Sapper Redux said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

To what extent should we be beholden to the original views of the founding fathers?

We could argue all day about the intentions of the founding fathers in establishing Christianity as having a position of privilege, but why do we care? Most of these Christian founding fathers also believed in kidnapping, murdering, raping, and enslaving people with black skin. I trust we all agree with our society's decision to abandon the overt racism of our founding fathers. We are quick to disregard some of their views in discussions about some topics, yet, we hold certain interpretations of their ambiguous religious intentions as sacred? Why?

We should asking, what should the government be today? What do you want the government's role to be? Should they be a religious authority or no?

---

That's easy. To the extent that their views are good and true. To the extent that they weren't, we shouldn't.

I'm not lionizing the founding fathers. I'm saying the Constitution doesn't give permission to be hedonistic.

---

How, exactly, is that decided?

---

It's not decided. It's discovered by using our intellect to apply reason to facts about humanity and the world around us. And we read Scripture, Dante, Aquinas, Augustine, etc.

Bob Lee said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

To what extent should we be beholden to the original views of the founding fathers?

We could argue all day about the intentions of the founding fathers in establishing Christianity as having a position of privilege, but why do we care? Most of these Christian founding fathers also believed in kidnapping, murdering, raping, and enslaving people with black skin. I trust we all agree with our society's decision to abandon the overt racism of our founding fathers. We are quick to disregard some of their views in discussions about some topics, yet, we hold certain interpretations of their ambiguous religious intentions as sacred? Why?

We should asking, what should the government be today? What do you want the government's role to be? Should they be a religious authority or no?

---

That's easy. To the extent that their views are good and true. To the extent that they weren't, we shouldn't.

I'm not lionizing the founding fathers. I'm saying the Constitution doesn't give permission to be hedonistic.

---

How, exactly, is that decided?

---

It's not decided. It's discovered by using our intellect to apply reason to facts about humanity and the world around us. And we read Scripture, Dante, Aquinas, Augustine, etc.

---

So we have to read and base our reasoning on religious texts you approve of?

Sapper Redux said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

To what extent should we be beholden to the original views of the founding fathers?

We could argue all day about the intentions of the founding fathers in establishing Christianity as having a position of privilege, but why do we care? Most of these Christian founding fathers also believed in kidnapping, murdering, raping, and enslaving people with black skin. I trust we all agree with our society's decision to abandon the overt racism of our founding fathers. We are quick to disregard some of their views in discussions about some topics, yet, we hold certain interpretations of their ambiguous religious intentions as sacred? Why?

We should asking, what should the government be today? What do you want the government's role to be? Should they be a religious authority or no?

---

That's easy. To the extent that their views are good and true. To the extent that they weren't, we shouldn't.

I'm not lionizing the founding fathers. I'm saying the Constitution doesn't give permission to be hedonistic.

---

How, exactly, is that decided?

---

It's not decided. It's discovered by using our intellect to apply reason to facts about humanity and the world around us. And we read Scripture, Dante, Aquinas, Augustine, etc.

---

So we have to read and base our reasoning on religious texts you approve of?

---

We would all benefit greatly from knowing and understanding the truth. I would go as far as to say we have an obligation to search for the truth, and subordinate our desires to it. Yeah I think we should study the great philosophers (and the bad ones too) so we can recognize good things and bad things when we see them, and act accordingly.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

That's easy. To the extent that their views are good and true. To the extent that they weren't, we shouldn't.

I'm not lionizing the founding fathers. I'm saying the Constitution doesn't give permission to be hedonistic.

---

So, if we are to decide today what to keep and what to remove, is the founding father's intentions relevant still?

The constitution doesn't give me permission to eat a chicken sandwich for lunch. Was my lunch unconstitutional? I recognize that is an absurd example. The point is that saying things not directly approved in the Constitution are therefore prohibited is also absurd.

---

I didn't say therefore it's prohibited. I said it doesn't permit it.

But there's absolutely no consensus on what is good and true. If that's your standard, you eventually have to pick someone's point of view to go with. How is a government supposed to decide on that? What if it picks incorrectly?

Rocag said:

---

But there's absolutely no consensus on what is good and true. If that's your standard, you eventually have to pick someone's point of view to go with. How is a government supposed to decide on that? What if it picks incorrectly?

