difficulty seeing the condemnation of slavery. Certainly the antebellum South read it the way they wanted to, but it's hardly a coincidence that the anti-slavery movements in both England and America were directly founded on the Bible.

---

Then why didn't they condemn it, in the writings of the Bible?

---

You're seriously going to make an argument from silence?

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "Ultimate authority rests with people, and people ultimately decide what is moral based upon cultural norms."

So the mob drives morality?

I disagree.

Just from what I have read, moral thought starts with individuals who disagree with the crowd and think through the moral issues, then state concepts which lead in new directions. Historically, such individuals have been philosophers and religious leaders. Socrates and MLK Jr are examples of such individuals who stood against the common practice of their time.

Cultural norms are often at odds with moral values, which causes problems in its own right.

---

Moral values do change, thus the "moral arc".

---

But it's not an arc, if you pay attention to history. Human behavior changes according to location, culture, and leaders of the day.

For example, Jon of Arc was a female leader who could have opened a new era in social consciousness, but instead she was an outlier because the establishment killed her. For another, Slavery was opposed by Christians early in their history, but Rome corrupted social practices so that it was more than a thousand years before people actively worked to end Slavery,

What we see in history is individuals who start moral debates, which are opposed by the mob and so some movements falter and fail for a time. There simply is no "moral arc" in actual practice.

---

Quote:

---

Human behavior changes according to location, culture, and leaders of the day.

---

As do morals. What's moral in one culture is immoral in another culture.

When and how was slavery opposed in early Christian history?



What he is saying is that, innate human desire is for moral justice, fairness, and equity, and given time, morality trends in that direction.

---

There are multiple references in Scripture, including Paul's command to Philemon to treat Onesimus as "a brother beloved," a status obviously incompatible with being a slave, and the special condemnation given to slave traders in 1 Timothy.

With regard to the early Church, this might interest you:


In the second and third centuries after Christ, tens of thousands of slaves were freed by people who converted the Christ, and then understood the inherent wrongness of the slave condition. Melania is said to have freed 8,000 slaves, Ovidus 5,000, Chromatius 1400, and Hermes 1200.[10] One popular Christian book of the early church said that Christians should not attend heathen gatherings "unless to purchase a slave and save a soul" (by teaching the slave of Christ and then freeing him or her).[11]

Church law in the early fifth century allowed for liberation (called manumission) of slaves during church services.[12] This happened because many Christian converts at that time were people of considerable wealth. Converted out of a decadent, totally self-centered society, many Christians sold their goods and lands and used the proceeds to help the poor, support hospitals, take in orphans, free prisoners, and liberate slaves. Liberation was frequent, and freedmen soon became a prominent feature of society.[13]

Augustine led many clergy under his authority at Hippo to free their slaves "as an act of piety." [14] He boldly wrote a letter urging the emperor to set up a new law against slave traders and was very much concerned about the sale of children. Christian emperors of his time for 25 years had permitted sale of children, not because they approved of it, but as a way of preventing infanticide when parents were unable to care for a child (The Saints, Pauline Books, 1998 p. 72). In his famous book, "The City of God," the development of slavery is seen as a product of sin and contrary to God's divine plan".[15]

Freeing slaves in those days took great conviction and courage, since the Roman emperors issued edicts unfavorable to it, and keeping on the good side of the emperor was essential to survival. Not until Justinian (527-565 A.D.) did Christians find an emperor who was sympathetic to what they had been doing [16]

The practice of freeing slaves began quite early, for Clement of Alexandria, who was probably a contemporary of the Apostle Paul, said in his Epistle to the Corinthians no. 55, "Some Christians surrendered their own freedom to liberate others or even money to provide food for others." He talks as if it is common knowledge of which he is reminding them. He also says it was a church custom in his time to redeem prisoners of war from servitude. He wrote that Christians should not have too many domestic slaves. He said men did this because they disliked working with their own hands and serving themselves.[17]

Ignatius, in his epistle to Herodustus, urges believers to "despise not servants, for we possess the same nature in common with them." [18] Basil (330-379) wrote of slaves and masters as all being fellow slaves of our Creator and spoke of "our mutual equality of rank." [19] Lactantius in the fourth century wrote that in God's eyes there were no slaves.[20]

In the fourth century, Chrysostom wrote that Christ annulled slavery and admonished Christian to buy slaves, teach them a marketable skill, and set them free. The freeing of slaves by Christians was so common in his time that some people complained Christianity had been introduced just for that purpose.[21] In the fifth century, Patrick, Celtic Christian missionary to Ireland, actually condemned slavery.[22]

https://www.conservapedia.com/Slavery_in_the_early_church

---

No where, including 1Timothy, is slavery condemned in the Bible, the supposed inspired word direct from God himself. What Christians have done and advocated regarding slavery down through the years has been all over the place. All the way down to preaching slavery from the pulpit in the South.

---

A first-century mind would have no difficulty seeing the condemnation of slavery. Certainly the antebellum South read it the way they wanted to, but it's hardly a coincidence that the anti-slavery movements in both England and America were directly founded on the Bible.

---

Then why didn't they condemn it, in the writings of the Bible?

---

You're seriously going to make an argument from silence?

---

Absolutely. It is such a scourge on the history of man, that you would think a moral god would have condemned it somewhere along the way in the written record of the OT/NT. Theoretically, he could have nipped a lot of it in the bud, by adding an eleventh commandment, or have written it into the law. It's just more evidence of Judeo/Christian morality changing with time. Their view of what is moral in god's sight changes to conform to religious leaders' changing ideas of morality.

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "Ultimate authority rests with people, and people ultimately decide what is moral based upon cultural norms."

So the mob drives morality?

I disagree.

Just from what I have read, moral thought starts with individuals who disagree with the crowd and think through the moral issues, then state concepts which lead in new directions. Historically, such individuals have been philosophers and religious leaders. Socrates and MLK Jr are examples of such individuals who stood against the common practice of their time.

Cultural norms are often at odds with moral values, which causes problems in its own right.

---

Moral values do change, thus the "moral arc".

---

But it's not an arc, if you pay attention to history. Human behavior changes according to location, culture, and leaders of the day.

For example, Jon of Arc was a female leader who could have opened a new era in social consciousness, but instead she was an outlier because the establishment killed her. For another, Slavery was opposed by Christians early in their history, but Rome corrupted social practices so that it was more than a thousand years before people actively worked to end Slavery,

What we see in history is individuals who start moral debates, which are opposed by the mob and so some movements falter and fail for a time. There simply is no "moral arc" in actual practice.

---

Quote:

---

Human behavior changes according to location, culture, and leaders of the day.

---

As do morals. What's moral in one culture is immoral in another culture.

When and how was slavery opposed in early Christian history?



