Being "Nonjudgmental" Means That There Is No Evil

[PoliticalChic]

…the political, one of opinions, which often carry the power of the law (putting a baker out of business if he won't make a cake exactly as the politicians demand).
AND….only the opinions of those currently in power are allowed!

Fact is, having an opinion at all, about anything….is being judgmental.

This has been making me wonder too lately.

Say, let's consider that we don't want to let this get us down. The Sacred Texts tell us over and over the importance of being upbeat, positive, and well, happy. My thinking is that we'd probably be better off keeping in mind that we've nothing to fear, and that we're grateful for being aware of reality.

Make any sense?

I believe I see your point.
But....it depends what you mean by 'happy.'

For many, not having conflict is what they see as happy.
For some of us, being 'correct' is what we mean.



"...we'd probably be better off keeping in mind that we've nothing to fear, and that we're grateful for being aware of reality."



Oh, but for many of us, there is much to fear if we speak the truth, the reality.

That's why there are so very many Liberals.

1. While the liberal mob engages in the kind of violence that one expects of a mob, there is also a species of intellectual mob that relies on praise and ridicule to enforce its views: they rely on the axiom that large segments of the population would rather be punched in the face than be sneered at by the elites. We call them liberals.
2. The mob mentality is irresistible to people with a desperate need to be popular, and are perennially afraid of getting a bloody nose on the playground of life. A tell-tale sign is the use of terms like “us” and “we” when they write, or speak…as these pronouns speak of popularity, of membership in the larger group…i.e. the mob.

In fact, an easy way to identify a conservative, is to look for the folks who aren’t afraid to be sneered at ...
From Coulter's "Demonic," ch 14



If we rely on those 'sacred texts' to which you refer, for wisdom, rather than the NYTimes, we have a far better chance of being secure, happy, self-aware, as they have the source of insight worked out over millennia as the result of human interactions and experience.

Wadda' ya' think?

 

[expat_panama]

...rely on those 'sacred texts' to which you refer, for wisdom, rather than the NYTimes, we have a far better chance of being secure, happy...

Right --I was just about to post links to our mandate for happiness (example: Ecclesiastes 3:12 ...there is nothing better for people than to be happy and to do good while they live...) but you're way ahead of me.

Sure, it's true that there's serious stuff going on, but imho it's the optimist that has a better grip on reality. After all, for millenia humankind's been raising up an ever-advancing civilization and doom'n'gloomers have always been proven wrong.

Related:

Conservatives happier than liberals

Who’s Happier: Liberals Or Conservatives?

John Hawkins - 5 Reasons Liberals Aren't As Happy as Conservatives

The Surprising Reason Conservatives Are Happier Than Liberals | HuffPost

Conservatism makes you happy

Why Are Liberals So Miserable?​

 

[MaryL]

There is a difference between being open minded and being incredulous.

 

[MaryL]

We have people that are so freaking gullible that they actually allow creation of sanctuary from federal immigration laws for that massive Mexican invasion as if that's a good thing? Really, no foolin'.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There is a difference between being open minded and being incredulous.

How about you explain how your post applies.

 

[alang1216]

Under the traditional views gleaned from the Bible, it was clear what was expected, and accepted in society.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The Bible documents changing morality through 3,000+ years. It contains every moral idea from eye-for-an-eye to turn-the-other-cheek. Every society was able to cite the Bible to justify what it believed to be morally sanctioned, e.g. Southern Baptists vs Quakers on the issue of slavery.

 

[OldLady]

The true path lies somewhere between these two quotes:

To embrace tolerance is to cease to believe in anything
Chesterton

And this….

Biblical law promotes tolerance for minorities. Leviticus 19:34
The stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.


Wisdom is the basis for deciding how far non-judgmentalism should go.





1. Under the traditional views gleaned from the Bible, it was clear what was expected, and accepted in society.

"The Bible is the wisdom of the West. It is from the precepts of the Bible that the legal systems of the West have been developed- systems, worked out over millennia, as the result of human interactions and experience for dealing with inequality, with injustice, with greed, reducible to that which Christians call the Golden Rule, and the Jews had propounded as “That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor.”
David Mamet

It is these rules and laws which form a framework which allows the individual foreknowledge of that which is permitted and that which is forbidden.






