Aslan wrote
Why do you think it is wrong/immoral? On what basis are you making this moral judgment?

You said: "slavery...in a absolutist moral system is unjustifiable under any circumstance"

How so? In Biblical Christianity, absolutes come from God. If God allowed the practice of a specific form of slavery (where slave owners had to obey strict rules), then how can you say it is "unjustifiable"?

Thank you Aslan that is all I wanted, for you grant that your God allowed slavery and that you as an individual think slavery, ownership of another human being is OK within your absolutist moral system. Enough said.

Personally I'm a meta-ethical relativist so I cannot argue the case for a absolutists including slavery but I imagine they do -just like murder probably on a combination of the Golden Rule and other moral considerations- for it would be hard to think that they wouldn't include it, others may wish to push their case.

As to your statement that absolutes come from your God well even as far back as Socrates and the Euthyphro humans knew that relying on devine moral statments is problematic I suggest you look it up.

Neo,

I have never described myself as an "ethical relativist", but, I certainly feel empathy with that camp. Moreover, I feel moral issues can present themselves "not" absolutely in different times and places against conflicting ethical dilemmas: e.g., stealing to save a live. (Aslan, I don't wish revisit sickening scenarios, please.)

I am comfortable with idea for the concurency of a favoured and degraded propositions: e.g., the Big Bang and the Solid State universe. Consequently, perhaps, I am a Freethinker, rather than an atheist. Herein, God might exist, but the probability, based on the evidence is very low: Something like the proverbial toaster orbiting Pluto.

Religious works do have value to sociologists and kin. In this stream, I have noted Moses organising the Hebrews - a somewhat similar organising event as occurred with Mohammed. Likewise, the evolution of Yehweh from a volcano spirit, to a henotheist tribal god to a monotheist god, shows a rough parallel to the progress from animist spirits to god of the region to Emperor workship in Japan.

Aslan,

My presumption is based on the feeling that you might be less willing to reject Christian Scripture than other histographical works. Herein, I am not talking about scholarship "inside" the shell. You are treating Scripture, as "a special case".

My responses,

I will be offline for a while, but, look fowrd to skimming the comment.

Aslan wrote "How so? In Biblical Christianity, absolutes come from God. If God allowed the practice of a specific form of slavery (where slave owners had to obey strict rules), then how can you say it is "unjustifiable"?"

Strict rules like when it's okay to beat your slave to death.

Aslan, I am a litle surprised that no-one has yet challenged your "syllogism".

>>1. "all beliefs need to be tentative"
2. "all beliefs need to be tentative" is a belief.
3. Therefore, the belief that "all beliefs need to be tentative" should be held tentatively.<<

So far, so good. I see no contradiction in the above conclusion. But on what basis do you presume to change the rules by introducing a second phase to the syllogism?

>>4. A tentative belief may later be accepted or rejected.
5. If the belief that "all beliefs need to be tentative" is later rejected, then obviously all beliefs need not be held tentatively.
6. If the belief that "all beliefs need to be tentative" is later accepted, then that belief is no longer tentative!<<

For one thing, this argumentation does not conform to the rules of the syllogism, which demands two premises and a conclusion. The construction you have used is:

4. Premise
5. Postulation 1
6. Postulation 2

There is no reason that you cannot rebuild this into another pair of real syllogisms, by positing 3 & 4 and 3 & 6 as the pairs. But one of the problems with this is that you haven't let us in on the "rules" under which a belief can be accepted or rejected. Do you intend that acceptance/rejection causes the belief to change into something else? Or if, after acceptance/rejection it retains its status as a belief, why can it not also retain its status as being tentative?

Or was it just a playful bit of sophistry?

Aslan and Pericles,

Thank you Pericles.

My understanding also is that a syllogism must have two premises and a conclusion, and, be composed of three propositions, “no more, no less” (Popkin and Stroll). At most mine is an isolated affirmo (A) statement. Moreover, as Pericles correctly points out, I had no intention of framing a syllogism. It just was not on my mind. Put simply, I was saying we should continue to question.

Also, I would say re: “2. ‘all beliefs need to be tentative’ ” is a “tentative” belief. Beliefs can be tentatively accepted or tentatively rejected. Hence, a belief that is rejected now can be accepted “tentatively” in the future, then, latter still rejected. The cycle could go on for a million times.

Lastly Aslan, I do see that the statement, “all beliefs need to be tentatively” is itself tentative. Then again, I could use a Zeno Paradox to demonstrate, it will take an infinite number of steps to reach the front door.

If you hold your acceptance in the Bible as being merely tentative, this course opens up a whole universe of remarkable possibilities to you. Herein, you can form a null hypothesis and throw a multitude of scientific and sociological disciplines to test your belief and challenge the Scriptures, unshackled. This “higher” standard is applied generally and effectively in truly academic disciplines. Otherwise, one remains arrested.

SLAVERY:
The principles of Christianity are built upon the revelation of Christ, his words, attitudes and character. What Jesus Christ had to say differed from the national law of Moses, which defined negative behaviour e.g. "Thou shalt not kill", which is what law defines; compared to Jesus Christ who taught positive principles like, "Love and forgive your enemy". That is behaviour above the acceptable norm. The Bible record is a development of revelation, and writers did not have all the facts we have today. In its time it was relative, and the laws concerning slavery in Israel were put in place to protect the excessive abuse of slaves as practised by other nations i.e. Egypt from which they themselves had been slaves, working seven days with no days off work. Hence the introduction of the Sabbath day of rest, where they or their slaves were forbidden to work.

Slavery in its day employed and fed people in a disciplined manner that would otherwise starve, or plunder to survive. It was the compassion and sense of Christian teaching that all men are equal before God that ultimately denounced slavery as unchristian.

(From my earlier post) "For example the abolition of slavery occurred simultaneously with a dramatic Christian Revival that was contemporary with William Wilberforce, and the dramatic spiritual conversion of the slave trader - John Newton who wrote the words of "Amazing Grace". The thinking of the time was saturated with Paul's Theology that; in the Church there is neither male of female, slave nor free, as all persons were equally loved by God. Harriet Beacher Stowe writings of "Uncle Tom's Cabin" summed up the sentiments of the slaves and impacted the consciences of those unjustly treating slaves as tools or animals of labour. A proper teaching of the theology of the Christian NT with passion as a message from our Creator has and will change a society."