Philo,

I don’t doubt that many Christians were responsible for the abolition of slavery, but that’s beside my point.

<<The Torah and the Kor'an both endorce slavery.>>

Interesting how you say “the Torah” instead of ‘the Old Testament’. Why, it’s almost as if you’re keen to ditch the Old Testament and declare the Bible as a book that consists only of the New Testament.

A bit of a stretch for someone who rejects evolution, don’t you think?

You can’t do this though because, according to Christian theology, the god of the Old Testament if still the god of the New Testament - regardless of the insurmountable problem this presents for Christianity.

<<However there are more slaves in the world today than ever before in history used by atheists for monetry gain.>>

Only used by atheists, eh? Either way, you don’t think the fact that world is many times more populated now has anything to do with the numbers?

Anyway, this is a ridiculous rebuttal, because I’m not blaming Christianity for slavery, I simply mentioned that the Christian god never denounced it.

For your implicit laying-of-the-blame for a lot of today’s slavery on atheism to be valid, you would have to demonstrate how atheism says anything about the use of slaves and how the slavery in today’s world is a direct result of atheism.

You can’t, and so your thoughts and motives here are “unpure” and run contradictory to your claim earlier, that Christianity has the monopoly on “purity”.

<<Some of the products found on shop shelves in Australia are produced by slaves. Some brothel owners and clothing manufacturers in Australia import girls from Asia to work in Australia for mere board and basic keep.>>

And this is the direct result of atheism, is it? Atheists don’t even have a doctrine to follow, let alone one that endorses slavery. But if you’re not laying the blame on atheism, then your motioning of slave holders being atheists was as inconsequential as mentioning their hair colour.

<<The NT says every worker is worthy of his hire.>>

And yet it still doesn’t denounce slavery

Philo,

Many of the squires that propped their over sized backsides on the church pews each Sunday in the years ensuing the abolition of slavery were simultaneously presiding over the debased factory labour of small children (and their families).
The factory system flourished alongside "noble Christian ethics"- how do you reconcile that?
Here is an excerpt from a report written by John Fielden M.P. in 1836 on the treatment metered out to children procured from parish workhouses in London to "slave" in factories in the north:
"...cruelties of the most heartrending were practised upon the unoffending and friendless creatures who were then consigned to the charge of master-manufacturers; that they were harassed to the brink of death by excess of labour, that they were flogged, fettered, and tortured in the most exquisite refinement of cruelty; that they were, in many cases, starved to the bone while flogged to their work, and even in some instances, they were driven to commit suicide to evade the cruelties...."
These cruelties were "not" unusual - they were commonplace.

Speaks for itself, really

Christians and slaves

Interesting history

In terms of ethics

http://tiny.cc/e5wju

People have called themselves Christian over time yet have never read or been convicted by the teachings of Christ, to love and treat those around them as we would do to ourselves. It was from devout Christian conviction that has brought about social changes in the last 300 years to demonstrate care for the fatherless, sick, imprisoned and poor. Why? because it teaches love for all persons above all principles; even demonstrate love of one's enemies.

As stated here by atheists that, "Atheists does not have a doctrine" obviously anything that opposes theism is valad in their text book. It does not have an orthodox position on Ethics and human behaviour just irrational random negative rebutal of theology and Christ's teaching and character.

I would have thought that a held position on any subject is what defines a doctrine. Obviously they do not believe their own statements to be true.

Philo, you would be wrong.

>>I would have thought that a held position on any subject is what defines a doctrine.<<

doctrine n. A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group.

There is no groupthink among atheists. We do not share a body of principles. The only common denominator is that we do not believe there is a God.

Your "held position" may apply to one atheist, but not to the next. This is where it differs from religious belief, which specifically requires a unique dogma. Catholics have theirs, Muslims have theirs, Hindus have theirs - each religion is actually defined by that particular set of rules.

Atheists have never sat down together and said "hey, these are all the things that every one of us believes in". Each is responsible for their own ethical standards.

But you already know this, as you say:

>>[Atheism] does not have an orthodox position on Ethics and human behaviour<<

But you are again mistaken, here:

>>...just irrational random negative rebutal of theology and Christ's teaching and character.<<

It is a rational, specific, positive rebuttal of the evidence for God's existence.

None of which, of course, has anything to do with Christ's teaching, or character. It is possibly that he was a very nice chap. And one who would most probably be horribly upset with the activities that have been undertaken "in his name" for the past two thousand years.

And you might want to think this through again...

>>...devout Christian conviction... teaches love for all persons above all principles; even demonstrate love of one's enemies.<<

Tell that to the Northern Irish, next time you're there. Their demonstration of love for their enemies often involved shooting off their kneecaps.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/kneecapping-of-14yearold-causes-outcry-476312.html