---

There's a general consensus among Christians about what's good and true.

Our entire system of justice is rooted in the notion that the truth is objective and knowable.

Rocag said:

---

I'd disagree with even that statement. Christian may widely agree in a general sense, but there's huge disagreements on many important topics even within denominations. Topics such as abortion and LGBT rights, for example. Historically speaking, while you could argue that Christian churches played a large role in the civil rights movement you have to also concede that other churches, such as the Southern Baptist church, were explicitly pro-slavery.

That doesn't even begin to touch on other topics in which what is "good and true" per Christianity is even less clear. What is the Christianity approved stance on immigration? Tax rates? Gun control? Universal health care? Show me where that consensus is.

---

Is the lack of a consensus in your mind evidence the truth is not objective or knowable? We'd have to get past this point.

Rocag said:

---

Truth could be objective and knowable, but if Christianity can't even agree on what their claimed version of truth is it makes believing they have any special knowledge on the subject a bit suspect. If your "truth" is so plain and clear, why the division?

---

Because people are inclined to pursue things that are bad for them from birth, as long as they're pleasurable. Nominally Christian authoritative bodies dabbling in modernism is a culture driven phenomenon. It doesn't have much to do with Christianity. Apostasy and Heresy have existed for all of Church history.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Is the lack of a consensus in your mind evidence the truth is not objective or knowable? We'd have to get past this point.

---

Of course the truth is knowable and objective. Lord Garog, Creator of existence and universal center of all that is good and just, appeared to me in a divine revelation to tell me the TRUTH and to inform me of all objective morality. Equipped with THE TRUTH, I am endowed by our Creator to tell you what is actually good for you and to inflict these truths onto you and everyone

. . . I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm just making a point. Religious claims are all cosmic teapots. Even if they are true, they are unverifiable and unfalsifiable. They are undistinguishable from 'just made up'.

---

Pretty sure we've done this before, but if you limit yourself to belief in that which can be proven, then you're a nihilist and it doesn't even make sense for you to be engaging me in conversation.

The funny part is that the natural outcome of eliminating separation of church and state so that the "true Christians" can lead the government is that you're really just opening the way for the government to declare what version of Christianity is the "true" one and who are the apostates and heretics. Now, if I were a Christian I certainly wouldn't want the government to have the power to make such decisions. Can you explain to me why you do?

You can't insert religion into government without also inserting government into religion.

Rocag said:

---

The funny part is that the natural outcome of eliminating separation of church and state so that the "true Christians" can lead the government is that you're really just opening the way for the government to declare what version of Christianity is the "true" one and who are the apostates and heretics. Now, if I were a Christian I certainly wouldn't want the government to have the power to make such decisions. Can you explain to me why you do?

You can't insert religion into government without also inserting government into religion.

---

I don't think you understand very well anything I've said up to this point.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Of course we've done this before. It's not that all my believe can be proven, but I have a different opinion about the role of government. I would rather not live in a religious theocracy - that is a massive power we are talking about handing to federal government. How well do you trust politicians?

---

What have I said specifically that makes you think I'm arguing in favor of a theocracy? Maybe first can you tell me what your definition of a theocracy is?

Eta: is England a theocracy?

It's more that I don't think you've thought through the ramifications of what you're proposing. It's fine to say in generalities that the government should support whats "good and true" and that Christianity offers the best knowledge of that. It works as a meaningless generality but the moment you want to actually turn it into government policy you start running in to problems. The first of which is identifying which of the countless denominations of Christianity offers the accurate version of "good" and "truth" and which ones are the apostates and heretics you previously mentioned. You can't create a government capable of encouraging "good and true" policies without giving the government the ability to decide which policies are "good and true" in the first place.

Now if we turn this back and say that "Christian nation" just means that most of the people living here are Christians and nothing more than these problems go away. But that isn't what you've said so far.