2. As a result of the ascendancy of Progressivisim/Liberalism we now have a secular view of society where there are not only more grey areas, but morality has become subjective.

"One change in societal attitude has been the “ecumenical niceness”…don’t fight, share toys, take turns….and never, ever, be judgmental."
Charles Murray




3. Traditional, or Secular: Either one has learned the lessons of the past, or believes that those lessons no longer apply.

"The roots of the view that there is no objective truth, called 'postmodernism,' can be traced to the anthropologist Franz Boas, who, in an effort to study exotic cultures without prejudice, found it useful to take the position that no culture is superior to any other. Thus was born the idea of cultural relativity.

The idea spread like wildfire through the universities, catapulted by the radical impetus of the sixties, ready and willing to reject "the universality of Western norms and principles."
Bawer, "The Victim's Revolution"

4. " When morality became privatized, the questions “what is right” became “what is right for me.” Feelings... became the arbiters of behavior. Rather than traditional taboos, only religiously based moral judgment was deemed taboo. The harm caused to abandoned spouses or children by adultery or desertion- harm that can be objectively documented in rates of ill health, depression, educational underachievement, criminal behavior- was all but ignored, while damage done to people’s feelings by condemnation of their adultery or desertion was considered unforgivable."
"The World Turned Upside Down," Melanie Phillips, chapter 14





If there is no truth, but it varies based on one's views, feelings, or culture….then there is no 'evil.'


Not just for individuals, there are cycles to life and cycles to civilizations. Within each, there are the seeds of their, or its, own destruction. The advancement of Hussein Obama to the presidency represented the blossoming of one of those evil seeds.

I was really liking the sound of that, until we got to Point #2 and beyond.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The true path lies somewhere between these two quotes:

To embrace tolerance is to cease to believe in anything
Chesterton

And this….

Biblical law promotes tolerance for minorities. Leviticus 19:34
The stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.


Wisdom is the basis for deciding how far non-judgmentalism should go.





1. Under the traditional views gleaned from the Bible, it was clear what was expected, and accepted in society.

"The Bible is the wisdom of the West. It is from the precepts of the Bible that the legal systems of the West have been developed- systems, worked out over millennia, as the result of human interactions and experience for dealing with inequality, with injustice, with greed, reducible to that which Christians call the Golden Rule, and the Jews had propounded as “That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor.”
David Mamet

It is these rules and laws which form a framework which allows the individual foreknowledge of that which is permitted and that which is forbidden.






2. As a result of the ascendancy of Progressivisim/Liberalism we now have a secular view of society where there are not only more grey areas, but morality has become subjective.

"One change in societal attitude has been the “ecumenical niceness”…don’t fight, share toys, take turns….and never, ever, be judgmental."
Charles Murray




3. Traditional, or Secular: Either one has learned the lessons of the past, or believes that those lessons no longer apply.

"The roots of the view that there is no objective truth, called 'postmodernism,' can be traced to the anthropologist Franz Boas, who, in an effort to study exotic cultures without prejudice, found it useful to take the position that no culture is superior to any other. Thus was born the idea of cultural relativity.

The idea spread like wildfire through the universities, catapulted by the radical impetus of the sixties, ready and willing to reject "the universality of Western norms and principles."
Bawer, "The Victim's Revolution"

4. " When morality became privatized, the questions “what is right” became “what is right for me.” Feelings... became the arbiters of behavior. Rather than traditional taboos, only religiously based moral judgment was deemed taboo. The harm caused to abandoned spouses or children by adultery or desertion- harm that can be objectively documented in rates of ill health, depression, educational underachievement, criminal behavior- was all but ignored, while damage done to people’s feelings by condemnation of their adultery or desertion was considered unforgivable."
"The World Turned Upside Down," Melanie Phillips, chapter 14





If there is no truth, but it varies based on one's views, feelings, or culture….then there is no 'evil.'


Not just for individuals, there are cycles to life and cycles to civilizations. Within each, there are the seeds of their, or its, own destruction. The advancement of Hussein Obama to the presidency represented the blossoming of one of those evil seeds.

