Slavery was not eliminated in this country until secularism had attained an ideological foothold. Certainly, many of the leaders of the abolitionist movement were religious. But, although they most likely were not aware of it, they were acting on humanistic, rather than religious impulses.

Can we therefore assume that Dennis Rader was acting on sadistic, rather than religious impulses?  Or that those who propagated horrors ostensibly in the name of Christ were no acting on religious impulses, either?  Sauce for goose and all that ...

This movement, which swept across Europe at the end of the seventeenth and into the eighteenth centuries, profoundly affected the men who founded this nation. They founded the first governmental system in history entirely free from the shackles of religion. Thus did the secular realm enter American lives. Only then did the abolitionists come on the scene. By no stretch of the imagination can religious impulses or devotion be cited as causative factors.

Of course, those same Enlightenment-affected Founders didn’t do a very good job in and of themselves of getting rid of slavery either, either as a nation or as individuals.

I’d have to say the the verse Warbi quoted clearly places God’s endorsement on slavery.

Actually, it’s an extension of turning the other cheek, and being loving to others, regardless of who they are and what they’ve done. 

The full passage, in fact, continues:

For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God. 20But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. 21To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.

In other words, if you’re virtuous, and you’re mistreated, it’s to your credit in God’s eyes.  That makes a certain measure of sense, and ties to the whole cheek-turning thing. 

So the passage is not about “slavery is good,” any more than the preceding section is how autocracy is good, or the next paragraph is how oppression of women is a good thing.  Rather, they are aoubt how you should react to such things when they are done to you.

Again, you can argue that submitting to slavery (or cheek slapping) is not a good thing, and I’d have a hard time arguing with you on it, though both why and how one reacts is also open to some discussion.  But I really don’t understand how someone could argue that the passage is in support of the slavery of humans, unless (a) one had an interest in being a slave-holder, or (b) one wants to tar Christianity as supportive of slavery.

Literalism and social absolutism seem not to be such a good thing…

Agreed.

But then the secular argument would be they don’t count because they are still inside their mother-whose sole job, if I may, is to protect them, not erase them from existence.

I didn’t know you were all over this blog sowing seeds of lunacy, I figured it was only in the eminent domain thread. Chalk one up for Karen, she’s like the energizer bunny of the conservative movement - if the bunny had a screw loose, and was on fire, and smelled like cat pee. By the way, just because it grows inside you does not mean it is now your duty to nurture it otherwise tapeworms, hemmorhoids, and tumors would have advocacy groups.

By the way, just because it grows inside you does not mean it is now your duty to nurture it otherwise tapeworms, hemmorhoids, and tumors would have advocacy groups.

You have nerve accusing me of sowing seeds of lunacy when you sit here and compare a developing human fetus/embryo to tapeworms, ‘rrhoids and tumors?

Again, this would be amusing if it weren’t so absolutely inane and devoid of any logic.  But then I might be inclined to believe YOU are simply an overgrown ‘rrhoid who probably did cause your mother a lot more grief than you were worth.

I am officially shocked at how far pro-choicers are willing to take their argument in favor of abortion.  Comparing them to parasites and ‘rrhoids? Unbelievable.  Eric, until you grow a uterus and can carry a living child inside you, you have no business comparing said child to simple medical pathologies or nuisances.

While I agree that there are a few fanatical pro-lifers out there that seem to think they can take the law in their own hands-I don’t see how you can blame only Christianity for this.  There are MANY religions (Islam, Hinduism, Judaism) opposed to abortion, all of which play a role in the pro-life organizations.

Of the Pro-lifers in the US, the overwhelming majority are Christian.  Fanatics, there are many, radicals are less common. I notice that you only picked the one idea with a small number of people to rebut. 

This really is a tired argument, warbi.  Simply because the bible ( an historical document) speaks of slaves and masters (written during a time when slaves were common and merely a fact of life) does not mean the whole of Christendom supports slavery.  I mean honestly, how can you insinuate that with a straight face? Is your drive to discredit Christianity (using weak arguments I might add) stronger than your common sense?

