Yes, Santa--The fight was also within Christianity. But the guiding principles were set out by Paul and Timothy in the book of Philemon, where they plead that an escaped slave, Onesimus, be treated as a Christian brother, and make the point that Christians owe so much more than the value of an escaped slave.

You are forgetting that Christians did not see Africans as fellow christians even if they were baptized. The funny thing about religion is you can usually find citations for any stance or point of view. In the case of the Slaveholders they used the curse of Ham and the Christian duty to convert heathens as excuses for exploitation.

@SantaClausowitz:

Given the number of Church Fathers who were African, it's hard to suggest that "the curse of Ham" as applied to Africans was anything but convenient innovation. And the idea of converting people so as to exploit them isn't internally consistent. These are views that can be believed only if there is enough monetary incentive to find a reason to justify them. The slave trade led to these views, not the other way around.

Certainly, I don't mean to deny or hand wave the slave trade away. Merely, I don't think it's enough to point out that the "funny thing about religion is you can usually find citations for any stance or point of view." After all, that fact isn't limited to religion, nor is it a particularly useful way of thinking about a religion.

Oh my... O.O

So much to go through...

Well, before I get to the main body of Obi Criticism--which for the record I don't mind, though when it's something like 4 posters vs. me and I'm clattering away on my keyboard in the middle of class, that doesn't work well...luckily everyone was too busy trying to figure out Hegelian Artistic Criticism to notice, lol--I WILL say...

@Those Claiming Marx Wasn't An Anti-Semite:

Just as an aside, the professor who's class I was in this morning while we were having this fun chat about Christians and slavery and whatnot, is a fan of Marx, AND had written a book on Marxism and its perceived effect on African-American literature and criticism...

And he agrees "The Jewish Question" IS rather Anti-Semitic and that Marx himself was an Anti-Semite.

So, again--

It's open to debate, yes...

But I'm providing here not only a Marx scholar, but a FAN of Marx (so it's not just my anti-Marx/Marxism bias) that says he WAS an Anti-Semite, and that "On the Jewish Question" IS Anti-Semitic, and again, this is someone who will admit this fault of Marx's and actually LIKES Marx, having devoted a great chunk of his scholastic life to studying Marxist criticism.

So, take that for what you will.

*whose

So Marx wanted equality for all - except jews (even though he himself was a jew)? I'm not saying that he wasn't against the religion, i'm not even going to argue with his stance on the culture, but a man who wants equality for all is not going to be an anti semite, especially considering he himself was a jew

Yes.
A man who wants equality for all.

...

Except all those wealthy factory owners and government leaders he was advocating being overthrown...and the Jews...

Mr. Socrates, an essential problem:

Just because someone SAYS they want "equality for fall" doesn't mean they actually DO want equality for all; after all, necessarily, if some are better off than others, you'll have to treat people unequally to get them equal at all, as you'll have to take from the rich and give to the poor.

Hence one of the great problems with Marxism--

If you're ALREADY doing well...well, you're going to get roundly screwed by a system that, by all measures, will treat you unfairly and take away part of your wealth and redistribute it as well as impose limitations on your viability.

THAT is not equal treatment of others; it's preferential treatment for some over others.

Also...I'm not buying "equality for all" when, again, there's a decent argument to be made that he was an Anti-Semite.

Arguing someone wants "Equality for all" when they're a racist or a bigot is a bit like saying to twist the Orwell a bit, "All people should be equal...but some people are less equal than others, because I personally dislike them."

He wanted them to be equal with everyone else, wanting to overthrow oppressors is not bad. Taking from the rich to give to the poor is not doing anything wrong - it is writing the wrongs of society! And equality obviously involves different treatment of different people based on circumstances - saying that is wrong is akin to complaining that some people are receiving life saving emergency treatment and your not - even though the only reason you are not is because you are in perfectly fine health. By that you mean it is going to change the system which has led to many people living in unfair conditions to a system where you don't have people with billions of dollars on one street and then people that can't afford food on another? To say that Marx did not want equality for all in the end is nonsensical, and I don't think there has been a decent argument articulated to say otherwise.

Oh Orwell was a real twat, and in my mind very overrated as an author (animal farm was funny and I do find the some are less equal than others quote amusing). But yeah he's not a racist and a bigot, and did want equality for all but meh.

What's more, I find the idea of everyone being necessarily equal rather dehumanizing, actually...

After all--if everyone is completely equal, it would seem as if that eliminates one of humanity's most brilliant features, namely, its striving towards excellence and those who achieve excellence.

Equality of OPPORTUNITY *IS* something to strive for--and I vote for such measures each time they come up, because, yes, everyone SHOULD have as close to the same sort of opportunity to realize their socio-economic dreams as possible...but even here, with something I like, there's a problem, as it's fallacious to think that people of wildly different social, economic, and, perhaps most importantly of all, cultural backgrounds will ever be completely equalized in terms of opportunity; that's simply not how humanity works. If you're White, you'll likely have an easier time connecting and dealing with some people in society, and have advantages there, and have disadvantages in other areas; the same goes if you're Latino, Black, Asian, Jewish, Arab, Indian, Turkish, or what have you.