I was really liking the sound of that, until we got to Point #2 and beyond.

I noticed that you weren't able to deny "Point #2 and beyond."

Excellent.

One can only wait with bated breath to see whether you are too ancient to learn from the above.

Be sure to keep me posted.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Under the traditional views gleaned from the Bible, it was clear what was expected, and accepted in society.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The Bible documents changing morality through 3,000+ years. It contains every moral idea from eye-for-an-eye to turn-the-other-cheek. Every society was able to cite the Bible to justify what it believed to be morally sanctioned, e.g. Southern Baptists vs Quakers on the issue of slavery.

"Every society was able to cite the Bible to justify what it believed to be morally sanctioned, e.g. Southern Baptists vs Quakers on the issue of slavery."

False.

Slavery was an economic policy, not a religious one.
It was also a political one when it came to the oldest racist organization in America, the Democrat Party.



1. " Africans played a direct role in the slave trade, selling their captives or prisoners of war to European buyers.[19] The prisoners and captives who were sold were usually from neighbouring or enemy ethnic groups. These captive slaves were considered "other", not part of the people of the ethnic group or "tribe"; African kings held no particular loyalty to them. Sometimes criminals would be sold so that they could no longer commit crimes in that area. Most other slaves were obtained from kidnappings, or through raids that occurred at gunpoint through joint ventures with the Europeans." Atlantic slave trade - Wikipedia


2. Not only is the above not endorsed by the Bible…..but it is expressly forbidden.
The aspects that identify what we call 'slavery' today, the colloquial meaning, are the following:

a. permanence of bondage

b. treatment as material assets

c. control of the life and death of the slave: the slave could be beaten to death

d. an escaped slave had to be returned to his master….as decreed in the Dred Scott Democrat Supreme Court decision.


3. None of the above are allowed to the 'slave owner' by the Bible.


"The Bible uses the Hebrew term eved (עבד) and Greek doulos (δοῦλος) to refer to slaves. Eved has a much wider meaning than the English term slave, and in many circumstances it is more accurately translated into English as servant or hired worker."
Christian views on slavery - Wikipedia


e,g, "God spoke face-to-face with Moses but Joshua will be instructed by Eleazar; Moses was the servant of God but Joshua is Moses’s minister (Joshua 1.1)." https://uwaterloo.ca/grebel/sites/ca.grebel/files/uploads/files/CGR-22-1-W2004-1_1.pdf



"If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything."
Exodus 21:2


So….if the Bible is your excuse for the imposition of slavery….the argument fails at the briefest perusal of the text.


4. But….how about simply defining black slaves as 'foreign'?

"While foreign slaves could be made slaves for life,…"


The treatment of blacks in the South doesn't seem to have conformed to this:

"….the laws regarding the general treatment of slaves applied to them as well (Lev 24:22, Num 15:15-16). The law made it clear that foreigners were not inferiors who could be mistreated (Ex 23:9); instead they were to be loved just as fellow Israelites were (Lev 19:33-34). " Slavery in the OT


If the Bible is used as the excuse used for slavery, then all of the restrictions need be followed.
They weren't.
It isn't.



5. "Most of the Africans who were enslaved were captured in battles or were kidnapped, …"
The capture and sale of enslaved Africans - International Slavery Museum, Liverpool museums


But....no slavery such as the transatlantic slave industry could exist under the restrictions described by the Bible......
" "Kidnappers must be put to death, whether they are caught in possession of their victims or have already sold them as slaves."
Exodus 21:16




6. The Supreme Court Dred Scott decision- due to collaboration by a Democrat Judge and a Democrat President- deemed slaves as personal possessions, and escaped slaves had to be returned to their 'rightful owners.'


Is this consistent with the Bible's authorizations?


Not in any way, shape or form.


" If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. 16 Let them live among you wherever they like and in whatever town they choose. Do not oppress them."
Deuteronomy 23:15


7. The aspects that identify what we call 'slavery' today include control of the life and death of the slave: the slave could be beaten to death with no crime having been committed by the slaves "owner."