What he is saying is that, innate human desire is for moral justice, fairness, and equity, and given time, morality trends in that direction.

---

There are multiple references in Scripture, including Paul's command to Philemon to treat Onesimus as "a brother beloved," a status obviously incompatible with being a slave, and the special condemnation given to slave traders in 1 Timothy.

With regard to the early Church, this might interest you:


In the second and third centuries after Christ, tens of thousands of slaves were freed by people who converted the Christ, and then understood the inherent wrongness of the slave condition. Melania is said to have freed 8,000 slaves, Ovidus 5,000, Chromatius 1400, and Hermes 1200.[10] One popular Christian book of the early church said that Christians should not attend heathen gatherings "unless to purchase a slave and save a soul" (by teaching the slave of Christ and then freeing him or her).[11]

Church law in the early fifth century allowed for liberation (called manumission) of slaves during church services.[12] This happened because many Christian converts at that time were people of considerable wealth. Converted out of a decadent, totally self-centered society, many Christians sold their goods and lands and used the proceeds to help the poor, support hospitals, take in orphans, free prisoners, and liberate slaves. Liberation was frequent, and freedmen soon became a prominent feature of society.[13]

Augustine led many clergy under his authority at Hippo to free their slaves "as an act of piety." [14] He boldly wrote a letter urging the emperor to set up a new law against slave traders and was very much concerned about the sale of children. Christian emperors of his time for 25 years had permitted sale of children, not because they approved of it, but as a way of preventing infanticide when parents were unable to care for a child (The Saints, Pauline Books, 1998 p. 72). In his famous book, "The City of God," the development of slavery is seen as a product of sin and contrary to God's divine plan".[15]

Freeing slaves in those days took great conviction and courage, since the Roman emperors issued edicts unfavorable to it, and keeping on the good side of the emperor was essential to survival. Not until Justinian (527-565 A.D.) did Christians find an emperor who was sympathetic to what they had been doing [16]

The practice of freeing slaves began quite early, for Clement of Alexandria, who was probably a contemporary of the Apostle Paul, said in his Epistle to the Corinthians no. 55, "Some Christians surrendered their own freedom to liberate others or even money to provide food for others." He talks as if it is common knowledge of which he is reminding them. He also says it was a church custom in his time to redeem prisoners of war from servitude. He wrote that Christians should not have too many domestic slaves. He said men did this because they disliked working with their own hands and serving themselves.[17]

Ignatius, in his epistle to Herodustus, urges believers to "despise not servants, for we possess the same nature in common with them." [18] Basil (330-379) wrote of slaves and masters as all being fellow slaves of our Creator and spoke of "our mutual equality of rank." [19] Lactantius in the fourth century wrote that in God's eyes there were no slaves.[20]

In the fourth century, Chrysostom wrote that Christ annulled slavery and admonished Christian to buy slaves, teach them a marketable skill, and set them free. The freeing of slaves by Christians was so common in his time that some people complained Christianity had been introduced just for that purpose.[21] In the fifth century, Patrick, Celtic Christian missionary to Ireland, actually condemned slavery.[22]

https://www.conservapedia.com/Slavery_in_the_early_church

---

No where, including 1Timothy, is slavery condemned in the Bible, the supposed inspired word direct from God himself. What Christians have done and advocated regarding slavery down through the years has been all over the place. All the way down to preaching slavery from the pulpit in the South.

---

A first-century mind would have no difficulty seeing the condemnation of slavery. Certainly the antebellum South read it the way they wanted to, but it's hardly a coincidence that the anti-slavery movements in both England and America were directly founded on the Bible.

---

Then why didn't they condemn it, in the writings of the Bible?

---

You're seriously going to make an argument from silence?

---

Absolutely. It is such a scourge on the history of man, that you would think a moral god would have condemned it somewhere along the way in the written record of the OT/NT. Theoretically, he could have nipped a lot of it in the bud, by adding an eleventh commandment, or have written it into the law. It's just more evidence of Judeo/Christian morality changing with time. Their view of what is moral in god's sight changes to conform to religious leaders' changing ideas of morality.

---

Regardless of could've, should've, would've speculation, still an incredibly weak argument (as I'm sure you are well aware).

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "Ultimate authority rests with people, and people ultimately decide what is moral based upon cultural norms."

So the mob drives morality?

I disagree.

Just from what I have read, moral thought starts with individuals who disagree with the crowd and think through the moral issues, then state concepts which lead in new directions. Historically, such individuals have been philosophers and religious leaders. Socrates and MLK Jr are examples of such individuals who stood against the common practice of their time.

Cultural norms are often at odds with moral values, which causes problems in its own right.

---

Moral values do change, thus the "moral arc".

---

But it's not an arc, if you pay attention to history. Human behavior changes according to location, culture, and leaders of the day.

For example, Jon of Arc was a female leader who could have opened a new era in social consciousness, but instead she was an outlier because the establishment killed her. For another, Slavery was opposed by Christians early in their history, but Rome corrupted social practices so that it was more than a thousand years before people actively worked to end Slavery,

What we see in history is individuals who start moral debates, which are opposed by the mob and so some movements falter and fail for a time. There simply is no "moral arc" in actual practice.

---

Quote:

---

Human behavior changes according to location, culture, and leaders of the day.

---

As do morals. What's moral in one culture is immoral in another culture.

When and how was slavery opposed in early Christian history?



What he is saying is that, innate human desire is for moral justice, fairness, and equity, and given time, morality trends in that direction.

---

There are multiple references in Scripture, including Paul's command to Philemon to treat Onesimus as "a brother beloved," a status obviously incompatible with being a slave, and the special condemnation given to slave traders in 1 Timothy.

With regard to the early Church, this might interest you:


In the second and third centuries after Christ, tens of thousands of slaves were freed by people who converted the Christ, and then understood the inherent wrongness of the slave condition. Melania is said to have freed 8,000 slaves, Ovidus 5,000, Chromatius 1400, and Hermes 1200.[10] One popular Christian book of the early church said that Christians should not attend heathen gatherings "unless to purchase a slave and save a soul" (by teaching the slave of Christ and then freeing him or her).[11]

Church law in the early fifth century allowed for liberation (called manumission) of slaves during church services.[12] This happened because many Christian converts at that time were people of considerable wealth. Converted out of a decadent, totally self-centered society, many Christians sold their goods and lands and used the proceeds to help the poor, support hospitals, take in orphans, free prisoners, and liberate slaves. Liberation was frequent, and freedmen soon became a prominent feature of society.[13]

