Slavery and religion

[Jake]

What exactly is "spirituality"? I've never understood the meaning of that word and find it to be such a vague and ambiguous term that it really doesn't describe anything at all. It seems to be used by people who don't follow the mainstream doctrines of the major religions, but also don't consider themselves atheist. It's as if they believe in something, but they're not sure exactly what and have even less support or guidance for their beliefs since they don't have any divinely inspired doctrine to turn to.

I used the term myself years ago, when I no longer considered myself Christian but also wasn't willing to call myself atheist either. It was a transitional description that I used but looking back it really didn't have any meaning to me. I'm not saying that everyone who claims to be "spiritual" is only in a transitional period from believing in god to becoming atheist, but I also don't think that it's a useful term as it doesn't clarify or explain anything.

Good question.

My guess is people use it similarly to the word "deist" - essentially, belief in a supreme being but with no prescribed dogma. Deist was the term I used for myself until I realized I couldn't even hold on to that level of supernatural belief.

Whether "spirituality" is different is up to someone who is "spiritual" to define, I suppose.

 

[Jake]

:popcorn:

 

[AKAK]

Honestly, I don't care what you believe. Internet mind readers are a dime a dozen. Have at it.

As for feeling insulted, you're the one throwing around insults so your choice to feel insulted is exactly that - your choice.

Have a nice day.

Oh, yes. I'm throwing insults around. How nice.

Would you like to play double jeopardy?

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I'll take "What makes poop hard" for 2,000, Alex.

 

[Bucklion]

The bible does not denounce slavery and even has rules for how to treat slaves. How do christians reconcile their faith with such beliefs? It is a simple question, and the answer is uncomfortable for christians. It is uncomfortable because there isn't a good way to rationalize the bible being the "word of god" with [Mark May] like how to treat your slaves.

It isn't "trolling" to ask a simple question about the bible, just because some people don't like the answer getting in the way of the happy face they put on it.

"Trolling" is attacking someone for asking a question you don't like, attaching straw men to them, or changing the subject. So far, that covers every response I've seen, including yours.

Sorry, I really want to keep from getting involved in this, but this is a fallacy. It is not the "word of God"...if it was, there would be no need for controversy as to interpretation...it would be "God said it, now do it". It is the word of man, written hundreds of years after Jesus lived, and not even universally agreed upon at the time as to content. So...to me personally, the simple answer would be "God didn't tell anyone how to treat slaves, the book was written by people who were writing a religious text at the time slave ownership was common practice". Saying people can't like or believe in any of the teachings of the Bible because there is slavery in it is akin to saying people can't like Huck Finn because of the "N&%$%# Jim" references, or can't like anything written in the South before 1865 if it mentions slavery. One can appreciate the lessons taught or learned while recognizing that the world people lived in day-to-day was vastly different back then in infinite ways.

 

[Buckeye513]

It is not the "word of God"

SO YOU ADMIT IT?!!?!?

 

[Gatorubet]

I'll take "What makes poop hard" for 2,000, Alex.

The question is "Who" makes poop hard. Quit changing the subject.

Paleo Pagan Goddess "Sheweis", found in France, 1897.

Early humans carved figurines to show how hard poop impacted them. Still unsettled is the question: which ancient Gods had an attribute that made the harvest poop hard? Adherents were said to pray to Nabbisko, Goddess of fragmented wheat.

 

[Bucklion]

SO YOU ADMIT IT?!!?!?

In the context I said it. God didn't write the Bible and drop it from the heavens to the best of my knowledge, and I don't think anyone in any denomination teaches that. If He had, the whole "faith" thing would be really overrated.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

The question is "Who" makes poop hard. Quit changing the subject.

Paleo Pagan Goddess "Sheweis", found in France, 1897.

Early humans carved figurines to show how hard poop impacted them. Still unsettled is the question: which ancient Gods had an attribute that made the harvest poop hard? Adherents were said to pray to Nabbisko, Goddess of fragmented wheat.

Who is Siva.

Siva was known to cause hard poop. She is, after all, said to be a destroyer.

I'll take hot blonds in lingerie for 1200.

 

[MaxBuck]

Paleo Pagan Goddess "Sheweis", found in France, 1897.