That's not what is found in the Bible.

"… the Bible does record instances of slavery, but not in the cruel way in which we think of today. In today’s age, the idea of slavery conjures up images of a black man with whip marks on his back and bleeding blisters on his hands, working tirelessly day and night to please his ruthless white “master.” This is not the idea of slavery according to the scriptures.


When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.-Exodus 21:20-21

If the slave died, the master would be put to death, but not if the slave survived (or, at least for a few days). Why? First, if the slave survived, it shows the master’s intent was not to kill or seriously harm the slave. Maybe they just got into a physical argument. Or maybe the master had to defend himself. Either way, it was a simple case of domestic violence, not pre-meditated murder. There is a big difference between those two.


8. This serves as a warning:

And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.-Ephesians 6:9

· The penalty for beating a slave was death if the slave died. If the slave survived, then there was no penalty, simply because the financial debts basically cancelled each other out." Bible Says It’s Okay to Beat Your Slave, As Long As They Don’t Die? Exodus 21:20-21?

 

[expat_panama]

...The Bible documents changing morality through 3,000+ years. It contains every moral idea from eye-for-an-eye to turn-the-other-cheek. Every society was able to cite the Bible to justify what it believed to be morally sanctioned, e.g. Southern Baptists vs Quakers on the issue of slavery.

It's not clear but you seem to be dismissing the Bible as being shallow and irrelevant w/ regard to human nature and morality. Not everyone sees it that way; in fact I like the take Issac Asimov had and his perspective as a Humanist I consider a plus:

...The most influential, the most published, the most widely read book in the history of the world is the Bible. No other book has been so studied and so analyzed and it is a tribute to the complexity of the Bible and the eagerness of its students that after thousands of years of study there are still endless books that can be written about it...
...Most people who read the Bible do so in order to get the benefit of its ethical and spiritual teachings, but the Bible has a secular side, too. It is a history book covering the first four thousand years of human civilization...​

What I'm getting from him is that the there's a lot in the Bible that can't be absorbed w/ a few careless quotes out of context.

 

[BreezeWood]

Under the traditional views gleaned from the Bible, it was clear what was expected, and accepted in society.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The Bible documents changing morality through 3,000+ years. It contains every moral idea from eye-for-an-eye to turn-the-other-cheek. Every society was able to cite the Bible to justify what it believed to be morally sanctioned, e.g. Southern Baptists vs Quakers on the issue of slavery.

"Every society was able to cite the Bible to justify what it believed to be morally sanctioned, e.g. Southern Baptists vs Quakers on the issue of slavery."

False.

Slavery was an economic policy, not a religious one.
It was also a political one when it came to the oldest racist organization in America, the Democrat Party.



1. " Africans played a direct role in the slave trade, selling their captives or prisoners of war to European buyers.[19] The prisoners and captives who were sold were usually from neighbouring or enemy ethnic groups. These captive slaves were considered "other", not part of the people of the ethnic group or "tribe"; African kings held no particular loyalty to them. Sometimes criminals would be sold so that they could no longer commit crimes in that area. Most other slaves were obtained from kidnappings, or through raids that occurred at gunpoint through joint ventures with the Europeans." Atlantic slave trade - Wikipedia


2. Not only is the above not endorsed by the Bible…..but it is expressly forbidden.
The aspects that identify what we call 'slavery' today, the colloquial meaning, are the following:

a. permanence of bondage

b. treatment as material assets

c. control of the life and death of the slave: the slave could be beaten to death

d. an escaped slave had to be returned to his master….as decreed in the Dred Scott Democrat Supreme Court decision.


3. None of the above are allowed to the 'slave owner' by the Bible.


"The Bible uses the Hebrew term eved (עבד) and Greek doulos (δοῦλος) to refer to slaves. Eved has a much wider meaning than the English term slave, and in many circumstances it is more accurately translated into English as servant or hired worker."
Christian views on slavery - Wikipedia


e,g, "God spoke face-to-face with Moses but Joshua will be instructed by Eleazar; Moses was the servant of God but Joshua is Moses’s minister (Joshua 1.1)." https://uwaterloo.ca/grebel/sites/ca.grebel/files/uploads/files/CGR-22-1-W2004-1_1.pdf



"If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything."
Exodus 21:2


So….if the Bible is your excuse for the imposition of slavery….the argument fails at the briefest perusal of the text.