Augustine led many clergy under his authority at Hippo to free their slaves "as an act of piety." [14] He boldly wrote a letter urging the emperor to set up a new law against slave traders and was very much concerned about the sale of children. Christian emperors of his time for 25 years had permitted sale of children, not because they approved of it, but as a way of preventing infanticide when parents were unable to care for a child (The Saints, Pauline Books, 1998 p. 72). In his famous book, "The City of God," the development of slavery is seen as a product of sin and contrary to God's divine plan".[15]

Freeing slaves in those days took great conviction and courage, since the Roman emperors issued edicts unfavorable to it, and keeping on the good side of the emperor was essential to survival. Not until Justinian (527-565 A.D.) did Christians find an emperor who was sympathetic to what they had been doing [16]

The practice of freeing slaves began quite early, for Clement of Alexandria, who was probably a contemporary of the Apostle Paul, said in his Epistle to the Corinthians no. 55, "Some Christians surrendered their own freedom to liberate others or even money to provide food for others." He talks as if it is common knowledge of which he is reminding them. He also says it was a church custom in his time to redeem prisoners of war from servitude. He wrote that Christians should not have too many domestic slaves. He said men did this because they disliked working with their own hands and serving themselves.[17]

Ignatius, in his epistle to Herodustus, urges believers to "despise not servants, for we possess the same nature in common with them." [18] Basil (330-379) wrote of slaves and masters as all being fellow slaves of our Creator and spoke of "our mutual equality of rank." [19] Lactantius in the fourth century wrote that in God's eyes there were no slaves.[20]

In the fourth century, Chrysostom wrote that Christ annulled slavery and admonished Christian to buy slaves, teach them a marketable skill, and set them free. The freeing of slaves by Christians was so common in his time that some people complained Christianity had been introduced just for that purpose.[21] In the fifth century, Patrick, Celtic Christian missionary to Ireland, actually condemned slavery.[22]

https://www.conservapedia.com/Slavery_in_the_early_church

---

No where, including 1Timothy, is slavery condemned in the Bible, the supposed inspired word direct from God himself. What Christians have done and advocated regarding slavery down through the years has been all over the place. All the way down to preaching slavery from the pulpit in the South.

---

A first-century mind would have no difficulty seeing the condemnation of slavery. Certainly the antebellum South read it the way they wanted to, but it's hardly a coincidence that the anti-slavery movements in both England and America were directly founded on the Bible.

---

Then why didn't they condemn it, in the writings of the Bible?

---

It's a very common mistake, from the time of Christ onward, to think that Christ came to overthrow the social order. He did not. The early Christians sought to change hearts, not society.

That's why the condemnations of slavery which I've already pointed out are focused on individuals, not society.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "Ultimate authority rests with people, and people ultimately decide what is moral based upon cultural norms."

So the mob drives morality?

I disagree.

Just from what I have read, moral thought starts with individuals who disagree with the crowd and think through the moral issues, then state concepts which lead in new directions. Historically, such individuals have been philosophers and religious leaders. Socrates and MLK Jr are examples of such individuals who stood against the common practice of their time.

Cultural norms are often at odds with moral values, which causes problems in its own right.

---

Moral values do change, thus the "moral arc".

---

But it's not an arc, if you pay attention to history. Human behavior changes according to location, culture, and leaders of the day.

For example, Jon of Arc was a female leader who could have opened a new era in social consciousness, but instead she was an outlier because the establishment killed her. For another, Slavery was opposed by Christians early in their history, but Rome corrupted social practices so that it was more than a thousand years before people actively worked to end Slavery,

What we see in history is individuals who start moral debates, which are opposed by the mob and so some movements falter and fail for a time. There simply is no "moral arc" in actual practice.

---

Quote:

---

Human behavior changes according to location, culture, and leaders of the day.

---

As do morals. What's moral in one culture is immoral in another culture.

When and how was slavery opposed in early Christian history?



What he is saying is that, innate human desire is for moral justice, fairness, and equity, and given time, morality trends in that direction.

---

There are multiple references in Scripture, including Paul's command to Philemon to treat Onesimus as "a brother beloved," a status obviously incompatible with being a slave, and the special condemnation given to slave traders in 1 Timothy.

With regard to the early Church, this might interest you:


In the second and third centuries after Christ, tens of thousands of slaves were freed by people who converted the Christ, and then understood the inherent wrongness of the slave condition. Melania is said to have freed 8,000 slaves, Ovidus 5,000, Chromatius 1400, and Hermes 1200.[10] One popular Christian book of the early church said that Christians should not attend heathen gatherings "unless to purchase a slave and save a soul" (by teaching the slave of Christ and then freeing him or her).[11]

Church law in the early fifth century allowed for liberation (called manumission) of slaves during church services.[12] This happened because many Christian converts at that time were people of considerable wealth. Converted out of a decadent, totally self-centered society, many Christians sold their goods and lands and used the proceeds to help the poor, support hospitals, take in orphans, free prisoners, and liberate slaves. Liberation was frequent, and freedmen soon became a prominent feature of society.[13]

Augustine led many clergy under his authority at Hippo to free their slaves "as an act of piety." [14] He boldly wrote a letter urging the emperor to set up a new law against slave traders and was very much concerned about the sale of children. Christian emperors of his time for 25 years had permitted sale of children, not because they approved of it, but as a way of preventing infanticide when parents were unable to care for a child (The Saints, Pauline Books, 1998 p. 72). In his famous book, "The City of God," the development of slavery is seen as a product of sin and contrary to God's divine plan".[15]

Freeing slaves in those days took great conviction and courage, since the Roman emperors issued edicts unfavorable to it, and keeping on the good side of the emperor was essential to survival. Not until Justinian (527-565 A.D.) did Christians find an emperor who was sympathetic to what they had been doing [16]

The practice of freeing slaves began quite early, for Clement of Alexandria, who was probably a contemporary of the Apostle Paul, said in his Epistle to the Corinthians no. 55, "Some Christians surrendered their own freedom to liberate others or even money to provide food for others." He talks as if it is common knowledge of which he is reminding them. He also says it was a church custom in his time to redeem prisoners of war from servitude. He wrote that Christians should not have too many domestic slaves. He said men did this because they disliked working with their own hands and serving themselves.[17]

Ignatius, in his epistle to Herodustus, urges believers to "despise not servants, for we possess the same nature in common with them." [18] Basil (330-379) wrote of slaves and masters as all being fellow slaves of our Creator and spoke of "our mutual equality of rank." [19] Lactantius in the fourth century wrote that in God's eyes there were no slaves.[20]

In the fourth century, Chrysostom wrote that Christ annulled slavery and admonished Christian to buy slaves, teach them a marketable skill, and set them free. The freeing of slaves by Christians was so common in his time that some people complained Christianity had been introduced just for that purpose.[21] In the fifth century, Patrick, Celtic Christian missionary to Ireland, actually condemned slavery.[22]

https://www.conservapedia.com/Slavery_in_the_early_church

---

No where, including 1Timothy, is slavery condemned in the Bible, the supposed inspired word direct from God himself. What Christians have done and advocated regarding slavery down through the years has been all over the place. All the way down to preaching slavery from the pulpit in the South.

