Outchurched

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your comment. I appreciate the tone and approach of your questions, and hope that it signals a general trend towards respectful and fruitful discussion on this blog… something that’s sometimes difficult because I’m a jerk. :)

My general practice on this blog is to treat others how they treat me/the blog. If I end up afoul of that goal during this discussion, please call me on it. My intent is to respond to your honest and respectful inquiry with further honest and respectful inquiry.

–

I did a search for “Bible Slavery” using Google, and found these links:

Skeptics:

http://atheism.about.com/library/weekly/aa112598.htm
http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm
http://www.inu.net/skeptic/slavery.html
http://www.religioustolerance.org/slabibl.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/immbibl.htm

Apologeticists:

http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=94
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html
http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-slavery.html
* http://www.bible-researcher.com/slavery.html

I propose that we both (all) review these links (and please provide more if you find some that are noteworthy) and move the discussion forward from there. It’ll take me a little while to read all that material (I skimmed them prior to posting to get the general thrust of each article/post and have labelled them according to the general gist of each article), but I’ve written some initial thoughts.

> I’m pretty sure that Christian worldviews had more
> to do with the abolition of slavery than atheistic.

I think there’s a fair bit of unsupported/revisionist perspective in that statement. History has shown us that Christianists have fallen into both sides of the slavery argument, and without examples to the contrary wherein Christianists have taken the initiative/lead in slavery’s abolition, I assert that the statement is little more than opinion.

I think that we in the United States can credit Abraham Lincoln with taking a significant, clear, strong, and unpopular stance against slavery. Lincoln definitely respected the Bible, if he wasn’t in fact a “Christian.” (I’m not super-up on Lincoln, and would appreciate any pointers to a good biography.) Do the actions of one very effective “Christian” negate the actions of many “Christian” slave owners?

Jesus Christ, as reported in the Gospels, didn’t take a stand against slavery or indentured servitude, though he referred to slavery in several parables. If slavery was wrong in Jesus’ eyes, then he didn’t appear to have anything to say against it, though it’s very clear that he was outspoken against a number of societal (and especialy religious) norms.

It stands to reason that if he was opposed to slavery, which was common in the historical period in which he was purported to have lived, that he would and should have said something about it.

As several of the articles linked to above point out, Scripture acknowledges slavery and provides guidelines for slave/master relations, including regulation as to the level of physical violence which can be inflicted upon a slave before that corporal punishment becomes a “sin,” and clear admonition to not buy a Hebrew as a slave. To wit, it’s ok to beat a slave senseless as long as they recover fairly quickly.

The Scriptures referenced in the articles above clearly indicate that the slave is “property.” I’m at a loss to understand how one can interpret instructions on slave treatment and purchase as being opposed to slavery. On the contrary, the Bible condones slavery: it regards slavery as acceptable or normal.

The principle of Occam’s Razor suggests that the most likely solution is the simplest one. The Christian argument against slavery is, at best, convoluted (though well-intentioned, and ultimately correct).

The Atheistic/Rational argument against slavery is much more simple and direct than any argument I’ve read which was built upon a Biblical construct:

“Owning another person denies their right to freedom and subverts the basis for liberty. Denial of freedom and liberty is wrong, hence slavery is wrong.” This is true regardless of how well the slave is treated.

–

> But I’m not aware of any non-scientist believers claiming to
> have knowledge beyond what comes to us from the realm of
> science. Again, it may be my ignorance. If anyone has an
> example, please post it.

A specific example of this, and I believe one that’s foremost in Harris’ mind, is Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design, as it’s proponents have labelled it, is the antithesis of the application of sound scientific principles. There is a ton of material on the pseudo and anti-scientific bent of Intelligent Design and I’ll be posting about it quite a bit in the coming year. If you’re interesed in reading scientific criticism of ID Richard Dawkins has plenty of worthwhile material to read.

The Wikipedia article on ID is pretty good too.

“A key strategy of the intelligent design movement is convincing the general public that there is a debate among scientists about whether life evolved, in order to convince the public, politicians and cultural leaders that schools should “teach the controversy.” However, there is no such debate within the scientific community; the scientific consensus is that life evolved. Intelligent design is widely viewed as a stalking horse for its proponents’ campaign against what they say is the materialist foundation of science, which they argue leaves no room for the possibility of God.”

The primary evil of the ID movement, and of the anti-Global Warming movement is the same… to create doubt in the forum of public opinion as to whether there is overarching consensus amongst scientists as to whether evolution and global warming are accepted scientific theories. It’s the same false tactic used on both fronts.

I personally find it appalling that those who claim to follow God, who profess to be filled with the Holy Spirit (the Spirit of Truth), are willing to stoop to such lows as to willfully and intentionally misrepresent science and the bulk of scientific research.

–

• This article has several citations from Rushdoony, who is often cited as the Father of Reconstructionalism (often cited as the basis for/supporting Dominionism) and Homeschooling. Marlowe, the author of the article, likewise appears to be a Reconstructionist. Of all the links, this one should, IMHO, be taken with a more than a grain of salt.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rushdoony

> This dude’s spin made me a little dizzy.

Whatchoo talkin’ ’bout Dorsey?

Do you have a particular beef with the article, or just with Harris?

Is this the article you’re referring to Dorsey?
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html

I’ve only skimmed the first page so far (I really, really need to go to bed) but I’m very definitely interested in discussing this with ya. It doesn’t look like you’ve posted a blog entry on this topic, or your letter… would you be willing to do so?

For some reason (typical Rev. Dan stupidity is my guess) I didn’t have your blog in my aggregator. I’ve now fixed that problem, and also added you to the OC sidebar to boot. I feel really lame about having missed Dorsey post awesomeness. :)

Enough love… on to a point of discussion I wanted to raise…

> He purports to speak for all athiests. If Falwell or Robertson
> issued a similar article, we would (rightfully) rip it to shreds.

I need to read the article to get a better sense of what you’re specifically disconcerted with Harris about, but I am a bit confused…

Falwell, and Robertson (and Dobson) don’t profess to speak for all Christians? They don’t make it a goal to encourage others to abandon their beliefs in order to pick up the their beliefs? They aren’t trying to remove any religion but theirs from polite society?

Don’t they all purport to have a distinct relationship in which God speaks directly to them, and essentially profess to be contemporary Prophets? Harris may have a bit of an ego (perhaps understated… I need to read more of his stuff), but the chaps we’re talking about here actually claim that they’re God’s mouthpiece, and that everyone should listen to them (or the Voice of God as revealed through themselves, as it were).

Am I just missing your point?