4. But….how about simply defining black slaves as 'foreign'?

"While foreign slaves could be made slaves for life,…"


The treatment of blacks in the South doesn't seem to have conformed to this:

"….the laws regarding the general treatment of slaves applied to them as well (Lev 24:22, Num 15:15-16). The law made it clear that foreigners were not inferiors who could be mistreated (Ex 23:9); instead they were to be loved just as fellow Israelites were (Lev 19:33-34). " Slavery in the OT


If the Bible is used as the excuse used for slavery, then all of the restrictions need be followed.
They weren't.
It isn't.



5. "Most of the Africans who were enslaved were captured in battles or were kidnapped, …"
The capture and sale of enslaved Africans - International Slavery Museum, Liverpool museums


But....no slavery such as the transatlantic slave industry could exist under the restrictions described by the Bible......
" "Kidnappers must be put to death, whether they are caught in possession of their victims or have already sold them as slaves."
Exodus 21:16




6. The Supreme Court Dred Scott decision- due to collaboration by a Democrat Judge and a Democrat President- deemed slaves as personal possessions, and escaped slaves had to be returned to their 'rightful owners.'


Is this consistent with the Bible's authorizations?


Not in any way, shape or form.


" If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. 16 Let them live among you wherever they like and in whatever town they choose. Do not oppress them."
Deuteronomy 23:15


7. The aspects that identify what we call 'slavery' today include control of the life and death of the slave: the slave could be beaten to death with no crime having been committed by the slaves "owner."

That's not what is found in the Bible.

"… the Bible does record instances of slavery, but not in the cruel way in which we think of today. In today’s age, the idea of slavery conjures up images of a black man with whip marks on his back and bleeding blisters on his hands, working tirelessly day and night to please his ruthless white “master.” This is not the idea of slavery according to the scriptures.


When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.-Exodus 21:20-21

If the slave died, the master would be put to death, but not if the slave survived (or, at least for a few days). Why? First, if the slave survived, it shows the master’s intent was not to kill or seriously harm the slave. Maybe they just got into a physical argument. Or maybe the master had to defend himself. Either way, it was a simple case of domestic violence, not pre-meditated murder. There is a big difference between those two.


8. This serves as a warning:

And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.-Ephesians 6:9

· The penalty for beating a slave was death if the slave died. If the slave survived, then there was no penalty, simply because the financial debts basically cancelled each other out." Bible Says It’s Okay to Beat Your Slave, As Long As They Don’t Die? Exodus 21:20-21?

.

Every society was able to cite the Bible to justify what it believed to be morally sanctioned, e.g. Southern Baptists vs Quakers on the issue of slavery.

"Every society was able to cite the Bible to justify what it believed to be morally sanctioned, e.g. Southern Baptists vs Quakers on the issue of slavery."

False.

Slavery was an economic policy, not a religious one.

Slavery was an economic policy, not a religious one ...

it was not religious only to the extent it involved the christian bible ... as deliberately written in the 4th century for the purposes of the above by acclimation and to circumvent the truth sought in the events of 1st.

 

[alang1216]

"Every society was able to cite the Bible to justify what it believed to be morally sanctioned, e.g. Southern Baptists vs Quakers on the issue of slavery."

False.

Slavery was an economic policy, not a religious one.

Slavery was also a moral issue and both the Southern Baptists and the Quakers were able to use the Bible to justify their positions.

 

[alang1216]

It's not clear but you seem to be dismissing the Bible as being shallow and irrelevant w/ regard to human nature and morality.

I wasn't trying to dismiss the Bible or denigrate its importance. What I believe is that morality is not absolute, certainly it isn't in the Bible. Jesus put his own stamp on morality, changing the 'eye for an eye' to 'turn the other cheek'. Morality is a reflection of the current societal mores. Our founding fathers held a very different view on slavery than we of today hold. Were they less moral than we are or has society changed and the moral goalposts along with it? I think it is obviously the latter.

