tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post1497467540458104438..comments2024-03-25T17:35:02.238-04:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: A Slave to Incompetence: The Truth Behind David Marshall’s Research on Slavery by Dr. Hector AvalosUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-42449888250980801472010-08-19T13:42:50.996-04:002010-08-19T13:42:50.996-04:00RE: Marshall/“Hitchens’ claim that there were “abs...RE: Marshall/“Hitchens’ claim that there were “absolutely no” such instances is false”<br /><br /> Here, Marshall leaves out an important qualifier by Hitchens: “for a long time.” The relevant portion of Hitchens’s statement reads: “...and for a long time aroused absolutely no religious protest...” (god is not Great, p. 176).<br /><br /> Marshall rails against the mistaken addition of a definite article but he has no problem omitting a whole and important qualifying phrase. The phrase “for a long time” is open to interpretation, and the examples of protests usually adduced by apologists (e.g., Sublimis deus) are not as definitive as supposed.<br /><br /><br />RE: Marshall/“Worse, Dr. Avalos’ criticism is based on badly misreading our discussion. Hitchens is not talking about slavery in general, but, to be precise, the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade.”<br /><br /> Even if we are talking about the Trans-Atlantic Slave trade, Hitchens is basically correct, depending on how you interpret “for a long time.”<br /><br /> To prove Hitchens wrong, all Marshall has to do is note all the supposed religious protests against slavery that we find between 1492 (or Marshall can suggest another date) and 1800. List the precise dates and then look in between those dates to see if any gaps without protest qualify as “a long time with absolutely no religious protest.”<br /><br /> Notice that the earliest instance that Marshall could come up in his book was a false claim that Pope Urban VIII “condemned slavery absolutely” in 1639 (The Truth Behind the New Atheism, p. 146).<br /><br />And why does Marshall feel free to use the word “absolutely” when he chides Hitchens for doing the same thing? Yet, Marshall already admitted that he could not find any such absolute condemnation by Urban VIII. How's that for manufacturing evidence?<br /><br /> And between 1492 and 1639 would be 147 years. So was 1639 earliest protest Marshall could come up with then to refute Hitchens? Is 147 years not “a long time” for him?<br /><br /> In fact, consult his own “Timeline for Christian Abolition, and you will find gaps of up to 172 years (e.g., 1416 and 1588), and that is assuming those highlights are what he represents them to be.<br /><br />RE: Marshall/“Aside from the confusing punctuation, it almost appears that Dr. Avalos is suggesting his "Italy" as a synonym for my "Greece!"<br /><br /> No, Marshall is simply glossing over a larger point I was making. He was contrasting, as is often the case in apologetic literature, the relative lack of slaves in northern Europe (e.g., England; Germany) with the situation in southern Europe in the Middle Ages. This was also in the context of his general argument that slavery diminished where Christianity was strongest. <br /><br /> I simply was pointing out that the amount slavery seemed to be proportional to Christian population numbers, and the largest concentrations were in Iberia and Italy (rather than Iberia and Greece). Where Christianity was presumably strongest is where you found the most slavery. Comprende?Dr. Hector Avaloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10840869326406664177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-45212489028542054502010-08-19T13:30:41.192-04:002010-08-19T13:30:41.192-04:00RE: Marshall/“Why did Avalos spend so much time an...RE: Marshall/“Why did Avalos spend so much time and effort attacking four pages of a low-profile book by an alleged "indolent, incompetent hack?"<br /><br /> Because books such as this are read by people who need to hear the other side.<br /><br /><br />RE: Marshall/“Why didn't Avalos mention the fact that we had a "history?"<br /><br /> Marshall seems to demand courtesies of others than he does not offer himself. For example, his comments on Amazon also did not mention that Marshall “had a history” of attacking me personally without any response from me.<br /><br /> According to his chronology I am supposed to be angry because of the critique he posted of The Christian Delusion on Amazon on April 26, 2010.<br /><br /> The fact is he had already attacked me personally on October 5, 2009 when he was responding to another comment in a thread in which I never participated. Here is his comment:<br /><br />"You accused me of "intellectual dishonesty" for not responding to "some issues of substance" a fanatic named Avalos claimed to have with one of my sources.<br /><br />http://www.amazon.com/scholar-David-Marshall-referred-fanatic/forum/Fx238ZENNZM4HA2/<br />Tx2HG0DYWL077MQ/1?_encoding=UTF8&asin=055277331X<br /><br /><br />I never had interacted with Marshall before then to the best of my recollection.<br /><br /> And I was not even criticizing Marshall then, but rather I had commented on Richard Weikart’s book, From Darwin to Hitler, in a discussion completely unrelated to any interaction with Marshall.<br /><br /> So, why did he not mention that he already had this sort of animosity toward me before he issued his critique of The Christian Delusion?<br /><br /> I had been thinking of doing a critique of responses to the New Atheists for months before he posted his review, but I was doing a book on slavery. That is why I selected the section on slavery in his book. I prefer to speak on subjects I know something about.<br /> <br /> <br /><br />RE: Marshall/“Why it is OK for Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens to write general attacks on Christianity spanning many topics about which they know next to nothing...”