---

A first-century mind would have no difficulty seeing the condemnation of slavery. Certainly the antebellum South read it the way they wanted to, but it's hardly a coincidence that the anti-slavery movements in both England and America were directly founded on the Bible.

---

Then why didn't they condemn it, in the writings of the Bible?

---

Pretty much the same reason people don't condemn slavery in personal letters. The New Testament books are the Gospels and letters to the churches from apostles.

---

Luke says it is written to Theophilus. The other gospels don't really say. They supposedly recount the story of Jesus and his message. If slavery is wrong in God's eyes, why didn't he condemn it through the gospels (or epistles), which are supposed to be later written accounts of what was orally being retold about Jesus message in the first century (possibly in writings, from the first century)? Why wasn't it condemned by Paul, the earliest writings of God's supposed revised message? Why wouldn't it be denounced in Acts? Any condemnation of slavery clearly came later from some religious leaders and others and wasn't uniform to Christianity. To excuse the abscence of condemnation by saying people don't address slavery in personal letters is lame at best, and abhorrent in the sense that it is not addressed in any of the early writings. It should have been a head on tenet of a moral Christian ethos. Clearly, Jesus didn't condemn salvery.

---

Clearly, you ignore truth when it does not serve your bias.

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "Ultimate authority rests with people, and people ultimately decide what is moral based upon cultural norms."

So the mob drives morality?

I disagree.

Just from what I have read, moral thought starts with individuals who disagree with the crowd and think through the moral issues, then state concepts which lead in new directions. Historically, such individuals have been philosophers and religious leaders. Socrates and MLK Jr are examples of such individuals who stood against the common practice of their time.

Cultural norms are often at odds with moral values, which causes problems in its own right.

---

Moral values do change, thus the "moral arc".

---

But it's not an arc, if you pay attention to history. Human behavior changes according to location, culture, and leaders of the day.

For example, Jon of Arc was a female leader who could have opened a new era in social consciousness, but instead she was an outlier because the establishment killed her. For another, Slavery was opposed by Christians early in their history, but Rome corrupted social practices so that it was more than a thousand years before people actively worked to end Slavery,

What we see in history is individuals who start moral debates, which are opposed by the mob and so some movements falter and fail for a time. There simply is no "moral arc" in actual practice.

---

Quote:

---

Human behavior changes according to location, culture, and leaders of the day.

---

As do morals. What's moral in one culture is immoral in another culture.

When and how was slavery opposed in early Christian history?



What he is saying is that, innate human desire is for moral justice, fairness, and equity, and given time, morality trends in that direction.

---

There are multiple references in Scripture, including Paul's command to Philemon to treat Onesimus as "a brother beloved," a status obviously incompatible with being a slave, and the special condemnation given to slave traders in 1 Timothy.

With regard to the early Church, this might interest you:


In the second and third centuries after Christ, tens of thousands of slaves were freed by people who converted the Christ, and then understood the inherent wrongness of the slave condition. Melania is said to have freed 8,000 slaves, Ovidus 5,000, Chromatius 1400, and Hermes 1200.[10] One popular Christian book of the early church said that Christians should not attend heathen gatherings "unless to purchase a slave and save a soul" (by teaching the slave of Christ and then freeing him or her).[11]

Church law in the early fifth century allowed for liberation (called manumission) of slaves during church services.[12] This happened because many Christian converts at that time were people of considerable wealth. Converted out of a decadent, totally self-centered society, many Christians sold their goods and lands and used the proceeds to help the poor, support hospitals, take in orphans, free prisoners, and liberate slaves. Liberation was frequent, and freedmen soon became a prominent feature of society.[13]

Augustine led many clergy under his authority at Hippo to free their slaves "as an act of piety." [14] He boldly wrote a letter urging the emperor to set up a new law against slave traders and was very much concerned about the sale of children. Christian emperors of his time for 25 years had permitted sale of children, not because they approved of it, but as a way of preventing infanticide when parents were unable to care for a child (The Saints, Pauline Books, 1998 p. 72). In his famous book, "The City of God," the development of slavery is seen as a product of sin and contrary to God's divine plan".[15]

Freeing slaves in those days took great conviction and courage, since the Roman emperors issued edicts unfavorable to it, and keeping on the good side of the emperor was essential to survival. Not until Justinian (527-565 A.D.) did Christians find an emperor who was sympathetic to what they had been doing [16]

The practice of freeing slaves began quite early, for Clement of Alexandria, who was probably a contemporary of the Apostle Paul, said in his Epistle to the Corinthians no. 55, "Some Christians surrendered their own freedom to liberate others or even money to provide food for others." He talks as if it is common knowledge of which he is reminding them. He also says it was a church custom in his time to redeem prisoners of war from servitude. He wrote that Christians should not have too many domestic slaves. He said men did this because they disliked working with their own hands and serving themselves.[17]

Ignatius, in his epistle to Herodustus, urges believers to "despise not servants, for we possess the same nature in common with them." [18] Basil (330-379) wrote of slaves and masters as all being fellow slaves of our Creator and spoke of "our mutual equality of rank." [19] Lactantius in the fourth century wrote that in God's eyes there were no slaves.[20]

In the fourth century, Chrysostom wrote that Christ annulled slavery and admonished Christian to buy slaves, teach them a marketable skill, and set them free. The freeing of slaves by Christians was so common in his time that some people complained Christianity had been introduced just for that purpose.[21] In the fifth century, Patrick, Celtic Christian missionary to Ireland, actually condemned slavery.[22]

https://www.conservapedia.com/Slavery_in_the_early_church

---

No where, including 1Timothy, is slavery condemned in the Bible, the supposed inspired word direct from God himself. What Christians have done and advocated regarding slavery down through the years has been all over the place. All the way down to preaching slavery from the pulpit in the South.

---

A first-century mind would have no difficulty seeing the condemnation of slavery. Certainly the antebellum South read it the way they wanted to, but it's hardly a coincidence that the anti-slavery movements in both England and America were directly founded on the Bible.

---

Then why didn't they condemn it, in the writings of the Bible?

---

It's a very common mistake, from the time of Christ onward, to think that Christ came to overthrow the social order. He did not. The early Christians sought to change hearts, not society.

That's why the condemnations of slavery which I've already pointed out are focused on individuals, not society.

---

Isn't that really just a convenient excuse? He supposedly came here to change the hearts of men. Slavery should be an immoral institution that reflects what resides in the hearts of men. Did he not speak out against stoning?