First of all, ideas don’t occur in a vacuum, they happen within a social, political, and historical framework.  Secondly, I wasn’t necessarily insinuating anything.  If you look at the very beginning of the post, you see that it was addressed specifically to DOF- I was merely playing off something he had said in a previous post.  Finally, this thread is about the “goodness” of Christians vs non-Christians, not about discrediting Christianity.  What a person believes about a religion (and not just Christianity) is seldom swayed by logic or evidence.  A person who wishes to believe in myths and superstitions will continue to do so no matter how much another might argue.  My point is that individual Christians as well as Christianity as a whole have been responsible for some fairly egregious acts of hate and slaughter- nothing more, nothing less.

I notice that you only picked the one idea with a small number of people to rebut.

I may be tired. But I am not following this comment.  What do you mean?

Finally, this thread is about the “goodness� of Christians vs non-Christians, not about discrediting Christianity.

Could have fooled me.

My point is that individual Christians as well as Christianity as a whole have been responsible for some fairly egregious acts of hate and slaughter- nothing more, nothing less.

And you sit there and tell yourself, and me, you are not out to discredit Christianity with this topic?  Sir, a lot of non Christians have done heinous things, including waged wars, slaughtered innocents and oppressed races of people. Namely Ghengis Kahn, Ayatolla Khomeini, Polpot, Saddam Hussein, Alexander the Great, etc.  Christians don’t hold the monopoly on those things.  I guess I don’t see any point in constantly using Christians and Christianist as a whipping post when it comes to horrible acts perpetrated on mankind when there are a plethora of legitimate ways to criticize Christianity-intelligently and intellectually-with a clear perspective of their REAL stain on mankind and their own self-inflicted wounds.  But then THAT would take real critical thinking, huh? Not just knee jerking and generalizing.

Hmmm. I figured it would be the cat pee comment that got your knickers all in a twist, live and learn. I don’t understand your shock, it’s an obvious comparison - all four ‘grow’ inside a human body, all but the hemmorhoid derives sustinance from the host while contributing nothing quantifiably beneficial (ie: is parasitic), and the tapeworm as well as the fetus is a life form. Just because you are emotionally attached to your fetus and not the tapeworm does not nullify my comparison. If a woman decides she does not want to bring a fetus to term she can have it removed just like the tapeworm, hemmorhoid, and tumor.

Maybe you find the comparison outrageous but it isn’t innacurate.

And you sit there and tell yourself, and me, you are not out to discredit Christianity with this topic?  Sir, a lot of non Christians have done heinous things, including waged wars, slaughtered innocents and oppressed races of people. Namely Ghengis Kahn, Ayatolla Khomeini, Polpot, Saddam Hussein, Alexander the Great, etc.  Christians don’t hold the monopoly on those things.  I guess I don’t see any point in constantly using Christians and Christianist as a whipping post when it comes to horrible acts perpetrated on mankind when there are a plethora of legitimate ways to criticize Christianity-intelligently and intellectually-with a clear perspective of their REAL stain on mankind and their own self-inflicted wounds.  But then THAT would take real critical thinking, huh? Not just knee jerking and generalizing.

Not at all.  To be honest, I hold a pretty dim view of humanity in general- not just Christians.  Christians just tend to be more hypocritical and sanctimonious about their actions than others.  I never said that Christians were worse than others, they are just not as well-off as they would like to portray themselves.  You were the one that said that no one who believed in God would do something evil.  I merely offered evicence to the contrary.  Evidence that shows individuals as well as “herd” movements doing nasty things to fellow humans.  Are their good Christians?  Of course- hell, my daughter is at Bible camp right now.  Are their bad Christians and have atrocities been committed in Christianity’s name?  Also, yes.  The point is that atrocities will be done by Christian and non-Christian alike.  Just because someone professes a belief in a supernatural puppetmaster, does not mean that said person won’t commit an “evil” act.