 

[ding]

It's not clear but you seem to be dismissing the Bible as being shallow and irrelevant w/ regard to human nature and morality.

I wasn't trying to dismiss the Bible or denigrate its importance. What I believe is that morality is not absolute, certainly it isn't in the Bible. Jesus put his own stamp on morality, changing the 'eye for an eye' to 'turn the other cheek'. Morality is a reflection of the current societal mores. Our founding fathers held a very different view on slavery than we of today hold. Were they less moral than we are or has society changed and the moral goalposts along with it? I think it is obviously the latter.

Obviously you don't know the view our founding fathers held on slavery any more than you know than what Jesus did.

Our founding fathers believed that slavery was against the natural law and Jesus did not change the moral law. He rephrased it.

 

[ding]

"Every society was able to cite the Bible to justify what it believed to be morally sanctioned, e.g. Southern Baptists vs Quakers on the issue of slavery."

False.

Slavery was an economic policy, not a religious one.

Slavery was also a moral issue and both the Southern Baptists and the Quakers were able to use the Bible to justify their positions.

On the issue of FORCED slavery...

The Greeks justified slavery on the grounds of moral superiority.

The Romans believed slavery was against the natural law but justified slavery on the grounds of state supremacy.

The founding fathers believed that slavery was against the law of nature but could not end it at the time of founding but did intend for it to perish.

Democrats believed that slavery was justified on the grounds of moral supremacy like the Greeks.

Now you know.

 

[expat_panama]

...What I believe is that morality is not absolute...

Maybe what we want to say is that morality is absolute even while it's every day application must vary.

We live in a world of humans that collectively observe our common environment individually and when we gather we agree on where our conclusions match up and put them into law. Just like science. Different times and areas will have variations yet all will have a common foundation. It's how humans work.

There will always be a few crazies that decide that moral limits for others don't apply to themselves, and we lock them up. The rest of us will keep the Ten Commandments as valid for today just as we still study the teachings of Pythagoras and Archimedes. They all form our starting point from where we continually build and rebuild.

...certainly it isn't in the Bible. Jesus put his own stamp on morality, changing the 'eye for an eye' to 'turn the other cheek'...

Sounds simple, just like moral relativism. Most people consider character, right/wrong, good/bad, and sacred/profane very seriously and we approach these topics w/ humility --ready to accept reality on its own terms.

It's like the approach I remember Asimov demanding of his fellow scientists --the way they must always observe first and then proceed to accept what's there as fact. In addition a moral scientist most be ready to accept as useful models even those different from his own.

Your "Biblical Contradiction" has been around along time and there are many other approaches --this one here seemed a useful understanding. Personally I don't have all Truth and Wisdom, but if you consider your view as absolute then I'll keep my ideas to myself. By observing the length of this post you can conclude I don't mean that

 

[expat_panama]

...Our founding fathers believed that slavery was against the natural law ...

Actually, some said slavery was a natural law and others said (like you said in your post) that it was against the natural law.

...and Jesus did not change the moral law. He rephrased it.

Don't let Alang1216 know you feel that way, you and I may know there's a lot to it but for me it's a lot of work to explain that stuff.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
there has never been a period in time since antiquity where either of the three desert religions have not been the perpetrators of the crimes against humanity the true religions would not tolerate and became the prosecuted by the former. the sinners against the free spirits and the quest for goodness can best be resolved by the eradication of the desert bibles. by a collective choice for the sake of goodness over evil.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Under the traditional views gleaned from the Bible, it was clear what was expected, and accepted in society.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The Bible documents changing morality through 3,000+ years. It contains every moral idea from eye-for-an-eye to turn-the-other-cheek. Every society was able to cite the Bible to justify what it believed to be morally sanctioned, e.g. Southern Baptists vs Quakers on the issue of slavery.

"Every society was able to cite the Bible to justify what it believed to be morally sanctioned, e.g. Southern Baptists vs Quakers on the issue of slavery."

False.

Slavery was an economic policy, not a religious one.
It was also a political one when it came to the oldest racist organization in America, the Democrat Party.