I wouldn't hit it.

 

[buckeyegrad]

What exactly is "spirituality"? I've never understood the meaning of that word and find it to be such a vague and ambiguous term that it really doesn't describe anything at all. It seems to be used by people who don't follow the mainstream doctrines of the major religions, but also don't consider themselves atheist. It's as if they believe in something, but they're not sure exactly what and have even less support or guidance for their beliefs since they don't have any divinely inspired doctrine to turn to.

I used the term myself years ago, when I no longer considered myself Christian but also wasn't willing to call myself atheist either. It was a transitional description that I used but looking back it really didn't have any meaning to me. I'm not saying that everyone who claims to be "spiritual" is only in a transitional period from believing in god to becoming atheist, but I also don't think that it's a useful term as it doesn't clarify or explain anything.

Not that you asked me, but as I study "spirituality" academically and will try to give an answer--although I recognize that there is no single definition that seems to fit everyone's conception of it.

Boiled down to its most fundamental roots, spirituality essentially is how we frame two aspects of the human condition: self-actualization and relation to the "other". Almost anything that falls into these two pursuits can be said to fall within spirituality's sphere--or at least touch it.

 

[buckeyegrad]

Sorry, I really want to keep from getting involved in this, but this is a fallacy. It is not the "word of God"...if it was, there would be no need for controversy as to interpretation...it would be "God said it, now do it". It is the word of man, written hundreds of years after Jesus lived, and not even universally agreed upon at the time as to content. So...to me personally, the simple answer would be "God didn't tell anyone how to treat slaves, the book was written by people who were writing a religious text at the time slave ownership was common practice". Saying people can't like or believe in any of the teachings of the Bible because there is slavery in it is akin to saying people can't like Huck Finn because of the "N&%$%# Jim" references, or can't like anything written in the South before 1865 if it mentions slavery. One can appreciate the lessons taught or learned while recognizing that the world people lived in day-to-day was vastly different back then in infinite ways.

I won't get into my disagreement with this statement, but I did just want to point out a factual error in your comments.

You state that the Bible was "written hundreds of years after Jesus lived". This is false. Every book of the OT pre-dates Jesus. As for the NT, it is almost universally accepted in academic circles that all books were written within 100 years of Jesus' death, and the most recent scholarship is suggesting that all of the NT books were written within 1-2 generations (i.e. 40-60 years) after his death.

 

[PlanetFrnd]

I won't get into my disagreement with this statement, but I did just want to point out a factual error in your comments.

You state that the Bible was "written hundreds of years after Jesus lived". This is false. Every book of the OT pre-dates Jesus. As for the NT, it is almost universally excepted in academic circles that all books were written within 100 years of Jesus' death, and the most recent scholarship is suggesting that all of the NT books were written within 1-2 generations (i.e. 40-60 years) after his death.

I concur: I remember from my studies that a range of years from Jesus' death for Mark, Luke and Matthew of 30-130 years, depending on the resource. I can't remember what I read on John, other than its authors were very different from the other three, and that it had some gnostic influences... I suppose that could date it later, but I can't remember...

...anyways, carry on

 

[buckeyegrad]

Redating the New Testament by J.A.T. Robinson is an excellent book for an overview of the scholarship on the NT's origins. In the work he takes issue with a number of the assumptions that have been made by form critics (and others in higher criticism) since the mid-19th century that date the NT too late (i.e. after 70 C.E.). What makes Robinson's work so valuable is that he doesn't argue from a fundamentalist point-of-view, but rather from the historical perspective of a liberal theologian.

 

[Bucklion]

I won't get into my disagreement with this statement, but I did just want to point out a factual error in your comments.

You state that the Bible was "written hundreds of years after Jesus lived". This is false. Every book of the OT pre-dates Jesus. As for the NT, it is almost universally accepted in academic circles that all books were written within 100 years of Jesus' death, and the most recent scholarship is suggesting that all of the NT books were written within 1-2 generations (i.e. 40-60 years) after his death.

Yeah yeah, OK, I meant the NT obviously, and I thought the SOPA blackout was that day, so...

The point still stands that God didn't write the book.