Eric, does anyone take you seriously in your life?

This argument is absurd.  None of the items you mentioned develop in to a human life. None of them can think, feel, breathe, cry, touch, love, experience pain, etc.  A ‘rrhoid is an enlarged blood vessel-devoid of any emotion and will NEVER qualify as a human being. A tapeworm is a parasitic lifeform, lowest of the low, incapable of ever experiencing emotion.  A tumor is a growth within the human body that may or may not cause pathology, but which can never be classified as human.

Your comparison is inane and you know it.  Any woman can choose to remove her fetus. Of this you are absolutely correct. But unlike removing the ‘rrhoid, tumor or taking medication to clear up her tapeworm infection-she is, when the day is over, her own offspring’s murderer. Nothing more and nothing less.  She is not merely ridding her body of a nuisance. She is ridding her body of her own CHILD.

Eric, I may be afraid I am asking you to do this because you may not like the answer your own mother gives you, but next time you talk to your mom ask her if she looked on you as nothing more than a medical nuisance to be gotten rid of when she was carrying you in her body.  Ask her if she loved you and felt it her responsibility to care for you-even when you were unborn and moving inside her.

Then, we’ll talk.

Now, on a side note-are you having problems loading the eminant domain thread?  I responded to you and although my comment appeared in the sidebar and I see you responded to me-it is not showing up in the thread itself and the response I am getting is that my comment “can not be accepted at this time”. Can you actually see my response to you in which I explain about the “fat cat governor"in my state who released the mentally ill people who became homeless?

Christians just tend to be more hypocritical and sanctimonious about their actions than others. 

We agree on that.

You were the one that said that no one who believed in God would do something evil.  I merely offered evicence to the contrary.

Then you wasted your time because I did not say no one who “believed” in God would do something evil.  I said NO man who is truly choosing to know God and be close to Him would do something evil.  It would go against all that he is striving to accomplish.  Maybe that’s a hard concept for you to entertain...and I don’t blame you. You are a self admitted atheist. You have absolutely no idea what it means to TRULY be seeking God.  Any evidence you think you supplied was for naught.  I won’t argue that many professed believers in God have done evil things.

The point is that atrocities will be done by Christian and non-Christian alike.  Just because someone professes a belief in a supernatural puppetmaster, does not mean that said person won’t commit an “evilâ€? act.

yes, I agree. Saying you believe in God does not a good person make.

I’m glad we clarified this.

Okay, I can go along with that!

No, something does appear to be wrong with the ED thread, but it is beta software.

The only reason you believe my analogy is inane is because you have made the value judgement that a human embryo is more valuable than other forms of life. It is true that I do not feel any desire to campaign for the rights of parasites but I guess I am trying to see if you have the ability to understand that not everybody feels the same way you do. To you abortion is murder, to me it is a medical procedure. This disconnect occurs because I think you belive that life begins at conception, while I believe that life only begins after birth. Take the dollar in my pocket as an example: it has the potential to become $55 million dollars if I play the lottery and win, but unless that happens it is only a dollar. An embryo may have the potential to become a human being but until it is born it is only a mass of subdividing cells with potential.

As far as people taking me seriously, it happens all the time. It’s a lot easier when you can see on my face if I’m joking or not. Does everyone? Of course not, but on the whole I’d guess somewhere in the 60% to 70% range.

Regarding my mother I know her answer without needing to ask, but how does her care and nurturing for a child she wanted make it wrong for the woman who does not want a child to abort? It’s too bad we can’t have Ed Gein ask his mother the same question. I bet he’d get a different answer than I would.

Karen said: I only argue it as a woman and a mother who believes the end result of any abortion is always the same no matter how you slice it or spin it: the woman is left the murderer of her own offspring and must live with that knowledge for the rest of her life.

If Christian ideals (societal ones even) included talking about sex, teaching contraceptive methods or even encouraging same sex couplings as a way to avoid unwanted pregnancies, you might have my sympathy when a fetus was aborted because I would say the aborter had options and knowledge.