Rocag said:

---

It's more that I don't think you've thought through the ramifications of what you're proposing. It's fine to say in generalities that the government should support whats "good and true" and that Christianity offers the best knowledge of that. It works as a meaningless generality but the moment you want to actually turn it into government policy you start running in to problems. The first of which is identifying which of the countless denominations of Christianity offers the accurate version of "good" and "truth" and which ones are the apostates and heretics you previously mentioned. You can't create a government capable of encouraging "good and true" policies without giving the government the ability to decide which policies are "good and true" in the first place.

Now if we turn this back and say that "Christian nation" just means that most of the people living here are Christians and nothing more than these problems go away. But that isn't what you've said so far.

---

That problem isn't unique to me or my position. You have the same problem. There's no world in which we don't have to grapple with questions about the good. Can you tell me what makes a law good? Why should we prohibit certain things and permit other things?

You still have to present a standard, and defend its objectivity. How else can you persuade people?

Might be a good idea to watch the first video of the series. Much of the groundwork is laid here.

I don't think we have the same problem at all considering I have no claim that any specific person or group holds a standard of "truth and goodness" that is objectively true. I have no reason to believe such a standard exists in the first place, and even if it did it would still be subject to human interpretation which is undeniably subjective.

Laws aren't really about defining what is objectively good versus objectively bad (assuming such a thing exists in the first place). It's about a society setting goals and priorities and using the power of government to set in place rules which attempt to fulfill those goals and priorities. Perhaps those priorities align with my own, perhaps they don't. When I say a law is good I'm obviously speaking subjectively since that's all I really can do.

Rocag said:

---

I don't think we have the same problem at all considering I have no claim that any specific person or group holds a standard of "truth and goodness" that is objectively true. I have no reason to believe such a standard exists in the first place, and even if it did it would still be subject to human interpretation which is undeniably subjective.

Laws aren't really about defining what is objectively good versus objectively bad (assuming such a thing exists in the first place). It's about a society setting goals and priorities and using the power of government to set in place rules which attempt to fulfill those goals and priorities. Perhaps those priorities align with my own, perhaps they don't. When I say a law is good I'm obviously speaking subjectively since that's all I really can do.

---

I'd say you have a whole other problem then. How can we in good conscience punish people for doing something wrong, if we don't believe it's wrong? Laws aren't just prohibitive or permissive and punitive. They're instructive and educational. They inform our consciences. Of course they should align with the good. Toward what "goal"? How can you prioritize things without a valuation of things? The idea of societal goals doesn't make sense unless my system of values has something to do with your system of values.

Whether or not we have a perfect understanding of the standard (which isn't possible I don't think before we receive the beatific vision since God is the standard), it's important society agrees it exists, and strives toward it near as possible. That's what I mean by us being founded as a Christian nation. Not merely a nation of Christians, but whose laws and system of justice presupposes the Christian God.

You seem to be implying that people can only have beliefs and values if there is an objective standard, which I think is just silly and unnecessary. Especially when what that objective standard says is functionally unknowable. The world as it exists is one of competing standards and values. That's the reality we have to deal with. You may not like it, but it's what we've got. Any functional society or government must be able to deal with that reality. If the society you want to build is dependent on every single person believing exactly the same thing then that society is incredibly fragile and doomed to failure.

America's system of government isn't dependent on the existence of Christianity's god or the widespread belief in said god no matter what John Adams might have said.

Leonard H. Stringfield said:

---

Might be a good idea to watch the first video of the series. Much of the groundwork is laid here.

---

It's just the same as the old Atlantis am I right?

Rocag said:

---

You seem to be implying that people can only have beliefs and values if there is an objective standard, which I think is just silly and unnecessary. Especially when what that objective standard says is functionally unknowable. The world as it exists is one of competing standards and values. That's the reality we have to deal with. You may not like it, but it's what we've got. Any functional society or government must be able to deal with that reality. If the society you want to build is dependent on every single person believing exactly the same thing then that society is incredibly fragile and doomed to failure.

America's system of government isn't dependent on the existence of Christianity's god or the widespread belief in said god no matter what John Adams might have said.

---

You have that backwards. I'm saying there has to be a standard to have coherent beliefs about the value of things. You can have values you personally adhere to, but they would have no basis in anything I should care about if you're right about the way we relate to one another. These are the kind of epistemological differences I was talking about earlier on in this thread. If we're not social political creatures, and the good is just the pursuit of pleasure and serving our self interest, the implication is that might makes right.