Set Jesus' shortcomings aside then. Why wasn't slavery condemned in the law of the OT, if we have a moral god?

TS: "Set Jesus' shortcomings aside then. Why wasn't slavery condemned in the law of the OT, if we have a moral god?"

Try again with a little respect.

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "Ultimate authority rests with people, and people ultimately decide what is moral based upon cultural norms."

So the mob drives morality?

I disagree.

Just from what I have read, moral thought starts with individuals who disagree with the crowd and think through the moral issues, then state concepts which lead in new directions. Historically, such individuals have been philosophers and religious leaders. Socrates and MLK Jr are examples of such individuals who stood against the common practice of their time.

Cultural norms are often at odds with moral values, which causes problems in its own right.

---

Moral values do change, thus the "moral arc".

---

But it's not an arc, if you pay attention to history. Human behavior changes according to location, culture, and leaders of the day.

For example, Jon of Arc was a female leader who could have opened a new era in social consciousness, but instead she was an outlier because the establishment killed her. For another, Slavery was opposed by Christians early in their history, but Rome corrupted social practices so that it was more than a thousand years before people actively worked to end Slavery,

What we see in history is individuals who start moral debates, which are opposed by the mob and so some movements falter and fail for a time. There simply is no "moral arc" in actual practice.

---

Quote:

---

Human behavior changes according to location, culture, and leaders of the day.

---

As do morals. What's moral in one culture is immoral in another culture.

When and how was slavery opposed in early Christian history?



What he is saying is that, innate human desire is for moral justice, fairness, and equity, and given time, morality trends in that direction.

---

There are multiple references in Scripture, including Paul's command to Philemon to treat Onesimus as "a brother beloved," a status obviously incompatible with being a slave, and the special condemnation given to slave traders in 1 Timothy.

With regard to the early Church, this might interest you:


In the second and third centuries after Christ, tens of thousands of slaves were freed by people who converted the Christ, and then understood the inherent wrongness of the slave condition. Melania is said to have freed 8,000 slaves, Ovidus 5,000, Chromatius 1400, and Hermes 1200.[10] One popular Christian book of the early church said that Christians should not attend heathen gatherings "unless to purchase a slave and save a soul" (by teaching the slave of Christ and then freeing him or her).[11]

Church law in the early fifth century allowed for liberation (called manumission) of slaves during church services.[12] This happened because many Christian converts at that time were people of considerable wealth. Converted out of a decadent, totally self-centered society, many Christians sold their goods and lands and used the proceeds to help the poor, support hospitals, take in orphans, free prisoners, and liberate slaves. Liberation was frequent, and freedmen soon became a prominent feature of society.[13]

Augustine led many clergy under his authority at Hippo to free their slaves "as an act of piety." [14] He boldly wrote a letter urging the emperor to set up a new law against slave traders and was very much concerned about the sale of children. Christian emperors of his time for 25 years had permitted sale of children, not because they approved of it, but as a way of preventing infanticide when parents were unable to care for a child (The Saints, Pauline Books, 1998 p. 72). In his famous book, "The City of God," the development of slavery is seen as a product of sin and contrary to God's divine plan".[15]

Freeing slaves in those days took great conviction and courage, since the Roman emperors issued edicts unfavorable to it, and keeping on the good side of the emperor was essential to survival. Not until Justinian (527-565 A.D.) did Christians find an emperor who was sympathetic to what they had been doing [16]

The practice of freeing slaves began quite early, for Clement of Alexandria, who was probably a contemporary of the Apostle Paul, said in his Epistle to the Corinthians no. 55, "Some Christians surrendered their own freedom to liberate others or even money to provide food for others." He talks as if it is common knowledge of which he is reminding them. He also says it was a church custom in his time to redeem prisoners of war from servitude. He wrote that Christians should not have too many domestic slaves. He said men did this because they disliked working with their own hands and serving themselves.[17]

Ignatius, in his epistle to Herodustus, urges believers to "despise not servants, for we possess the same nature in common with them." [18] Basil (330-379) wrote of slaves and masters as all being fellow slaves of our Creator and spoke of "our mutual equality of rank." [19] Lactantius in the fourth century wrote that in God's eyes there were no slaves.[20]

In the fourth century, Chrysostom wrote that Christ annulled slavery and admonished Christian to buy slaves, teach them a marketable skill, and set them free. The freeing of slaves by Christians was so common in his time that some people complained Christianity had been introduced just for that purpose.[21] In the fifth century, Patrick, Celtic Christian missionary to Ireland, actually condemned slavery.[22]

https://www.conservapedia.com/Slavery_in_the_early_church

---

No where, including 1Timothy, is slavery condemned in the Bible, the supposed inspired word direct from God himself. What Christians have done and advocated regarding slavery down through the years has been all over the place. All the way down to preaching slavery from the pulpit in the South.

---

A first-century mind would have no difficulty seeing the condemnation of slavery. Certainly the antebellum South read it the way they wanted to, but it's hardly a coincidence that the anti-slavery movements in both England and America were directly founded on the Bible.

---

Then why didn't they condemn it, in the writings of the Bible?

---

It's a very common mistake, from the time of Christ onward, to think that Christ came to overthrow the social order. He did not. The early Christians sought to change hearts, not society.

That's why the condemnations of slavery which I've already pointed out are focused on individuals, not society.

---

Isn't that really just a convenient excuse? He supposedly came here to change the hearts of men. Slavery should be an immoral institution that reflects what resides in the hearts of men. Did he not speak out against stoning?

Set Jesus' shortcomings aside then. Why wasn't slavery condemned in the law of the OT, if we have a moral god?

---

Still belaboring the point from silence, coupled with your materialist's made up system of morality. How can you expect to be taken seriously.

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "Ultimate authority rests with people, and people ultimately decide what is moral based upon cultural norms."

So the mob drives morality?

I disagree.

Just from what I have read, moral thought starts with individuals who disagree with the crowd and think through the moral issues, then state concepts which lead in new directions. Historically, such individuals have been philosophers and religious leaders. Socrates and MLK Jr are examples of such individuals who stood against the common practice of their time.

Cultural norms are often at odds with moral values, which causes problems in its own right.

---

Moral values do change, thus the "moral arc".

---

But it's not an arc, if you pay attention to history. Human behavior changes according to location, culture, and leaders of the day.

For example, Jon of Arc was a female leader who could have opened a new era in social consciousness, but instead she was an outlier because the establishment killed her. For another, Slavery was opposed by Christians early in their history, but Rome corrupted social practices so that it was more than a thousand years before people actively worked to end Slavery,

What we see in history is individuals who start moral debates, which are opposed by the mob and so some movements falter and fail for a time. There simply is no "moral arc" in actual practice.