Too many decisions regarding conception are left to legal rapists (only one of the partners makes the decision), mothers farming the welfare systems or young fertile dunces convinced that being a parent is easy, or if not; easily abandoned. Until we cease to view child-free couples as failing, we will have couples who are having children primarily because it’s expected of them and “real” men will continue to feel they have something they need to prove, (not to mention what “real” women feel they should be doing.)

Wanted, planned-for children make great additions to families: Unwanted, accidental ones not so much.

You know, it might not be a bad idea to require an adult to live with a same sex partner for several years before they’re allowed to live with an opposite sex one whom they can make stuff with.

The only reason you believe my analogy is inane is because you have made the value judgement that a human embryo is more valuable than other forms of life.

Ok, now let’s think about this. You asserted that a human embryo/fetus is nothing more important than a tapeworm, tumor or ‘rrhoid.  Of those 3 only the tapeworm can be considered “a form of life”. Right?  Yes, I unequivocally assert that a human being is more valuable than a tapeworm.  Are you asserting that it is not?

I am trying to see if you have the ability to understand that not everybody feels the same way you do.

Of course I realize not everyone feels the same way I do.

To you abortion is murder, to me it is a medical procedure.

You want to view it as a sterile, nonconsequential medical procedure. It is both a medical procedure and murder. Murder is the deliberate ending of a life-a human fetus or embryo is alive before it is aborted. The procedure is medical one in the case of abortion. Reason and logic, my friend...try to follow them and connect the dots.

This disconnect occurs because I think you belive that life begins at conception, while I believe that life only begins after birth.

As I have stated before, I am pregnant with twins. My babies are moving inside me as we speak. I have seen them on ultrasound kicking one another, sucking their thumbs and one was even blowing bubbles. I assure you they are very much alive. Have you ever seen an ultrasound performed?  My babies are alive now as they will be when I deliver them. They certainly aren’t “dead” as evidenced by the heartbeat my OB hears at each visit.

An embryo may have the potential to become a human being but until it is born it is only a mass of subdividing cells with potential.

Abortions can not be performed until after the 6th week of conception.  I had an ultrasound at 6 weeks to determine if there was more than one embryo.  I assure you they were not “clumps of cells subdividing with potential”.  They both had brains, beating hearts and one was waving his arms around.  They were as alive then as they are this moment.  And I loved them then as I do now.

Regarding my mother I know her answer without needing to ask, but how does her care and nurturing for a child she wanted make it wrong for the woman who does not want a child to abort?

This is precisely the point I am trying to make.  Wether the baby/embryo/fetus is wanted or not is IRRELEVANT.  The relevant argument here is wether the fetus/embryo is alive or not.  If your mother states to you that you were alive inside her and she considered you a human being even before she delivered you-not merely a medical nuisance like a tumor-then you have not a leg to stand on in your argument that the embryo/fetus is not living and therefore can not be killed.  Just as you were alive and she cared for you-so does every developing human being deserve the same consideration-at the very, very least.  Just because a woman does not want the baby does not mean the abortion she chooses to have is not selective murder.

Brock, what does this discussion have to do with Christian ideals?

Wanted, planned-for children make great additions to families: Unwanted, accidental ones not so much.

Wow. What a small minded, ignorant comment.  Unwanted children do not make great additions to families? Tell that to the thousands of couples who have adopted said unwanted children.  For my own experienc-my son was an unwanted pregnancy. I had him when I was 18 years old. He is 14 now and has been the anchor in my life and my best friend.  My family would not be the same without him. He is as we speak helping his Grandpa build a pole barn and keeps his Grandma chuckling daily. He may have been an unplanned child and perhaps in the beginning of my pregnancy I did not want him-he has turned out to be the light of all our lives.  And to think I could have killed him to spare myself the inconvenience of raising him and giving him LIFE.

Wow, This conversation has veered way off course. I probably should have chimned in early, since this is a field I’ve done rather extensive studies in, but I have a herniated disc and my back has been killing me for days. (So forgive me If I seem crabby at any point.)