<br /><br /> Marshall seems to think that I don’t criticize New Atheists or skeptics when they speak outside of their expertise. Yet, this only shows Marshall’s unfamiliarity with my writings. In Fighting Words (pp. 53-55), I criticize Michael Shermer for some of his statements about the Bible. <br /><br />I have an unsolicited testimonial from another secularist blogger, Tom Verenna. I had criticized Verenna for lack of credentials in the subjects on which he spoke, and later he decided to get credentials because of that criticism. See comment #9 at: <br /><br />http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/<br />accred357919.shtmlDr. Hector Avaloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10840869326406664177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-10512476233903668492010-08-19T13:21:55.293-04:002010-08-19T13:21:55.293-04:00RE:Marshall/ 4th Century: “Gregory of Nyssa critiq...RE:Marshall/ 4th Century: “Gregory of Nyssa critiques slavery in the light of Christian theology”<br /><br /> This is typical of the superficial approach Marshall takes to abolitionism. He offers no precise documentation. He offers no context to those quotes. His whole timeline is poorly documented.<br /><br /> For example, he quotes Gregory of Nyssa with a well-known passage (Fourth Homily on Ecclesiastes) that he copies from an uncited source. <br /><br />But then he seems to know very little about Gregory of Nyssa’s OTHER statements that may show he was not an abolitionist. <br /><br /> In fact, some of Gregory's other statements found slavery acceptable (see citations below), and so why not list him in the timeline as part of the highlights of “Christian slavery”? <br /><br /> So maybe Marshall can tell us:<br /><br />1. Why did Marshall not quote Gregory’s statements on slavery found in his Homily IV on the Song of Songs (PG 44:853)?<br /><br />2. Why did Marshall not discuss what Gregory said about slavery in The Great Catechism, 22 (NPNF2 5:492-93)?<br /><br />3. If statements against slavery by Gregory count as highlights of abolitionism, do statements supporting/accepting slavery by Gregory count as highlights of the increasing slavery that Christianity brought?Dr. Hector Avaloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10840869326406664177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-64062791380190306302010-08-19T13:07:42.916-04:002010-08-19T13:07:42.916-04:00RE: Marshall/Avalos accuses me of a "gross an...RE: Marshall/Avalos accuses me of a "gross and misleading overgeneralization." Actually he MISQUOTES me again, then goes on a twelve-paragraph panegyric..."<br /><br /> I do grant that I mistakenly added a “the” in manually typing (versus cut and pasting, which I prefer to do for accuracy) one of Marshall’s quotes (see below). Though inadvertent, that should never happen. That is my responsibility. <br /><br /> Marshall is, however, wrong to say that it really changed the nature of his claim. Compare the two statements at issue as he summarizes them:<br /><br />A: "The equality of humanity was denied by Greeks, Gnostics, Indians (Asians and American), Africans, Chinese, and countless similar tribes." (Marshall classic version, p. 144.)<br /><br />B: "The equality of humanity was denied by THE Greeks, Gnostics, Indians (Asians and American), Africans, Chinese, and countless similar tribes." (Avalos redacted version, emphasis added.)<br /><br />If, as he claims, he did not mean to overgeneralize in the way that adding “the” appears to have made it, then he seems inconsistent with other statements he makes. <br /><br />The whole context of his discussion is that Christians were different from other cultures in regard to slavery.<br /><br /> So, how would that make his point if some Greeks denied the equality of human beings, but then some Christians did, too?<br /><br /> In any case, Marshall’s premise seems to be that a cultural/national word such as “Greeks” without the article is fine as long as “SOME Greeks believe X.” An expression such as “THE Greeks” applies only if “ALL Greeks believe X.” Fine.<br /><br /> If this is the case, then I surmise that the following statements would also satisfy Marshall’s rules for the presence or omission of the definite article.<br /><br />A. “Greeks affirmed the equality of humanity” (since all I need is for some Greeks to affirm this equality to use “Greeks” instead of “the Greeks”).<br /><br />B. “Christians endorsed slavery” (all I need is for some Christians to endorse slavery to make this statement true).<br /><br />Yet, the point remains. How does Marshall intend to convince us that Christianity was better or superior in regard to slavery if we can make equivalent statements about Christian and non-Christian cultures without the use of a definite article at the equivalent grammatical junctures?Dr. Hector Avaloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10840869326406664177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-84747776929688455342010-08-19T13:00:42.086-04:002010-08-19T13:00:42.086-04:00I won’t spend much time on Marshall’s responses be...I won’t spend much time on Marshall’s responses because he repeats the same sorts of techniques, arguments and methods that I already criticized. <br /><br />I will respond on this thread in case Marshall decides to edit or delete my posts on his threads, which may be found at:<br /><br />http://christthetao.blogspot.com/ 2010/08/i-why-hectoring-dr.html<br /><br />http://christthetao.blogspot. com/2010/08/ii-slave-to-cherry-picked-footnotes-19.html<br /><br /> His Part I is mostly a personal attack that has little bearing on my arguments on slavery. Marshall repeats material found on the internet about my debate with Craig, and other issues of which he has no first-hand knowledge whatsoever (e.g., the Gonzalez case). <br /><br /> For example, he cites a critique of my debate with William Lane Craig at Common Sense Atheism, but then does not cite my subsequent interview with Luke Muehlhauser about this debate.<br /><br />See: http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=7046. He also assumes those criticisms are correct.