1. " Africans played a direct role in the slave trade, selling their captives or prisoners of war to European buyers.[19] The prisoners and captives who were sold were usually from neighbouring or enemy ethnic groups. These captive slaves were considered "other", not part of the people of the ethnic group or "tribe"; African kings held no particular loyalty to them. Sometimes criminals would be sold so that they could no longer commit crimes in that area. Most other slaves were obtained from kidnappings, or through raids that occurred at gunpoint through joint ventures with the Europeans." Atlantic slave trade - Wikipedia


2. Not only is the above not endorsed by the Bible…..but it is expressly forbidden.
The aspects that identify what we call 'slavery' today, the colloquial meaning, are the following:

a. permanence of bondage

b. treatment as material assets

c. control of the life and death of the slave: the slave could be beaten to death

d. an escaped slave had to be returned to his master….as decreed in the Dred Scott Democrat Supreme Court decision.


3. None of the above are allowed to the 'slave owner' by the Bible.


"The Bible uses the Hebrew term eved (עבד) and Greek doulos (δοῦλος) to refer to slaves. Eved has a much wider meaning than the English term slave, and in many circumstances it is more accurately translated into English as servant or hired worker."
Christian views on slavery - Wikipedia


e,g, "God spoke face-to-face with Moses but Joshua will be instructed by Eleazar; Moses was the servant of God but Joshua is Moses’s minister (Joshua 1.1)." https://uwaterloo.ca/grebel/sites/ca.grebel/files/uploads/files/CGR-22-1-W2004-1_1.pdf



"If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything."
Exodus 21:2


So….if the Bible is your excuse for the imposition of slavery….the argument fails at the briefest perusal of the text.


4. But….how about simply defining black slaves as 'foreign'?

"While foreign slaves could be made slaves for life,…"


The treatment of blacks in the South doesn't seem to have conformed to this:

"….the laws regarding the general treatment of slaves applied to them as well (Lev 24:22, Num 15:15-16). The law made it clear that foreigners were not inferiors who could be mistreated (Ex 23:9); instead they were to be loved just as fellow Israelites were (Lev 19:33-34). " Slavery in the OT


If the Bible is used as the excuse used for slavery, then all of the restrictions need be followed.
They weren't.
It isn't.



5. "Most of the Africans who were enslaved were captured in battles or were kidnapped, …"
The capture and sale of enslaved Africans - International Slavery Museum, Liverpool museums


But....no slavery such as the transatlantic slave industry could exist under the restrictions described by the Bible......
" "Kidnappers must be put to death, whether they are caught in possession of their victims or have already sold them as slaves."
Exodus 21:16




6. The Supreme Court Dred Scott decision- due to collaboration by a Democrat Judge and a Democrat President- deemed slaves as personal possessions, and escaped slaves had to be returned to their 'rightful owners.'


Is this consistent with the Bible's authorizations?


Not in any way, shape or form.


" If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. 16 Let them live among you wherever they like and in whatever town they choose. Do not oppress them."
Deuteronomy 23:15


7. The aspects that identify what we call 'slavery' today include control of the life and death of the slave: the slave could be beaten to death with no crime having been committed by the slaves "owner."

That's not what is found in the Bible.

"… the Bible does record instances of slavery, but not in the cruel way in which we think of today. In today’s age, the idea of slavery conjures up images of a black man with whip marks on his back and bleeding blisters on his hands, working tirelessly day and night to please his ruthless white “master.” This is not the idea of slavery according to the scriptures.


When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.-Exodus 21:20-21

If the slave died, the master would be put to death, but not if the slave survived (or, at least for a few days). Why? First, if the slave survived, it shows the master’s intent was not to kill or seriously harm the slave. Maybe they just got into a physical argument. Or maybe the master had to defend himself. Either way, it was a simple case of domestic violence, not pre-meditated murder. There is a big difference between those two.


8. This serves as a warning:

And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.-Ephesians 6:9

· The penalty for beating a slave was death if the slave died. If the slave survived, then there was no penalty, simply because the financial debts basically cancelled each other out." Bible Says It’s Okay to Beat Your Slave, As Long As They Don’t Die? Exodus 21:20-21?