---

Quote:

---

Human behavior changes according to location, culture, and leaders of the day.

---

As do morals. What's moral in one culture is immoral in another culture.

When and how was slavery opposed in early Christian history?



What he is saying is that, innate human desire is for moral justice, fairness, and equity, and given time, morality trends in that direction.

---

There are multiple references in Scripture, including Paul's command to Philemon to treat Onesimus as "a brother beloved," a status obviously incompatible with being a slave, and the special condemnation given to slave traders in 1 Timothy.

With regard to the early Church, this might interest you:


In the second and third centuries after Christ, tens of thousands of slaves were freed by people who converted the Christ, and then understood the inherent wrongness of the slave condition. Melania is said to have freed 8,000 slaves, Ovidus 5,000, Chromatius 1400, and Hermes 1200.[10] One popular Christian book of the early church said that Christians should not attend heathen gatherings "unless to purchase a slave and save a soul" (by teaching the slave of Christ and then freeing him or her).[11]

Church law in the early fifth century allowed for liberation (called manumission) of slaves during church services.[12] This happened because many Christian converts at that time were people of considerable wealth. Converted out of a decadent, totally self-centered society, many Christians sold their goods and lands and used the proceeds to help the poor, support hospitals, take in orphans, free prisoners, and liberate slaves. Liberation was frequent, and freedmen soon became a prominent feature of society.[13]

Augustine led many clergy under his authority at Hippo to free their slaves "as an act of piety." [14] He boldly wrote a letter urging the emperor to set up a new law against slave traders and was very much concerned about the sale of children. Christian emperors of his time for 25 years had permitted sale of children, not because they approved of it, but as a way of preventing infanticide when parents were unable to care for a child (The Saints, Pauline Books, 1998 p. 72). In his famous book, "The City of God," the development of slavery is seen as a product of sin and contrary to God's divine plan".[15]

Freeing slaves in those days took great conviction and courage, since the Roman emperors issued edicts unfavorable to it, and keeping on the good side of the emperor was essential to survival. Not until Justinian (527-565 A.D.) did Christians find an emperor who was sympathetic to what they had been doing [16]

The practice of freeing slaves began quite early, for Clement of Alexandria, who was probably a contemporary of the Apostle Paul, said in his Epistle to the Corinthians no. 55, "Some Christians surrendered their own freedom to liberate others or even money to provide food for others." He talks as if it is common knowledge of which he is reminding them. He also says it was a church custom in his time to redeem prisoners of war from servitude. He wrote that Christians should not have too many domestic slaves. He said men did this because they disliked working with their own hands and serving themselves.[17]

Ignatius, in his epistle to Herodustus, urges believers to "despise not servants, for we possess the same nature in common with them." [18] Basil (330-379) wrote of slaves and masters as all being fellow slaves of our Creator and spoke of "our mutual equality of rank." [19] Lactantius in the fourth century wrote that in God's eyes there were no slaves.[20]

In the fourth century, Chrysostom wrote that Christ annulled slavery and admonished Christian to buy slaves, teach them a marketable skill, and set them free. The freeing of slaves by Christians was so common in his time that some people complained Christianity had been introduced just for that purpose.[21] In the fifth century, Patrick, Celtic Christian missionary to Ireland, actually condemned slavery.[22]

https://www.conservapedia.com/Slavery_in_the_early_church

---

No where, including 1Timothy, is slavery condemned in the Bible, the supposed inspired word direct from God himself. What Christians have done and advocated regarding slavery down through the years has been all over the place. All the way down to preaching slavery from the pulpit in the South.

---

A first-century mind would have no difficulty seeing the condemnation of slavery. Certainly the antebellum South read it the way they wanted to, but it's hardly a coincidence that the anti-slavery movements in both England and America were directly founded on the Bible.

---

Then why didn't they condemn it, in the writings of the Bible?

---

It's a very common mistake, from the time of Christ onward, to think that Christ came to overthrow the social order. He did not. The early Christians sought to change hearts, not society.

That's why the condemnations of slavery which I've already pointed out are focused on individuals, not society.

---

Isn't that really just a convenient excuse? He supposedly came here to change the hearts of men. Slavery should be an immoral institution that reflects what resides in the hearts of men. Did he not speak out against stoning?

Set Jesus' shortcomings aside then. Why wasn't slavery condemned in the law of the OT, if we have a moral god?

---

Still belaboring the point from silence, coupled with your materialist's made up system of morality. How can you expect to be taken seriously.

---

Materialistic has nothing to do with it. Your morality is a system based upon some religious cleric's subjective claim of what is moral. Mine is based upon what is in the interest of other's wellbeing as supported by equitable and objective evidence.

No TS, you continue to use your subjective opinion and pretend it's "objective evidence".

When a 5-year-old insists his opinion is fact, it's cute. But it's strange when a grown-ass man tries it as you are doing here.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "Set Jesus' shortcomings aside then. Why wasn't slavery condemned in the law of the OT, if we have a moral god?"

Try again with a little respect.

---

The answer is, the god projected in the OT is not a moral god. He is depicted as a vengeful, jealous, self consumed god, with little interest in the suffering of humanity. More importantly, he is a compilation or conflation of Canaanite gods dating back to the Bronze Age/Early Iron Age.

Oldbear83 said:

---

No TS, you continue to use your subjective opinion and pretend it's "objective evidence".

When a 5-year-old insists his opinion is fact, it's cute. But it's strange when a grown-ass man tries it as you are doing here.

---

You just say whatever you want when you don't have an answer. I've never said my opinion is objective evidence.

TexasScientist said:

---

I've never said my opinion is objective evidence.

---

Yes you have and you keep repeating it.

Just admit you are stubborn and cling to subjective opinion. At least that would be honest.

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "Ultimate authority rests with people, and people ultimately decide what is moral based upon cultural norms."

So the mob drives morality?

I disagree.

Just from what I have read, moral thought starts with individuals who disagree with the crowd and think through the moral issues, then state concepts which lead in new directions. Historically, such individuals have been philosophers and religious leaders. Socrates and MLK Jr are examples of such individuals who stood against the common practice of their time.

Cultural norms are often at odds with moral values, which causes problems in its own right.

---

Moral values do change, thus the "moral arc".

---

But it's not an arc, if you pay attention to history. Human behavior changes according to location, culture, and leaders of the day.

For example, Jon of Arc was a female leader who could have opened a new era in social consciousness, but instead she was an outlier because the establishment killed her. For another, Slavery was opposed by Christians early in their history, but Rome corrupted social practices so that it was more than a thousand years before people actively worked to end Slavery,

What we see in history is individuals who start moral debates, which are opposed by the mob and so some movements falter and fail for a time. There simply is no "moral arc" in actual practice.