<br /><br /> For the record, I have answered many of Dr. Craig’s allegations, including some of Craig’s factual errors, and so why didn’t Marshall note that fact? Craig never has retracted even the clearest of factual errors (e.g., Craig misidentifies my position at my university), but Marshall does not seem to mind. I list some of them here:<br /><br />http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/<br />2009/07/dr-w-l-craig-caught-telling-more.html<br /><br />I’ve answered some of Dr. Gonzalez’s claims here:<br /><br />http://www.talkreason.org/articles/<br />DISmokingGun.cfmDr. Hector Avaloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10840869326406664177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-70970893334553834632010-08-14T00:25:00.229-04:002010-08-14T00:25:00.229-04:00I took it upon myself to engage David’s wrongheade...I took it upon myself to engage David’s wrongheaded attacks upon Avalos and his laughingly silly arguments. I responded a second time but David decided not to post my comment that demonstrated with one example just how silly his criticisms were. Not only is David apparently unethical for his attacks upon Avalos but also feels he must silence his critics. Check out the above link in David’s comment for the first half of the exchange. Here is the comment that was suppressed - I’m assuming out of embarrassment. There I posted anonymously as The Angry Atheist:<br /><br />Hello David. Nice to hear from you! My post wasn’t vitriolic at all. I merely pointed out the obvious. While you yourself constantly engage others with <i>ad hominem</i> you whine when someone does it back to you. That’s hypocritical. Your attempt at tarnishing Avalos’ rep. was not when when you allegedly refuted his arguments (you did no such thing) but when you referred to some of his past debates and things he had said. So what? That has nothing to do with the arguments at hand. <br /><br />As far as your supposed arguments (if they can even be considered that) you haven’t made a dent in anything he said. For example, you equivocate (among other things) about how he argues against your citation of Queen Bathild who freed fellow Christians from slavery. You claim Avalos says what you’ve written is false and then quote him as saying it’s partially true. Avalos is correct. You argue <i>incorrectly</i> that Bathild tried to stop the slave trade. The slave trade was much more than just the Christians being enslaved by Muslims, the opposite also occurred with Christians enslaving Muslims, but you didn’t see Bathild try to free anyone else but her brethren. That’s not anywhere close to stopping the slave trade but practicing the “in group” morality that your bible preaches so much of. If she was truly all for stopping the <i>actual</i> slave trade she would have tried to free <i>everyone she could, but she didn’t</i>. <br /><br />To quote Avalos from the butt whooping he gave you - <br /><br />“Plato (Republic 5.469b-c) had similarly prohibited the enslavement of fellow Greeks, but not that of non-Greeks. Thus, Bathilde is following an ancient tradition of prohibiting the enslavement of members of the in-group, but allowing the enslavement of members of the out-group (see Leviticus 25:44-46 again).<br /><br />In sum, prohibiting the sale of Christian slaves is not the same as being against the slave trade because it was still perfectly legitimate to buy or capture non-Christian slaves. Bathilde’s actions cannot count as “abolitionism” or even as being against slavery.”<br /><br />Precisely. <i>That</i> was Avalos’ point, but you simply glossed over that. Would you care to try again? You still have two more strikes before you’re out.XAtheistXhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08188378589762657693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-58808888021342099402010-08-06T01:53:10.228-04:002010-08-06T01:53:10.228-04:00I've now posted two responses to Dr. Hector Av...I've now posted two responses to Dr. Hector Avalos' attacks, and his attempts to deny or denigrate the role Christianity has played in overthrowing slavery: <br /> <br />I. "Why the hectoring, Dr. Avalos?" Avalos has a few simple tricks that he plays in trying to undermine the credibility of Christian opponents; the purpose of this article is to demonstrate the illegitimacy of those tricks, and (not incidentally) to respond to his phoney critique of my work: <br /> <br />http://christthetao.blogspot.com/2010/08/i-why-hectoring-dr.html<br /> <br />II. "Slave to Cherry-Picked Footnotes: 19 Problems with Hector Avalos on Religion and Human Bondage." While not a full response, this article contains more details about the issue Avalos chooses to critique me on, the Christian record on slavery. It also demonstrates some pretty sloppy scholarship on Dr. Avalos' part: <br /> <br />http://christthetao.blogspot.com/2010/08/ii-slave-to-cherry-picked-footnotes-19.html<br /> <br />This is a new forum; substantive responses will be welcome! <br /> <br />DavidDavid B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-9010835393585026062010-07-24T11:41:05.553-04:002010-07-24T11:41:05.553-04:00John said,
"...Seneca (ca. 4 BCE-65 CE), the...John said,<br /><br />"...Seneca (ca. 4 BCE-65 CE), the Stoic philosopher, tells his readers (Epistles, 47.11; LCL): <br /><br />"Treat your inferiors as you would be treated by your betters. And as often as you reflect how much power you have over a slave, remember that your master has just as much power over you.”"<br /><br />Having noticed that Seneca is a verifiable historical person who lived through the period given as THE ENTIRE LIFESPAN OF JESUS, I thought it would be fun to see if he wrote anything about our erstwhile rabbi. Here's what I found:<br /><br />"Lucius Annaeus Seneca (4 BC-65 AD) was a prodigious writer. His legacy includes satires, tragedies, several books on natural phenomena, and at least 124 insightful letters (Epistulae morales). A dozen essays on philosophy include edifying tracts on the brevity of life, human destiny, clemency and virtue. In On Clemency, Seneca describes the prince who safeguards the lives of his subjects as "god like". In On Tranquility of Mind, he urges a contentment gained from thrift rather than a ceaseless passion for wealth. A lost work De Superstitione ridiculed popular conceptions of the gods.<br /><br />As it happens, the life of Seneca, like that of Philo, was contemporaneous with the "Jesus" of legend. Yet though Seneca wrote extensively on many subjects and people, nothing relating to "Jesus" ever caught his attention, nor does he show any awareness of a "vast multitude" of Christians, supposedly, punished for the fire that ravaged Rome in 64 AD."<br /><br /><a href="http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/seneca.html" rel="nofollow">Seneca's Commentary on Jesus</a><br /><br />Things that make you go, "Hmmm..."GearHedEdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288513835630145996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-80139209579764289762010-07-22T12:54:31.616-04:002010-07-22T12:54:31.616-04:00Dear Rob R