.

Every society was able to cite the Bible to justify what it believed to be morally sanctioned, e.g. Southern Baptists vs Quakers on the issue of slavery.

"Every society was able to cite the Bible to justify what it believed to be morally sanctioned, e.g. Southern Baptists vs Quakers on the issue of slavery."

False.

Slavery was an economic policy, not a religious one.

Slavery was an economic policy, not a religious one ...


View attachment 192295


it was not religious only to the extent it involved the christian bible ... as deliberately written in the 4th century for the purposes of the above by acclimation and to circumvent the truth sought in the events of 1st.

Hugo Black was Franklin Roosevelt's very first Supreme Court nominee.


"... Black was head of new members for the largest Klan cell in the South. New members of the KKK had to pledge their allegiance to the “eternal separation of Church and State.”... Separation was a crucial part of the KKK’s jurisprudential agenda. It was included in the Klansman’s Creed..."
Egnorance: Hugo Black and the real history of "the wall of separation between church and state"]


Slavery was the Democrat's political ticket to power as it offered an economic benefit to their voter.

 

[PoliticalChic]

...Our founding fathers believed that slavery was against the natural law ...

Actually, some said slavery was a natural law and others said (like you said in your post) that it was against the natural law.

...and Jesus did not change the moral law. He rephrased it.

Don't let Alang1216 know you feel that way, you and I may know there's a lot to it but for me it's a lot of work to explain that stuff.

Not the Founding Fathers.....

It was created based on this:
We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Jefferson



Usually, the ‘Founders’ refers to these six: Madison, Jefferson and Washington, Adams, Hamilton, and Franklin.

1. The three non-Southerners worked tirelessly against slavery.
2. While reading Ron Chernow’s book Alexander Hamilton, though, I found out that Hamilton was a strong advocate for the abolition of slavery. During the 1780s, Hamilton was one of the founders of the New York Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves, which was instrumental in the abolition of slavery in the state of New York. After reading about Alexander Hamilton’s work for the New York Manumission Society, I gained a greater appreciation of Alexander Hamiltonhttp://angelolopez.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/alexander-hamilton-and-the-new-york-manumission-society/
3. Many of the other Founding Fathers were activists like Alexander Hamilton. In 1787Benjamin Franklin agree to serve as president of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society, which set out to abolish slavery and set up programs to help freed slaves to become good citizens and improve the conditions of free African Americans. On February 12, 1790, Benjamin Franklin and the Pennsylvania Abolition Society presented a petition to the House of Representatives calling for the federal government to take steps for the gradual abolition of slavery and end the slave trade. As a young lawyer, Thomas Jefferson represented a slave in court attempting to be set free and during the 1770s and 1780s, Jefferson had many several attempts to pass legislation to gradually abolish slavery and end the slave trade. John Jay was the first president of the New York Manumission Society and was active in Society’s efforts to abolish slavery. Ibid.

2. An excellent read on the matter is a brilliant book called Miracle in Philadelphia, by Catherine Drinker Bowen, which recounts the actual history and debates around the Constitutional Convention in 1787.

Slavery was a huge issue during that convention, and many of the Founding Fathers wanted it outlawed, but ran into an impasse after many hours of debate with the southern colonies whose agricultural productivity depended on it.

The Founders who wanted to set the stage for the abolition of slavery came up with a compromise involving the issue of apportionment.

The southern colonies that favored slavery wanted all residents of their states, slave and free, counted equally when it came to deciding how many seats they were going to receive in Congress. Some of the northern colonies, who mostly had few slaves and thus nothing to lose didn’t want slave residents counted at all.

The Founder’s compromise was to count each slave as 3/5 of a man for the purposes of apportionment, and when that passed after a great deal more debate and lobbying, legislators from the slave states were permanently limited to a minority. With that one stroke, the state was set for slavery’s eventual demise, and the proof of how effective it was came in 1804, when the slave states were powerless to stop Congress from outlawing the importation of slaves to the new nation.

The stage was set, even if it took 70 years and a bloody war.
Big Journalism Articles - Breitbart