In regards to what makes a serial killer and possible influences of religion and western culture:  All of these things may play a small part, but not in the formative way that you might think. For one of these monsters to develop, you need two things.

1 - The have to be wired wrong from the start. Serial killers are envariably socio paths with no ability to feel guilt. Right and wrong to them are nothing more than abstract concepts. They have no empathy towards other human beings.

2 - They need to be somewhat independent. They have to have a source of income and a fair amount of free time. (This may be why the US has the most of these creatures. Our culture breeds free time and urges us to “get a hobby.”

Once those two things are established, outside sources may come into play. Misunderstood religous beliefs, poor gender models from childhood, even a desire to become famous. But those firts two conditions must be met first.

As a writer of mysteries and thrillers, I have always found the subject fascinating. At one point in my life, I had intended to join the Behavioral Sciences Unit at the FBI. My research on the topic has been more extensive that the research most of you here have put into your religous beliefs.

Hell, I think I’m one of the few people on Earth who could give you an accurate profile of Jack The Ripper. Hint - Every single theory you’ve heard in the press has been wrong.

Karen said: Wow. What a small minded, ignorant comment.

Sorry, but I think you took the “smells like ass” award with this gem in the “15 year old boy suffers from menstrual-like conditions” thread:

Suffice it to say-men and women fit together naturally and beautifully. There’s nothing natural or beautiful about a man and a man together, no matter how you try to spin it or slice it by trying to point out other species that may or may not be exhibiting what you consider homosexual behavior.

Loving (or making love to) someone and wanting to live with that person, no matter if they are the same gender IS beautiful though not so in your bigoted reality.

Taking your childbirth is a noble and glorious ordeal mindset to it’s logical conclusion, I have to wonder why you even accept adoption as an alternative. I fear you would view it as a cop-out.

But don’t change the meaning of my words. I didn’t advocate death over adoption and I speak of unwanted as in the family that raises the child. Adoption is a positive alternative in that scenario.

He may have been an unplanned child and perhaps in the beginning of my pregnancy I did not want him-he has turned out to be the light of all our lives.  And to think I could have killed him to spare myself the inconvenience of raising him and giving him LIFE.

How sweeeet.  I got all weepy there for a second. . .  and then I remembered how the State had to physically remove me from my biological mother’s home because she was so negligent and abusive that it almost killed my sister and I.

And then I remember all the time that I spent in fosterhomes, and the long-term psychological damage that that caused for my sister, myself, and my eventual adoptive parents.

And then I -also- remember all the statistics about drug dependence rates and incarceration rates for the children who spend that much time in the system, and I realize that I’m not an example of the results of fosterage, so much as an exception to the rule.

And then I remember, finally, the bullshit that my not very religiously observant parents had to put up with from ‘good Christian’ folk who suggested that our familial bond must somehow be less, or not quite ‘real’, because it wasn’t a ‘blood’ tie.

I find it pretty damn amusing that the ‘good Christian’ folk who make these kind of suggestions, while simultaneously citing adoption as the answer to abortion, aren’t the ones who leaped in and saved my ass.  Nope, they were too busy having ‘real’ families to be bothered with little ole me.

No, it was my real parents, the ones who adopted me, who saved my ass.

There is one distinct benefit to my experiences, however.  When someone tries to sell me a load of sentimental crap, I’m pretty comfortable telling them to take a flying leap at the floor of the Grand Canyon.

On a side note, Eric, I find your intimation that my ‘roids are somehow equivalent to some nasty tapeworm, or fetus, quite offensive.  I’ll thank you to keep a civil tongue in your head, or I’ll be reporting you to the Roid Anti-Defamation League.

Karen said: Suffice it to say-men and women fit together naturally and beautifully.

If you believe men in women should only be together to have children (otherwise “natural” has nothing to do with the venture) then I understand my life’s missive. Still, I will unnaturally abstain from fulfilling it.

And what nowiser said.