RE: "I think to treat someone abso...Dear Rob R<br />RE: "I think to treat someone absolutely as property is absolutely wrong. But you don't have that in scripture. I doubt you have it in even in ancient Rome. You have elements in that, but not completely. I just don't see any and all treatment of people in the same way as propterty as evil unless it's absolute."<br /><br /> Thanks for your sincere and forthright attempt to answer my questions. However, I am even more puzzled now by your view of slavery.<br /><br />First, NO slave system treated a slave completely as property, if that means the same as inanimate non-living property. There was a tension in all slave systems between treating the slave completely as property and treating that slave completely as a person. <br /><br /> The reason is that non-living property normally does not rebel, or run away, or talk back to masters. Thus, it was nearly impossible to treat a slave as you would a hammer or a chair completely in ANY SYSTEM. <br /><br /> So, perhaps you can clarify further by answering these questions:<br /><br />A. What slave system did (or does) treat slaves “completely as property”?<br /><br />B. Are there any elements that must be sufficiently present for you to classify someone “completely as property"?<br /><br />C. How did you come to conclude that we should not consider “all treatment of people in the same way as propterty [sic] as evil unless it's absolute"? That is to say, why does treating someone as property have to be "absolute" to be considered "evil" for you?<br /><br />D. Is “absolute” the same as “complete” to you?<br />(e.g., is treating slave "completely" as property<br />the same as treating a slave "absolutely" as property)?Dr. Hector Avaloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10840869326406664177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-31935733529588349182010-07-20T07:44:38.745-04:002010-07-20T07:44:38.745-04:00David, all you did was beat your chest. What am I ...David, all you did was beat your chest. What am I supposed to think? Chest beating does not a man's argument answer. It's like masturbating on us, and THAT is insulting.<br /><br />Nothing of what you've written answers MY argument when it comes to <i>The Problem of Miscommunication</i> spelled out in my book, which I consider a more telling criticism of the slavery issue. Hector tackles the issue as it relates to the Bible and slavery in the church and does a masterful job of the details. I have an undercutting defeater to the whole issue. It's like a two punch knockout. You can't answer him but even if you can, I finish you off with the final punch.<br /> <br />Why is it you can't see this? It's because of the first three chapters in TCD, that's why. Read them again.<br /> <br />In any case, I do not post criticisms of me or other contributors at DC. If you have a venue then post it there. Or perhaps you could show me where a Christian apologist would do likewise and post an essay criticizing them on their own blog?<br /><br />CheersAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-10530501150425036192010-07-20T00:35:03.012-04:002010-07-20T00:35:03.012-04:00John: What I posted wasn't a response to Hecto...John: What I posted wasn't a response to Hector, it was a quick note I wrote after finding his attack on me on your web site. Whether or not my response to him is effective remains to be seen for you. <br /><br />But you didn't answer my question. You've posted a personal attack on my character and scholarship on your web site. Are you willing to post my response in an equally prominent position? (Not under 20 other posts.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-36467779851951824262010-07-18T21:31:10.348-04:002010-07-18T21:31:10.348-04:00post 3 of 3
Either you find slavery immoral or y...post 3 of 3<br /><br /><br /><em>Either you find slavery immoral or you do not. </em><br /><br />I don't see things that things are that simple. And as I am not an absolutist about moral absolutes (I said I wasn't a moral absolutist, but I really do believe in some absolutes, I just don't think all morals are absolute), this kind of statement isn't going to go far with me.<br /><br /><em>Talk of “regulating” immoral actions, instead of condemning them, is like saying that we ought to give someone credit for merely regulating genocide rather than outright condemning it.</em><br /><br />Now this is just illogical. I don't see why moral reasoning about genocide has to be the same as that about slavery which are radically different behaviors.<br /><br /><em>You also missed the point of Davies’ critique. Slavery is limited in time for “fellow Hebrews,” but not for non-Hebrews (Lev. 25:44-46), who can be owned forever. </em><br /><br />I didn't miss that point. You ignored my response to it. While the Christians were not under the mosaic covenant, while new covenant could be more demanding, the Mosaic covanent was still a teacher and this limitation points to an ideal for the goyim Christians to follow. What we have here is the Christian mission taking those with lower standards allowing gentiles with slaves (and their slaves) into the covenant which has had the potential, a potential that has seen fruit to undermine slavery as we see made explicit in Philemon. The standards to become a Christian were lower. The standards to grow in the faith were higher. You see fewer compulsory rules on slavery as a regression, but it is a higher aspect of the Christian covenant that Paul says that the freeing of a slave should come from the heart. There is to be a greater internalization.<br /><br /><em>Christianity could have done is to prohibit it to its own members. It did not.