---

Quote:

---

Human behavior changes according to location, culture, and leaders of the day.

---

As do morals. What's moral in one culture is immoral in another culture.

When and how was slavery opposed in early Christian history?



What he is saying is that, innate human desire is for moral justice, fairness, and equity, and given time, morality trends in that direction.

---

There are multiple references in Scripture, including Paul's command to Philemon to treat Onesimus as "a brother beloved," a status obviously incompatible with being a slave, and the special condemnation given to slave traders in 1 Timothy.

With regard to the early Church, this might interest you:


In the second and third centuries after Christ, tens of thousands of slaves were freed by people who converted the Christ, and then understood the inherent wrongness of the slave condition. Melania is said to have freed 8,000 slaves, Ovidus 5,000, Chromatius 1400, and Hermes 1200.[10] One popular Christian book of the early church said that Christians should not attend heathen gatherings "unless to purchase a slave and save a soul" (by teaching the slave of Christ and then freeing him or her).[11]

Church law in the early fifth century allowed for liberation (called manumission) of slaves during church services.[12] This happened because many Christian converts at that time were people of considerable wealth. Converted out of a decadent, totally self-centered society, many Christians sold their goods and lands and used the proceeds to help the poor, support hospitals, take in orphans, free prisoners, and liberate slaves. Liberation was frequent, and freedmen soon became a prominent feature of society.[13]

Augustine led many clergy under his authority at Hippo to free their slaves "as an act of piety." [14] He boldly wrote a letter urging the emperor to set up a new law against slave traders and was very much concerned about the sale of children. Christian emperors of his time for 25 years had permitted sale of children, not because they approved of it, but as a way of preventing infanticide when parents were unable to care for a child (The Saints, Pauline Books, 1998 p. 72). In his famous book, "The City of God," the development of slavery is seen as a product of sin and contrary to God's divine plan".[15]

Freeing slaves in those days took great conviction and courage, since the Roman emperors issued edicts unfavorable to it, and keeping on the good side of the emperor was essential to survival. Not until Justinian (527-565 A.D.) did Christians find an emperor who was sympathetic to what they had been doing [16]

The practice of freeing slaves began quite early, for Clement of Alexandria, who was probably a contemporary of the Apostle Paul, said in his Epistle to the Corinthians no. 55, "Some Christians surrendered their own freedom to liberate others or even money to provide food for others." He talks as if it is common knowledge of which he is reminding them. He also says it was a church custom in his time to redeem prisoners of war from servitude. He wrote that Christians should not have too many domestic slaves. He said men did this because they disliked working with their own hands and serving themselves.[17]

Ignatius, in his epistle to Herodustus, urges believers to "despise not servants, for we possess the same nature in common with them." [18] Basil (330-379) wrote of slaves and masters as all being fellow slaves of our Creator and spoke of "our mutual equality of rank." [19] Lactantius in the fourth century wrote that in God's eyes there were no slaves.[20]

In the fourth century, Chrysostom wrote that Christ annulled slavery and admonished Christian to buy slaves, teach them a marketable skill, and set them free. The freeing of slaves by Christians was so common in his time that some people complained Christianity had been introduced just for that purpose.[21] In the fifth century, Patrick, Celtic Christian missionary to Ireland, actually condemned slavery.[22]

https://www.conservapedia.com/Slavery_in_the_early_church

---

No where, including 1Timothy, is slavery condemned in the Bible, the supposed inspired word direct from God himself. What Christians have done and advocated regarding slavery down through the years has been all over the place. All the way down to preaching slavery from the pulpit in the South.

---

A first-century mind would have no difficulty seeing the condemnation of slavery. Certainly the antebellum South read it the way they wanted to, but it's hardly a coincidence that the anti-slavery movements in both England and America were directly founded on the Bible.

---

Then why didn't they condemn it, in the writings of the Bible?

---

It's a very common mistake, from the time of Christ onward, to think that Christ came to overthrow the social order. He did not. The early Christians sought to change hearts, not society.

That's why the condemnations of slavery which I've already pointed out are focused on individuals, not society.

---

Isn't that really just a convenient excuse? He supposedly came here to change the hearts of men. Slavery should be an immoral institution that reflects what resides in the hearts of men. Did he not speak out against stoning?

Set Jesus' shortcomings aside then. Why wasn't slavery condemned in the law of the OT, if we have a moral god?

---

Still belaboring the point from silence, coupled with your materialist's made up system of morality. How can you expect to be taken seriously.

---

Materialistic has nothing to do with it. Your morality is a system based upon some religious cleric's subjective claim of what is moral. Mine is based upon what is in the interest of other's wellbeing as supported by equitable and objective evidence.

---

Your "equitable and objective evidence" it totally unilateral with no basis in anything other than your asserted opinion. You can never escape this fundamental flaw in your assumptions.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "Set Jesus' shortcomings aside then. Why wasn't slavery condemned in the law of the OT, if we have a moral god?"

Try again with a little respect.

---

The answer is, the god projected in the OT is not a moral god. He is depicted as a vengeful, jealous, self consumed god, with little interest in the suffering of humanity. More importantly, he is a compilation or conflation of Canaanite gods dating back to the Bronze Age/Early Iron Age.

---

"More importantly, he is a compilation or conflation of Canaanite gods dating back to the Bronze Age/Early Iron Age. "

Just one possible interpretation, AKA, opinion. But, you know that.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "Set Jesus' shortcomings aside then. Why wasn't slavery condemned in the law of the OT, if we have a moral god?"

Try again with a little respect.

---

The answer is, the god projected in the OT is not a moral god. He is depicted as a vengeful, jealous, self consumed god, with little interest in the suffering of humanity. More importantly, he is a compilation or conflation of Canaanite gods dating back to the Bronze Age/Early Iron Age.

---

Total BS.

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "Ultimate authority rests with people, and people ultimately decide what is moral based upon cultural norms."

So the mob drives morality?

I disagree.

Just from what I have read, moral thought starts with individuals who disagree with the crowd and think through the moral issues, then state concepts which lead in new directions. Historically, such individuals have been philosophers and religious leaders. Socrates and MLK Jr are examples of such individuals who stood against the common practice of their time.

Cultural norms are often at odds with moral values, which causes problems in its own right.

---

Moral values do change, thus the "moral arc".

---

But it's not an arc, if you pay attention to history. Human behavior changes according to location, culture, and leaders of the day.

For example, Jon of Arc was a female leader who could have opened a new era in social consciousness, but instead she was an outlier because the establishment killed her. For another, Slavery was opposed by Christians early in their history, but Rome corrupted social practices so that it was more than a thousand years before people actively worked to end Slavery,

What we see in history is individuals who start moral debates, which are opposed by the mob and so some movements falter and fail for a time. There simply is no "moral arc" in actual practice.