Why shouldn't we own people as property. Slaves were powerless to improve their situation on their own. What did anyone other than slaves stand to gain from fighting a war to end the practice?

Our system does rely on an objective standard. For 2,000 years in the West, God has been the standard. You're a lot more confident than me that we can upend it, and it won't quickly unravel. I can directly or indirectly tie things like the divorce rate, the way young people relate to their bodies in such a way that 30% of them identify themselves as queer, abortion, single parenthood, and birth rates dropping below replacement rates, to a shift in attitudes about religion and the secularization of our laws to meet subjective standards.

Like, how's our survival as a species work for you as an objective knowable standard? Because the math is that if we don't have children, there won't be people. Or do you think you can just import people from Muslim African countries, where they actually have children, and we won't end up a country that resembles a Muslim African country?

No, I don't believe so. Series of 3 movies. The first one is very interesting as well.

Rocag said:

---

I've discussed this topic plenty of times on this forum and I'll reiterate the point I always make: The fact the there are uncomfortable consequences for an objective standard not existing doesn't make the existence of an objective standard any more likely.

So sure, I can't say that owning slaves is objectively wrong. Can you? Because the Bible pretty explicitly sets forth rules that allow it. So let's turn the question back on you. Why shouldn't we practice Biblical slavery? In the Old Testament God provided plenty of laws that are abhorrent to our modern values and these pretty much get shrugged off with excuses about having to understand the historical context. But that's moral relativism. Where's the objective standard there?

And if you believe the history of western civilization is one of widespread agreement over what standards should govern society I think you're either ignorant or naive. Our history is one of constant conflict and disagreement. Does it matter that those governments were nominally Christian? Probably less than you think. Does a government claiming they have a divine right to rule mean anything at all or is it just a post hoc justification for why they and not their rivals should be in charge?

I personally think the panic over population collapse is overblown. Does overall population always need to be growing to have a functioning society? I can't see any reason why that should be the case. There's over 7 billion of us at this point, I don't think it's the end of the world if that number decreases somewhat.

---

Where does the Bible condone chattel slavery? I'll wait.

Indentured servitude and penal servitude aren't intrinsically wrong. You can voluntarily sell your services to pay a debt, and I think prisoners are still sometimes required to work as part of their punishment. I specifically was talking about American chattel slavery. Yes. That is clearly objectively wrong because it's violative of our dignity as humans. The Bible is also unique in that I know of no document before it that requires that slaves are treated with dignity. Saying Christianity condones chattel slavery, when actually it's the reason it's been eradicated from existence in the West, is pretty rich. Don't you think?

As for population growth, how do you think this is going to go when we have an increasing population of social security and Medicare recipients at the same time as a shrinking labor force? How long do you think that's sustainable? If we're not replacing our population it means we're shrinking. That's not something we should scoff at.

Eta: the kind of biblical slavery that you're talking about was a means for survival for people before there was any kind of welfare system. So though it's not intrinsically wrong, it would be wrong now because our circumstances have changed. But that's not the same as moral relativism.

Rocag said:

---

Thanks for waiting, here's your answer.

While it might be true that the Bible offered protections for Hebrew slaves, the same can't be said about non-Hebrew slaves. The term "chattel slavery" is a relatively modern one and not something ancient cultures would have been familiar with. Basically though, it's a system in which slaves can be bought and sold as little more than livestock. And that brings us to Leviticus 25:44-46...

Quote:

---

(From NIV) 44 Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make the slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

---

There we see the Bible allowing slaves to be bought, kept for life, passed on to the slave owner's children, and explicitly called "property". I don't see a lot of difference here between this practice and chattel slavery as the slaves being taken were not taken to pay back debts, as prisoners of war, as punishment for crimes, or as indentured servants. They are explicitly bought as property.

Just to be clear, you have no moral issues with the system described in that passage?

---

Chattel slavery entails the kidnapping of people against their will. None of the slaves in the old testament could be forced into labor through kidnapping. Exodus 21:16 forbids it, and it's punishable by death. Anything you can find in the Bible analogous to American slavery is descriptive and not prescriptive. The Bible doesn't condone it, even if you just ignore the parts of the Bible that are very clearly, unambiguously antithetical to the kind of cruel treatment that chattel slavery entails it isn't there. Nice try though.