</em><br /><br />Yes, flawed people were allowed into the covenant. This is consistent with the redemptive mission of Christianity. <br /><br /><em>Being a spiritual child of Abraham had NO NECESSARY IMPLICATIONS for whether Christians could have slaves or not</em><br /><br /><br />Right... we're talking about trajectories. If by necessary implications, you mean what was immeadiately expected, it is obvious that slavery was one of those things not immeadiately eradicated. That's why we see the negative nature of slavery as a scriptural trajectory, not something immediately condemned for the believer, but something that was definitely at odds.<br /><br /><em>because Christians could make a difference between spiritual and physical aspects of human existence. </em><br /><br />Well that might be an in vogue way of interpreting and dichotomizing scripture from whatever evangelical faith you rejected, but I find it suspect and am more interested in a more holistic understanding.<br /><br /><em><br />Many southern slaveowners did think they were doing slaves a service and treating them as brothers</em><br /><br />Oh yeah, they were just members of the family. They left land to them, helped them run their own buisnesses, respected their marriages and never raped any of their women. Brothers. yeah.Rob Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08937716910001145836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-38057448098285577212010-07-18T21:31:10.349-04:002010-07-18T21:31:10.349-04:00post 2 of 3
Exodus 21:21 is really general. A s...post 2 of 3<br /><br /><br />Exodus 21:21 is really general. A slave is punished severly. Well punishments can be just and they can be unjust and the question is whether they actually did something to deserve the punishment. If it wasn't deserved, then the slave ought to run away as was his right. And of course if he dies, then the master who clearly didn't intend death deserves to be punished for manslaughter. Course if it's murder, if he beat him to death right there and then, then and eye for an eye. But, Christians were held to a higher standard.<br /><br />Why is the mere act of owning a slave not unjust to me? It is unjust for me and for you and for all Americans now because it is the sovereign right of the US to outlaw what is a flawed and morally wanting relationship of authority and it is ultimately at odds with the scriptural message and trajectory of scripture that has matured on this issue in our culture. I am not an absolutist after all.<br /><br />It was not unjust for ancients who were already in that relationship, a relationship which could have developed for legitimate reasons such as one who sold himself into slavery due to his debts.<br /><br /><em>Not true or you are unclear about what "fabric of creation" means.</em><br /><br />Parenthood and the status of being a neighbor are necessities of human existence (necessities of varying degrees, of course one could be a hermit, but that's not normal). Relationships and modes of authority are far more socially variable across societies.<br /><br />but at any rate as you want me to accept that to regulate something is to accept it, the burden of proof is on you since I have no reason to believe it. And modern counterexamples abound. We'd be better off if the adult industry just went away, but it'd be better to regulate it than to do nothing. A closer example (since I don't think slaverholding is necessarily damning) would be industries that harm the environment. We ought to regulate them and pursue the elimination of such harms, but to eliminate them completely right away, we might not be able to support the population of the world. But even if we could, how we could get to that place in an economically feasible manner is a challenge which requires careful thought (perhaps it wouldn't have to be economically feasible though. Maybe we could do it at gun point!!)<br /><br /><br /><em>ANY COMMANDMENT from God can be assumed to be part of "the fabric of creation" depending on your theological viewpoint.</em><br /><br />Which clearly isn't a problem since I don't have to be concerned about just ANY theological viewpoint. That's a strange point to me since I could counter many of your objections could be otherwise depending on one's ethical viewpoint. But I don't see how that would advance the discussion any.Rob Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08937716910001145836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-71733101132710648342010-07-18T21:29:05.676-04:002010-07-18T21:29:05.676-04:00post 1 of 3
First I'll answer your questions...post 1 of 3<br /><br /><br />First I'll answer your questions. I don't know if slavery is fundamentally wrong or not considering I don't know that we have a clear definition of what slavery is. But even then, I don't know that it isn't fundamentally wrong. I think capitalism might be fundamentally wrong. but that doesn't mean that it is personally wrong for me to participate and excel in it which can be done to its corrupt potential or it can be carried out with integrity. I think some forms of slavery are truly deplorable. The worst I suppose is what we have around today in the sex trade where the nature of the labor itself is degrading and destructive to everyone involved. American southern slavery was not intrinsically as bad as that though it is a fairly bad form based on racism which increased it's corruption.<br /><br />If something is fundamentally wrong, is it better to regulate it or condemn it. I suppose I answered this in my comment about capitalism. If it is somehow wrong at a fundamental level, I don't suppose that this is necessarily indicative of the degree or quality of its immorality. You may define slavery as owning someone. I think to treat someone absolutely as property is absolutely wrong. But you don't have that in scripture. I doubt you have it in even in ancient Rome. You have elements in that, but not completely. I just don't see any and all treatment of people in the same way as propterty as evil unless it's absolute. I have an employer and when I am on the clock, he owns my time. He owns my efforts and labor which is purchased for a fee. If I was an engineer, he might even own some of my creative thoughts. But this ownership is very limited. But at what point does that become slavery?