Reply #101

In the discussion thread: HR 535 – Year of the Bible Resolution (billboard) [View all]

Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #80)

Tue Mar 13, 2012, 11:06 PM

humblebum (5,881 posts)

101. I beg to differ. The Second Great Awakening spawned many new abolitionists -

tent meetings and bible thumpers.

"Abolitionism had a strong religious base including Quakers, and people converted by the revivalist fervor of the Second Great Awakening, led by Charles Finney in the North in the 1830s. Belief in abolition contributed to the breaking away of some small denominations, such as the Free Methodist Church.
Evangelical abolitionists founded some colleges, most notably Bates College in Maine and Oberlin College in Ohio." Wiki

Verses such as Mathew 25:40 was quite commonly used - "Whatever you do unto the least of my brethren, you do unto me?" History books are filled with firey anti-slavery speeches based on Scripture.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

134 replies	Author	Time	Post
HR 535 – Year of the Bible Resolution (billboard) [View all]	pokerfan	Mar 2012	OP
A lesson in Biblical literalism brought to you by Americanatheists.org.	rug	Mar 2012	#1
I bet you say that to all the direct Bible Quotes. ;) nt	greyl	Mar 2012	#2
Only to the cute ones.	rug	Mar 2012	#4
Feel free to interpret HR 535 literally.	greyl	Mar 2012	#6
Oh, that doesn't need interpretation, it's plain enough.	rug	Mar 2012	#7
lol	greyl	Mar 2012	#8
A thoughtful response.	rug	Mar 2012	#10
Are you saying the Republicans behind the bill aren't theists?	greyl	Mar 2012	#12
I'm saying it's Republicans doing this but the target is not Republicans, but theists.	rug	Mar 2012	#14
We both know those behind the bill identify more deeply with their religion	greyl	Mar 2012	#22
So - it's all the nonbelievers in the legislature who passed the bill?	dmallind	Mar 2012	#13
No, it's Republicans.	rug	Mar 2012	#15
acting out of secular motivations?	deacon_sephiroth	Mar 2012	#26
Try political.	rug	Mar 2012	#32
keep going...	deacon_sephiroth	Mar 2012	#33
Passed you,	rug	Mar 2012	#34
and off the cliff	deacon_sephiroth	Mar 2012	#36
I'll wait.	rug	Mar 2012	#37
better yet, hold your breath ;)	deacon_sephiroth	Mar 2012	#38
It's metaphorical slavery	pokerfan	Mar 2012	#3
I suppose you accept the literal truth of what follows as well.	rug	Mar 2012	#5
I will assume that you believe slavery is immoral	pokerfan	Mar 2012	#11
It's self-evident.	rug	Mar 2012	#16
oh well, then	pokerfan	Mar 2012	#17
Do you think the immorality of slavery is not self-evident?	rug	Mar 2012	#18
so self evident it apparently never existed	pokerfan	Mar 2012	#19
How interesting that this group	Thats my opinion	Mar 2012	#9
Was Paul talking about metaphorical slavery?	laconicsax	Mar 2012	#20
Whoever wrote that verse	Thats my opinion	Mar 2012	#21
But such cultural bias is maintained by many Christian sects to this day	muriel_volestrangler	Mar 2012	#23
Ahhh...more prooftexting.	Sal316	Mar 2012	#24
oo oo oo, are we doing bible contradictions?	deacon_sephiroth	Mar 2012	#25
What you've also never seen	skepticscott	Mar 2012	#27
Sal, you're prooftexting!	trotsky	Mar 2012	#28
Oooooh SNAP!	Goblinmonger	Mar 2012	#29
I'll try some in small doses this time. ;-)	trotsky	Mar 2012	#30
Welcome back, trotsky, and what an entrance to boot!	cleanhippie	Mar 2012	#35
Post 31 shows just how much trotsky rocks.	2ndAmForComputers	Mar 2012	#40
Aw shucks, I can't take credit for that.	trotsky	Mar 2012	#63
Now that was righteous.	UnrepentantLiberal	Mar 2012	#47
I quit.	Sal316	Mar 2012	#31
Good luck with your munitions R&D.	laconicsax	Mar 2012	#39
Sorry to see you leave. No, really.	trotsky	Mar 2012	#62
You don't understand, trotsky.	laconicsax	Mar 2012	#65
The clear reason that the Bible does not condemn or endorse slavery	humblebum	Mar 2012	#41