Eta: I think I answered your question at the end already. Voluntary indentured servitude is not intrinsically evil, but it's practice now would be immoral.

Rocag said:

---

That's not the definition of chattel slavery. The word "chattel" describes basically all kinds of property that can be bought, sold, and traded except for real estate. Chattel slavery, therefore, is when the slave is treated as piece of property. This would be in contrast to something like debt slavery or slavery as punishment for a crime in which the terms of their enslavement are clearly defined and while they can be forced to work for someone else they are not that person's property.

Exodus 21:16 is about kidnapping, but the Israelites wouldn't have viewed the taking of foreign slaves as kidnapping in the first place. We can know that for certain because we see them do it in the Bible itself. Consider Numbers 31 in which Moses tells the Hebrews:

Quote:

---

Numbers 31:17-18
18 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

---

Later in verse 35, it says they kidnapped 32,000 women and counts them as "plunder".

Or are you telling me that those 32,000 women weren't taken against their will?

---

Can you point to its practice in history when it did involve an element of voluntarism. Another distinction would be that the arrangement extends to their offspring. Use of the word property does not imply they were in the same category as livestock or things. We know that because all men are made in God's image. It says as much in the Bible. The key distinction is one is inherently violative of human dignity, and the other isn't. The law in the Bible takes an attitude about slavery that's regulatory, not obligatory or prescriptive. You just want it to condone the kind of slavery that is violative of human dignity. It doesn't.

Can you find a single Church magisterial document that would interpret the Bible the way you're interpreting it? The matter is settled and the Church is clear. Slavery is evil. It's not being debated. So, to demonstrate how muddy the waters actually are in trying to convey a coherent standard of morality, you're arguing an interpretation of the good that zero Christians actually hold to. It's also very strange that freed slaves embraced Christianity, if it were true that God revealed himself to be pro slavery in the Bible.

Rocag said:

---

Your counter arguments are getting weaker and weaker, my friend.

Biblical slavery could extend to the offspring of slaves even for Israelite slaves per Exodus 21:4. I see nothing that implies non-Israelite slaves received better treatment for their children. So you'll have to find another distinction.

And I did not say the Bible called slaves livestock, you're missing the point. Chattel is property that isn't real estate which is personally owned and can be bought, sold, and traded. That's the literal definition. Go look it up if you aren't sure. Biblical slavery allows slaves, particularly the non-Israelite ones, to be treated as chattel.

So no, the Bible doesn't require people to own slaves. Point to you, I guess? I don't think that's the winning argument you think it is.

I don't pretend to be an expert on the Catholic Church and the documents it's released regarding slavery. But a quick Google search turns up the Papal Bull of 1455 issued by Pope Nicolas V which granted Portugal the right to enslave people in Western Africa. This was a key moment in the development of the African slave trade. Seems like that would count.

The matter of slavery might be "settled" now, but that's a recent development historically speaking.

---

That does not suggest any manner of forcing people into slavery. Their offspring would have to take up the terms of their arrangement with his parents. It's not analogous to chattel slavery. Later in the same chapter it says for the slave is his money. That's a direct reference to debt slavery. I know it's hard not to force your modern perspective onto the Bible.

It's true that Papal Bull erred, but it doesn't interpret Scripture or claim to, and it doesn't reflect the Church's teaching on slavery before or since. The entire body of work is very consistent on the Church's opposition to slavery. Before emperor Constantine, slavery was a lynchpin of society and its abolition would have been unthinkable. But after, Church funds were used to redeem slaves. One of our Popes was a former slave. In a Papal Bull in 1435, Pope Eugenius IV demanded that Christians free all enslaved natives of the Canary Islands within 15 days under threat of excommunication.

In 1537, Pope Paul III issued a bull that taught natives were not to be enslaved. In 1591 Gregory XIV reiterated his predecessors' prohibitions against enslaving native peoples. Urban VIII in 1639. Innocent XI, Benedict XIV. Gregory XVI, Leo XIII. The list goes on.

I'd put the Catholic Church's record on slavery up against any institution in history.