On the drive home it occurred to me that I have better things to do than debate Eminent Domain (I don’t own property so don’t have a dog in that fight) or the OT abortion topic (I can’t convice you and you aren’t convincing me). Instead of prattling on and on and making no headway I would rather invest my time (the few hours I have between work and more work) doing something productive. just a thought though before I go: if you insist on calling women who have had abortions murderers try not to be so indignant when someone questions the tenets of your religious beliefs. I personally find calling someone a murderer FAR more offensive than pointing out the hypocrisy in a major religion.

***Dave: But I really don’t understand how someone could argue that the passage is in support of the slavery of humans, unless (a) one had an interest in being a slave-holder, or (b) one wants to tar Christianity as supportive of slavery.

You’re right, ***Dave - that passage by itself is using slavery as an example of a social situation in which one might be mistreated. 

However, it does not present slavery itself as mistreatment.

Many places in the bible the powerful are taken to task for their mistreatment of those under their care, yet slavery itself does not surface does not surface in that context.

In fact, nowhere in the bible is slavery condemned even though the subject does often come up.  In a book presented as The Word Of God it is fair to conclude that means slavery is “OK”.

I have no interest in tarring Christianity with an endorsement of slavery, and I do not know a single Christian today who believes slavery is good or morally neutral.  Yet if the bible is the word of god, it pretty much stamps slavery with god’s approval as explained above. 

Today even Christians who read the bible literally quickly start talking about “historical context” and doing a remarkable imitation of a sputtering motorboat engine when confronted with biblical acceptance of the terrible and obvious evil of slavery. 

KPatrickGlover, I hope you will do a separate post on Jack The Ripper someday.  That sounds interesting.  (And I hope your back feels better soon.)

I wonder if part of the reason Africa has a low occurance of serial murderers is due to the amount of genocide/tribal cleansing (if that’s even the right descriptions) and other violence is attracting those who would lean to serial murder.  Providing an outlet, as was mentioned earlier. 

Brock said: If you believe men in women should only be together to have children (otherwise “natural� has nothing to do with the venture) then I understand my life’s missive

So I’m not the only one who read “love = straight sex” in Karen’s comment. 

Karen: Suffice it to say-men and women fit together naturally and beautifully. There’s nothing natural or beautiful about a man and a man together, no matter how you try to spin it or slice it by trying to point out other species that may or may not be exhibiting what you consider homosexual behavior.

DOF:

KPatrickGlover, I hope you will do a separate post on Jack The Ripper someday.  That sounds interesting.  (And I hope your back feels better soon.)

I’ve been working on that for some time, but unsure of where such an article should find a home. Do you think it would fit in here at SEB?

I’ve been working on that for some time, but unsure of where such an article should find a home. Do you think it would fit in here at SEB?

You had me at “Every single theory you’ve heard in the press has been wrong.”

Karen, for chrissesake get over yourself.  I speak as a mother of two children who STILL supports a woman’s right to abortion.  Call it removing a tumor, call it murder, whatever you like—SHE HAS THAT RIGHT, and it’s none of your business what she does with her body any more than it’s her business what you do with yours.

I have done all the ultrasound things, felt my babies move inside me, and STILL didn’t see them as fully human until they had actually developed into functioning humans.  If I hadn’t wanted them, I would have aborted them, no doubt about it, and the world would have been better for my not inflicting unwanted children on it.  Did you know that it’s been statistically determined that the legalization of abortion has caused the US crime rate to drop?  Read Freakonomics by Steven D. Levitt.

Just being a mother doesn’t entitle you to speak for all mothers, or dismiss the arguments of people who aren’t mothers.  You’re probably all excited about being pregnant, and that’s great, but don’t put on that crown and play queen just yet.

I said: If you believe men in women should only be together to have children.

Sorry for the Freudian slip there and just to make it clear, once men are IN women, they might as well feel free to make whatever they want, even if it’s just an orgasm.

Where the hell have you been GeekMom. No soup for you!