Yes, the fact that slavery isn't condemned by the Bible is ridiculous, offensive, and shameful. n/t	laconicsax	Mar 2012	#42
Aristole's theory of slavery	humblebum	Mar 2012	#43
Did you seriously call slavery both necessary and expedient?	laconicsax	Mar 2012	#44
No I didn't, but Aristotle did. And that demonstrates just how normal the social status	humblebum	Mar 2012	#49
Aristotelians do not claim that his utterances were divine.	Warren Stupidity	Mar 2012	#51
Who said they did? But, the study of any culture in that period	humblebum	Mar 2012	#52
So the bible is just cultural and not divine?	Goblinmonger	Mar 2012	#54
This is the key hypocrisy of those who deny what is really in the 'Scriptures'...	Bluenorthwest	Mar 2012	#56
again missing the difference. Obviously intentionally.	Warren Stupidity	Mar 2012	#58
So the Bible isn't anything more than a product of it's time.	laconicsax	Mar 2012	#61
I agree with neither of your assertions and am running from nothing, however	humblebum	Mar 2012	#67
You can't have it both ways.	laconicsax	Mar 2012	#69
I have clearly stated my case, and really don't have clue what you are driving at.	humblebum	Mar 2012	#70
if that's your agruement then you eitehr miss the point, or it's a strawman	deacon_sephiroth	Mar 2012	#85
Well you are right "that slavery did exist exist." That's really all that needs to be said.	humblebum	Mar 2012	#88
Just telling you what eveeyone is "driving at"	deacon_sephiroth	Mar 2012	#89
As I added to the last post:	humblebum	Mar 2012	#90
not at all	deacon_sephiroth	Mar 2012	#91
You just said that you were judging by today's standards.	humblebum	Mar 2012	#92
so slavery was a step in social evolution?	deacon_sephiroth	Mar 2012	#93
Listen, I certainly don't have all of the answers, but according to the Bible	humblebum	Mar 2012	#94
What makes you think the Bible is a reliable guide to the present?	laconicsax	Mar 2012	#95
Your opinion is yours, not mine.	humblebum	Mar 2012	#96
And out come the fundamentalist views.	laconicsax	Mar 2012	#100
Your opinion is your opinion, not mine. Out come the militant atheist views.	humblebum	Mar 2012	#103
Yes, those militant atheist views that the Bible isn't literally true.	laconicsax	Mar 2012	#104
Where did I say that it was all literally true? I am merely stating that one of the POV	humblebum	Mar 2012	#105
So when you denied that the Bible isn't literally true, what were you implying?	laconicsax	Mar 2012	#106
Quite the line of blather there. Are you sure you didn't confuse yourself?	humblebum	Mar 2012	#107
There you go again! You're contesting the claim that the Bible isn't literally true.	laconicsax	Mar 2012	#108
Then you should not be calling something historical fact, that isn't. Nowhere did	humblebum	Mar 2012	#109
You keep denying that the Bible isn't literally true!	laconicsax	Mar 2012	#110
You seem to be using a double negative in your question.	humblebum	Mar 2012	#111
Yes or No: Do you believe the Bible is literally true?	laconicsax	Mar 2012	#112
You are just kinda stumbling all over yourself trying	humblebum	Mar 2012	#113
Thank you for admitting your fundamentalist views. n/t	laconicsax	Mar 2012	#115
As well yours. nt	humblebum	Mar 2012	#116
I don't think you understand what certain words mean.	laconicsax	Mar 2012	#121
I think we are both aware of what certain words mean.	humblebum	Mar 2012	#123
So is it the word of God or the word of the dudes you said wrote it: Matthew, Mark, Luke et al.?	Arugula Latte	Mar 2012	#130
So you're saying that God pays attention to opinion polls?	pokerfan	Mar 2012	#45
Then you should be talking to your own ancient ancestors who lived back then,	humblebum	Mar 2012	#50
And yet the 'faith community' takes other parts of Scripture and demands that we	Bluenorthwest	Mar 2012	#57
And not one word or complaint proves that there is no deity, and yet	humblebum	Mar 2012	#73