<br /><br />Why is it worse to be a drunkard than a slave holder? A drunkard puts his alcohol above people and drunkenness compromises one's moral self control. It's conceivable that a slave holder treats his slaves right. It may not ultimately be a good relationship, but it's not necessarily dehumanizing and even the slaves could have a kind of positive relationship that they could look positively upon. The Mosaic Law even speaks to this suggesting that it was a Hebrew slave's right to serve his master all his life if he loved him. So why should we consider this particular relationship immoral? I still agree that the whole system of slavery is a bad one, ultimately at odds with the broad goals of scripture, but people can still function right in a flawed system.<br /><br />How does a slaveholder treat his slave as a Christian brother? With tension. This point from Philemon isn't going to go away. Paul tells Philemon to receive Onesimus AS a brother and INSTEAD of as a slave. Paul makes it a point that the two are at odds. You mention either here or in John's book that Paul gives Philemon the choice to retain Onesimus as a slave. Not because he respects his right as a slave holder but because he wants him to do the right thing out of his own initiative, though he procedes to give Philemon one heck of a guilt trip on what he ought to do that would make a Jewish mother blush. You want to refuse to see the trajectory. I just don't see how this honest fair treatment of the text.<br /><br />In Philemon, Paul brings to the forefront the inconsistency of holding a Christian brother as a slave in this letter written to someone who is very dedicated to the faith and to the church, in other words a more advanced believer. This is not contradicted by Paul's generic instruction about slaveholders in the flock to Timothy, men who may not be as advanced. But for Philemon, Paul indicates how he can advance further in the faith. As to whatever Ben Witherington's argument is, that's all well and good, but in a discussion with me, I'd rather you'd deal with the arguments that i bring up, not someone else.Rob Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08937716910001145836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-70358263841085203742010-07-16T20:25:46.617-04:002010-07-16T20:25:46.617-04:00In case I didn't mention this, that's in T...In case I didn't mention this, that's in Tertullian's 5 books <i>Against Marcion</i>. I did a post about it once called <a href="http://beosmusings.blogspot.com/2010/06/some-of-tertullians-cheesy-logic-and.html" rel="nofollow">Tertullian's cheesy logic, and Marcion on slavery</a>. As then, I don't feel like looking up the reference right now, but <i>Against Marcion</i> is online at Tertullian.org if anybody wants to look it up for themselves.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-55004905270659244172010-07-16T20:22:05.705-04:002010-07-16T20:22:05.705-04:00Slavery was wrong to Marcion. His entire soteriol...Slavery was wrong to Marcion. His entire soteriology was based around the idea of the Good God sending Jesus Chrestos to come and set us free from the Demiurge (OT god). This of course offended Tertullian (circa 208 AD) a Catholic apologist, who argues that since the "Good God" is found to be freeing another's slaves without his consent, he must not be good! Why if he were good (argues Tertullian) he would return runaway slaves to their master.<br /><br />We see then that pro-slavery Christianity is a result of Catholicism, i.e. of the melding of church and empire, and not part of the original idea.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-12938233942201396142010-07-16T08:49:56.126-04:002010-07-16T08:49:56.126-04:00Dr. Avalos,
This is great! I sincerely appreciat...Dr. Avalos,<br /><br />This is great! I sincerely appreciate all the time it took to respond here on DC. I am already looking forward to your new book!<br /><br />TobyThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09484481246432964371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-62948104747930157662010-07-16T05:58:11.672-04:002010-07-16T05:58:11.672-04:00Ma Dixiong/ David Marshall, since you cannot read ...Ma Dixiong/ David Marshall, since you cannot read let me inform you that this post of Hector's was made yesterday, that attacking his motives, even if true, is an ad hominem fallacy which does not deal with his arguments, and there is no reason why anyone must tell someone else that they have posted something about you. <br /><br />So there. Ya got nothing except that you can do a lot of chest beating, but that's all ya got, chest beating. Any <a href="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2010/06/on-being-ignorant-of-ones-own-ignorance.html" rel="nofollow">ignorant person can do that</a>. <br /><br />Cheers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-71790441223505238812010-07-16T02:25:41.810-04:002010-07-16T02:25:41.810-04:00Dear Rob-R,
In order to focus our discussion, I wo...Dear Rob-R,<br />In order to focus our discussion, I wonder if you would be so kind as to answer these questions more directly:<br /><br />1. Do you think slavery is fundamentally wrong? Yes or No?<br /><br />2. If something is fundamentally wrong, is it better to condemn it or merely regulate it?<br /><br />3. Why does being a drunkard prevent you from enering the Kingdom of Heaven but not slaveholding (1 Cor. 6:8-9)?<br /><br />4. How does a Christian owning another Christian treat that enslaved Christian as brother in the first place?<br /><br />5. Do you think that as long as someone treats a slave “justly,” then the slavemaster is justified to have a slave?<br /><br />6. Do you consider the actions described in Exodus 21:21 toward slaves as just? Yes or No?<br /><br />7. Why is the mere act of owning a slave not itself unjust for you?Dr. Hector Avaloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10840869326406664177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-27168278807209900492010-07-16T02:20:21.329-04:002010-07-16T02:20:21.329-04:00RE: “since owners were required to treat them just...RE: “since owners were required to treat them justly.”