---

Quote:

---

Human behavior changes according to location, culture, and leaders of the day.

---

As do morals. What's moral in one culture is immoral in another culture.

When and how was slavery opposed in early Christian history?



What he is saying is that, innate human desire is for moral justice, fairness, and equity, and given time, morality trends in that direction.

---

There are multiple references in Scripture, including Paul's command to Philemon to treat Onesimus as "a brother beloved," a status obviously incompatible with being a slave, and the special condemnation given to slave traders in 1 Timothy.

With regard to the early Church, this might interest you:


In the second and third centuries after Christ, tens of thousands of slaves were freed by people who converted the Christ, and then understood the inherent wrongness of the slave condition. Melania is said to have freed 8,000 slaves, Ovidus 5,000, Chromatius 1400, and Hermes 1200.[10] One popular Christian book of the early church said that Christians should not attend heathen gatherings "unless to purchase a slave and save a soul" (by teaching the slave of Christ and then freeing him or her).[11]

Church law in the early fifth century allowed for liberation (called manumission) of slaves during church services.[12] This happened because many Christian converts at that time were people of considerable wealth. Converted out of a decadent, totally self-centered society, many Christians sold their goods and lands and used the proceeds to help the poor, support hospitals, take in orphans, free prisoners, and liberate slaves. Liberation was frequent, and freedmen soon became a prominent feature of society.[13]

Augustine led many clergy under his authority at Hippo to free their slaves "as an act of piety." [14] He boldly wrote a letter urging the emperor to set up a new law against slave traders and was very much concerned about the sale of children. Christian emperors of his time for 25 years had permitted sale of children, not because they approved of it, but as a way of preventing infanticide when parents were unable to care for a child (The Saints, Pauline Books, 1998 p. 72). In his famous book, "The City of God," the development of slavery is seen as a product of sin and contrary to God's divine plan".[15]

Freeing slaves in those days took great conviction and courage, since the Roman emperors issued edicts unfavorable to it, and keeping on the good side of the emperor was essential to survival. Not until Justinian (527-565 A.D.) did Christians find an emperor who was sympathetic to what they had been doing [16]

The practice of freeing slaves began quite early, for Clement of Alexandria, who was probably a contemporary of the Apostle Paul, said in his Epistle to the Corinthians no. 55, "Some Christians surrendered their own freedom to liberate others or even money to provide food for others." He talks as if it is common knowledge of which he is reminding them. He also says it was a church custom in his time to redeem prisoners of war from servitude. He wrote that Christians should not have too many domestic slaves. He said men did this because they disliked working with their own hands and serving themselves.[17]

Ignatius, in his epistle to Herodustus, urges believers to "despise not servants, for we possess the same nature in common with them." [18] Basil (330-379) wrote of slaves and masters as all being fellow slaves of our Creator and spoke of "our mutual equality of rank." [19] Lactantius in the fourth century wrote that in God's eyes there were no slaves.[20]

In the fourth century, Chrysostom wrote that Christ annulled slavery and admonished Christian to buy slaves, teach them a marketable skill, and set them free. The freeing of slaves by Christians was so common in his time that some people complained Christianity had been introduced just for that purpose.[21] In the fifth century, Patrick, Celtic Christian missionary to Ireland, actually condemned slavery.[22]

https://www.conservapedia.com/Slavery_in_the_early_church

---

No where, including 1Timothy, is slavery condemned in the Bible, the supposed inspired word direct from God himself. What Christians have done and advocated regarding slavery down through the years has been all over the place. All the way down to preaching slavery from the pulpit in the South.

---

A first-century mind would have no difficulty seeing the condemnation of slavery. Certainly the antebellum South read it the way they wanted to, but it's hardly a coincidence that the anti-slavery movements in both England and America were directly founded on the Bible.

---

Then why didn't they condemn it, in the writings of the Bible?

---

It's a very common mistake, from the time of Christ onward, to think that Christ came to overthrow the social order. He did not. The early Christians sought to change hearts, not society.

That's why the condemnations of slavery which I've already pointed out are focused on individuals, not society.

---

Isn't that really just a convenient excuse? He supposedly came here to change the hearts of men. Slavery should be an immoral institution that reflects what resides in the hearts of men. Did he not speak out against stoning?

Set Jesus' shortcomings aside then. Why wasn't slavery condemned in the law of the OT, if we have a moral god?

---

Still belaboring the point from silence, coupled with your materialist's made up system of morality. How can you expect to be taken seriously.

---

Materialistic has nothing to do with it. Your morality is a system based upon some religious cleric's subjective claim of what is moral. Mine is based upon what is in the interest of other's wellbeing as supported by equitable and objective evidence.

---

Your "equitable and objective evidence" it totally unilateral with no basis in anything other than your asserted opinion. You can never escape this fundamental flaw in your assumptions.

---

Objective evidence is not a bug, it's a feature.

quash said:

---

Objective evidence is not a bug, it's a feature.

---

In this context, it's fictional.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Objective evidence is not a bug, it's a feature.

---

In this context, it's fictional.

---

I do not understand the willful rejection of facts. Flat earthers, anti-vaxxers, anti-evolution, etc. Saw a FB post from a relative yesterday all jazzed up about those stupid scientists because a huge black hole was spotted, bigger than previously thought possible. Like that overturns everything.

Science makes predictions and then designs experiments to test those predictions. When they are wrong they make a new prediction; when they are right they still make new predictions. From an epistemology standpoint these are truths that cannot come from religion or philosophy. I see no reason to leave an effective tool in the shed.

quash: "I do not understand the willful rejection of facts"

That's not what is happening here. TS is posting his personal opinion on morality, which is fine in itself, except that he is falsely claiming it's objective truth, which is not correct.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash: "I do not understand the willful rejection of facts"

That's not what is happening here. TS is posting his personal opinion on morality, which is fine in itself, except that he is falsely claiming it's objective truth, which is not correct.

---

Again, he said that objective truths can be used to advance morality, not that his morality is an objective truth.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash: "I do not understand the willful rejection of facts"

That's not what is happening here. TS is posting his personal opinion on morality, which is fine in itself, except that he is falsely claiming it's objective truth, which is not correct.

---

Again, he said that objective truths can be used to advance morality, not that his morality is an objective truth.

---

Try reading what he wrote throughout this thread.

TS is imposing his opinion and trying schill it as fact.

Come on, you can do better.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash: "I do not understand the willful rejection of facts"

That's not what is happening here. TS is posting his personal opinion on morality, which is fine in itself, except that he is falsely claiming it's objective truth, which is not correct.

---

Again, he said that objective truths can be used to advance morality, not that his morality is an objective truth.

---

Nope.