So much for divine revelation then	pokerfan	Mar 2012	#72
Partially you are correct, and much of it is also timeless. And that is why so many value it.	humblebum	Mar 2012	#74
And lot of it is disgusting	pokerfan	Mar 2012	#76
Really, which parts are timeless, and which aren't?	Humanist_Activist	Mar 2012	#81
Faith, hope, charity, compassion, love ...	humblebum	Mar 2012	#86
Oh, the good stuff.	Goblinmonger	Mar 2012	#98
I think you are confusing it with 'The Atheist's Handbook,' which has all those	humblebum	Mar 2012	#99
Yeah, but unlike you,	Goblinmonger	Mar 2012	#114
You mean to say that radical atheist's actions are real and	humblebum	Mar 2012	#127
Depends on what you are talking about.	Goblinmonger	Mar 2012	#131
much of it is timeless... in the context of it's time! n/t	deacon_sephiroth	Mar 2012	#84
"the shameful thing is the actual practice of owning human beings as property."	humblebum	Mar 2012	#53
So when did God figure out it was bad?	Goblinmonger	Mar 2012	#55
You're only right if scripture isn't part of a religion.	laconicsax	Mar 2012	#64
Yes, and that was thousands of years ago, and that is my point.	humblebum	Mar 2012	#66
Try hundreds, not thousands.	laconicsax	Mar 2012	#68
Then, you also know that Christianity was a driving force in the abolition movement.nt	humblebum	Mar 2012	#71
Actually, very few of the abolitionists, particularly in the United Kingdom and United States...	Humanist_Activist	Mar 2012	#80
I beg to differ. The Second Great Awakening spawned many new abolitionists -	humblebum	Mar 2012	#101
You do know that you just acknowledged that the Bible was written by men, right?	UnrepentantLiberal	Mar 2012	#48
Yes, Mathew, Mark, Luke, John, Moses, Paul, etc., were men. Very perceptive of you. nt	humblebum	Mar 2012	#75
You left out the monks that added scripture	UnrepentantLiberal	Mar 2012	#77
OYG! You don't actually believe that the Gospels were written by their namesakes, do you?	laconicsax	Mar 2012	#87
It just gets better and better, doesn't it? n/t	Goblinmonger	Mar 2012	#97
Most likely they were. Too much duplicity and questionable, biased research by skeptics	humblebum	Mar 2012	#102
Careful, humblebum, you are letting your hatred show...	cleanhippie	Mar 2012	#117
Now that was uncalled for. nt	humblebum	Mar 2012	#118
"Too much duplicity and questionable, biased research by skeptics and atheists."	cleanhippie	Mar 2012	#119
C'mon cleanhippie.	laconicsax	Mar 2012	#122
Oh My.	Aerows	Mar 2012	#134
And just which one of those is synonymous with hatred? nt	humblebum	Mar 2012	#125
Used in conjunction to smear and demean all atheists, you expose your hatred.	cleanhippie	Mar 2012	#126
And just where did I ever smear and demean all atheists? And there you go	humblebum	Mar 2012	#128
"Too much duplicity and questionable, biased research by skeptics and atheists."	cleanhippie	Mar 2012	#129
LOL!	laconicsax	Mar 2012	#120
He can't do that, as his "sources" are those "other ways of knowing."	cleanhippie	Mar 2012	#124
I hate to tell you, but much of your evidence against the Bible is drawn from"other ways of knowing"	humblebum	Mar 2012	#132
Yeah, you keep telling yourself that.	cleanhippie	Mar 2012	#133
The OT and NT each contain many rules as to how slaves are to get sold or purchased	Bluenorthwest	Mar 2012	#59
Yes, slavery was a normal part of virtually all cultures at that time. nt	humblebum	Mar 2012	#79
which as you've worked so hard to establish...	deacon_sephiroth	Mar 2012	#82
Then why does it condemn many dietary practices that were normal parts of society at	Bluenorthwest	Mar 2012	#60
The NT condemns no diet. nt	humblebum	Mar 2012	#78
nor slavery n/t	deacon_sephiroth	Mar 2012	#83
This lesson brought to you by the US govt and it's constitution (nt)	The Straight Story	Mar 2012	#46

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.