<br /><br /> Why is the mere act of owning a slave not itself unjust for you? And how is it “just” to take people away from their family? And how is it just to be allowed to beat a slave nearly to death without being punished? <br /><br /> For example, Exodus 21:20-21: <br />[20]"When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished.<br />[21] But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money.<br /><br /><br />Do you call this "just treatment"?<br /><br />RE: “1 tim 6 hardly indicates that it wasn't undermined powerfully elsewhere such as in Philemon.”<br /><br /> Philemon does no such thing. I devote a fairly lengthy section to how modern scholars such as Ben Witheringon try to use “socio-rhetorical criticism" to redeem Philemon from being an a epistle that affirms the right of slavemasters to have their slaves returned. I also devote attention to the efforts of A.D. Callahan to argue that Philemon was not a slave at all.<br /> <br />RE: “But that doesn't mean that the institution as a whole sits well with the Christian message as a whole.”<br /><br /> You provide no evidence of why “The Christian message as a whole” was against slavery at all. As you admit, it does not condemn the practice, it tells slaves to obey slavemasters, and the Bible explicitly says that Hebrews can have slaves (e.g., Lev. 25:44-46). So what tells you the Bible or Christianity "as a whole" are against the institution?<br /><br /><br />RE: "Do you honestly truely believe that that southern slave holders held their slaves as brothers?”<br /><br /> Many southern slaveowners did think they were doing slaves a service and treating them as brothers. Some biblical authors thought the same thing (cf. 1 Cor. 7:21 in some translations). <br /><br />Clearly, one can be a Christian and own slaves (e.g., 1 Timothy 6:1-2, Philemon). One can have Christian “brothers” as slaves. And how does having a Christian brother as a slave treat him as “a brother” at all?Dr. Hector Avaloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10840869326406664177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-58493263601785981982010-07-16T02:06:38.833-04:002010-07-16T02:06:38.833-04:00RE: “And in scripture, the the ownership of one hu...RE: “And in scripture, the the ownership of one human being by another is very much curtailed and is not absolute since it is limited in time, since one is free to flee this relationship, since owners were required to treat them justly.”<br /><br />This again is an old defense of slavery. Either you find slavery immoral or you do not. Talk of “regulating” immoral actions, instead of condemning them, is like saying that we ought to give someone credit for merely regulating genocide rather than outright condemning it. <br /><br />You also missed the point of Davies’ critique. Slavery is limited in time for “fellow Hebrews,” but not for non-Hebrews (Lev. 25:44-46), who can be owned forever. Slavery went from being limited in time for fellow Hebrews to having NO LIMITS in the NT. Thus, is this an advance or a regression for you?<br /><br /><br />RE: “Paul wasn't commanding people to enter into slavery, only regulating it.”<br /><br />This is like arguing “Paul was not commanding people to enter into adultery, but only regulating adultery.” An action considered fundamentally immoral is not usually regulated, but outlawed.<br /><br />Any command that helps to retain the essential functions of an institution is a, de facto, approval of that institution. Obedience is one of the essential actions that sustains slavery, and all commands to affirm obedience as a duty of slaves perpetuates slavery, DE FACTO.<br /><br />Paul had no trouble saying that adulterers and even drunkards would not enter the kingdom of heaven (1 Cor. 6:8-9), but you wish to convince us that holding another human being as a slave did not merit the same condemnation, but only “regulation”? Why is that?<br /><br />Moreover, there were some non-Christian groups who did think that slavery was wrong and prohibited members from having slaves (e.g., Essense, some parts of Greece). <br /><br />You also miss the fact that NO ONE IS COMMANDED to own slaves in Roman society, and the least Christianity could have done is to prohibit it to its own members. It did not.<br /><br />RE: “And now we spiritual children of Abraham are to welcome all the goyim with open arms.” <br /><br /> Being a spiritual child of Abraham had NO NECESSARY IMPLICATIONS for whether Christians could have slaves or not because Christians could make a difference between spiritual and physical aspects of human existence. Physical enslavement was not viewed as objectionable as spiritual enslavement to sin, etc.<br /><br />In fact, Martin Luther, cited precisely that physical and non-spiritual aspect of slavery as being a reason to justify slavery in his tract against the Swabian peasants.<br /><br /> <br />RE: "Enslaving just doesn't do that (enslavement, slave trading is outright condemned)." <br /><br />Not true, or I don’t know what you mean by “slave trading” is outright condemned. The usual passages adduced for this are often misinterpreted (e.g., 1 Timothy 1:10).Dr. Hector Avaloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10840869326406664177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-6969776178338733202010-07-16T01:56:53.639-04:002010-07-16T01:56:53.639-04:00RE: ROB-R-- “I thought we were relatively on the s...RE: ROB-R-- “I thought we were relatively on the same page to agree that slavery is morally wanting.”<br /><br />Not at all. My forthcoming book is meant to analyze in detail the types of arguments you make. In general, you are trying to mitigate biblical slavery through very common apologetic techniques that are ethically inconsistent with any humanitarian “fabric” we should share. <br /><br />I hold slavery, in any form, to be an unjust and unethical practice. Any scripture that at any time accepts or endorses slavery is automatically disqualified from being any sort of ethical guide for humanity.<br /><br />RE: "I'd note that your examples (parenthood, merely living along side another) are of institutions built into the fabric of creation."<br /><br /> Not true or you are unclear about what "fabric of creation" means. "Do X = "approval of the institution associated with X" is a logical relation, and is not governed by whether X is considered part of the fabric of creation or not.<br /><br />Nor do you provide any evidence that commandments, in general, are only signaling approval when linked to “the fabric of creation.” Therefore, the “the fabric of creation” is a meaningless criterion without further specification.<br /><br />Alternatively, many theologians found justification for slavery because it was part of the "fabric of creation." For example, many people would say that “dominion” is also part of the fabric of creation (Genesis 1:28) and that hierarchy is also part of the “fabric of creation” insofar as it is a natural consequence of sin (Gen. 3:16; cf. also 1 Corinthians 1:9).<br /><br />ANY COMMANDMENT from God can be assumed to be part of "the fabric of creation" depending on your theological viewpoint.Dr. Hector Avaloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10840869326406664177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-8966441863660993612010-07-16T01:31:08.901-04:002010-07-16T01:31:08.901-04:00I am surprised to find Dr. Avalos' attack on m...I am surprised to find Dr. Avalos' attack on me here, a month after he posted it. I am even more surprised at the quality of his attack. <br /> <br />Avalos doesn't seem to say a word about the context to his attack. He doesn't point out that he only read and attacked my book after I had first criticized his frivolous attempt to blame Christianity for Nazism in The Christian Delusion. He doesn't breath a word about our long debate on Amazon, in which (I think it is evident) his arguments were systematically shredded by an alleged "hack writer." He allows readers to think he writes this article out of objective concern for the truth, rather than personal peeve and revenge over his (as appears to me, but not me alone) public humiliation. Nor does he do me the basic courtesy of letting me know about his attack, so I could respond in a timely manner. <br /> <br />I had already been writing a more thorough response to his original attempt to blame Christianity for the Holocaust. I planned to notify him when it was posted or printed, whatever its ultimate fate. <br /> <br />I was thinking of other venues, but since you've published this personal attack on myself here, do you want it, John? Can you handle posting a serious critique of two chapters of your new book on your own web site? I'll also respond to his attacks on my scholarship. (In fact I've refuted the essence of his approach here in the body of our debate. He makes a simple but telling misunderstanding about the nature of public discourse and pig-headedly adheres to it, however often his error is pointed out, without a word of response to my objections. No doubt that's the advantage of changing venues with notifying your opponent.) <br /><br />I will not post my response at the tail end of a month-old post. However, given that John posted the original attack, if he's willing to post my response in an equally prominent location, I'll be glad to post it here; otherwise please look for that response elsewhere.David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-81763505494793233302010-07-15T22:31:15.909-04:002010-07-15T22:31:15.909-04:00Rob R said..."One can say that scripture make...Rob R said..."One can say that scripture makes a case for slavery if they have a myopic view that ignores the big picture that is presented."<br /><br />Yes that might sometimes be very true Rob.<br /><br />But still much the very same, or infact even worse can happen for faithful folks thoughts, when they decide to worship some "charismatic figure".And that figure could be the faith itself.<br /><br />Never mind ignoring the big picture,many faithful just dont even bother daring look at "any picture" at all, other than that what they have already decided to worship.In other words they dont look at any picture at all,they have even simply become "slaves" to the faith.Its how my own family still remains enslaved in an abusive christian faith in the year 2010.Its how the Jim Jone crew all ended up dead as a door nail.Its what made the Pope think it was maybe a smart thing, to try just keep moving the sexual molestors onward.<br /><br />Never mind looking at the big picture,sheeze these folks dont even bother looking at any picture.They are all but utter idiotic Faith Zombies.<br /><br />And thankfully lately modern scientific neurologic tests have even managed to capture the effects this phenomena happening.Gandolfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624178234332819107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-668930956989391782010-07-15T22:00:59.119-04:002010-07-15T22:00:59.119-04:00post 2 of 2
Otherwise, it would also be unethic...post 2 of 2<br /><br /><br /><br /><em>Otherwise, it would also be unethical to command something that is not approved at some level.</em><br /><br />On some levels, some types of slavery had real benefits to both slave and owner. But that doesn't mean that the institution as a whole sits well with the Christian message as a whole.<br /><br /><em>After all, these texts also DO mean that slaves can be enslaved as long as the master wanted them to be enslaved. If so, abolition cannot occur without the slavemasters’ consent.</em><br /><br />Abolition of slavery wasn't even on the radar of possibilities at the time. So I don't think this speaks against such an idea in the slightest.<br /><br /><em>These texts commanding obedience to slavemasters were quoted against abolition quite effectively in the South, and they were understood that way for much of the last 2000 years in Christianity.</em><br /><br />These slavemasters more often than not did not have Christian brotherhood wither their slaves and did not have even a Roman form of slavery let alone a Hebrew one. Do you honestly truely believe that that southern slave holders held their slaves as brothers? Do your really really believe that the relationship that Paul strongly encouraged of Philemon to have towards Onesimus had any place in southern institutional slavery? Could they even be said to have practiced broader Christian ethics such as the golden rule and the two greatest commandments to their slaves, or was the institution at a whole at odds with this?Rob Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08937716910001145836noreply@blogger.com