People have a tendency, for example, to naturally be inclined to deal more favorably with those that they have something in common with; after all, business relationships work partially on the idea of trust on a VERY sensitive issue--someone's economic assets--and so a shared background can help secure such a trust.

As such, if you're, say, Latino, you may well have an easier time doing business within heavily Latino communities or with Latino businessmen than, say, White businessmen, as there may be a shared cultural background in the case of a former and a cultural disconnect or--considering US/Latin American relations--even a cultural stigma and bias in the case of the latter.

The same goes for other races and regions--there's a reason, after all, that American business schools now teach not only Mandarin, but Chinese culture as well...

They KNOW that if their graduates can not only speak the language, but have way to try and culturally connect with Chinese businessmen, they have a greater chance of success in that region.

We may say the same thing for regional, political, and religious backgrounds as well:

Doubtless, if you're planning on trying to do business in Texas or Alabama, you'll have an easier time if you are Southern, Republican, and/or Christian yourself, than if you are, say, from the North or a liberal or an atheist.

So even the GOOD idea of Equality of Opportunity runs into a serious snag that limits it:

You'll never get Opportunity fully equalized--as opportunities largely spring from political, racial, regional, religious, and cultural backgrounds and the ability to utilize those assets to your advantage--as long as human beings HAVE different political, racial, regional, religious, and cultural backgrounds.

You'd need a Monolithic Model of Humanity where EVERYONE has the same standardized political, regional, religious, cultural, and racial background...

And THAT sounds quite a bit like a nightmare of eugenics and a "Master Race" and, far from aiding humanity, seems as inhuman and disgusting as can be.

And again--this is the danger that comes even with the GOOD of Social Equality, the Equality of Opportunity, which should be striven for, even if it never can be fully achieved.

The OTHER sort of Equality is Equality of Status and Outcome...

And THAT simply crushes the human spirit and is far from just.

If you are to attain the same status or outcome REGARDLESS of your skill set, intelligence, physical strength, hard work, study, experience, or any of the other endearing factors of human ingenuity and innovation...

Then why strive forward at all?

If a Shakespeare is as "equal" as the worst dime-store novelist, what's the point?

To take something more important--gasp!--than literature and Shakespeare:

If someone who is the Einstein of our day is as equal as an "average joe"...even though Einstein produces a greater social good and is by nearly all means more valuable and unique than an "average joe"...

Then how is that just for Einstein?

The APPEAL of Marxism is largely, in fact, NOT based on equality, but based on an appeal to a specific audience, the average joe--

Those who feel they cannot excel in ANY way or in ANY field naturally wish that everyone be treated equally, as it raises their status by lowering the status of others by making everyone equal REGARDLESS of who has earned what.

Keep in mind when I say "who has earned what" I DO NOT mean who has earned what economically--richness is not a virtue (despite what Mitt Romney might think.)

But nor is it a crime or a vice.

It is simply an outcome of life, it makes you neither a better nor a worse person to be rich...

It DOES make you a better person to succeed at whatever you want--if your dream is to be a great nurse someday, as I know many people I've met wish to do, than you have succeed and excelled in your own field, and have NO SHAME when compared to an Einstein, as you and Einstein have then succeed in your own ways.

But to say everyone is equal regardless of whether or not they succeed treats people like un-personable, un-unique automatons and abstractions, devoid of the actual differences and traits that make a man or woman who he or she is in society.

While you may say with pride that you have excelled as greatly in your own endeavors as a Shakespeare or Einstein as long as you actually DO try and DO excel in whatever it may be (and again, it can be anything socially relevant, being a great mother is excelling and worthy of high praise as well, and that's a "position" that one excels in WITHOUT being paid) you simply cannot say that an Einstein or Shakespeare is "equal" to those who have tried considerably less or have done less and not excelled.

Status and Outcome are EARNED.
YES, there are cases where Status and Outcome are earned or lacked unfairly.
YES, it's a bit socially unfair that the Paris Hiltons of the world have higher status and outcome than the best teachers and parents.
But keep in mind, again, that economic status and outcome DO NOT equal excellence, and I'd argue that excellence is at the soul of virtue.
So those who are excelling as nurses and teachers have a lower economic status and outcome than Paris Hilton, but a much higher degree of social and personal excellence and, as a result, a greater personal status and outcome.

What's more, as one might see, the Paris Hiltons of the world are the exceptions rather than the rule, it's why we FEEL that it's unfair that Paris Hilton is so rich and we are not--

We tend to view, on the whole, those who are socially successful as having worked for it...and thus excelled in some way...

THUS when we see someone who has NOT worked for it, and NOT excelled in her own way, but is simply a lucky leech, THEN we feel that it is unjust.

And it is.

But the injustice of the few does not outweigh the just status and outcome of the majority who DO achieve their greater status and outcome via hard work and excellence in some field.

Most are not leeches who have such wealth and such a status and outcome, hence we view those who have the reward without the work negatively; if it were the norm that those who had wealth had not earned it via their own hard work and excellence, then we would NOT view Paris Hilton as a particular, negative example that stands out.

Likewise, if we were of the view that those who achieve great things don't actually work for them, we'd not celebrate figures like Shakespeare and Einstein, but view them largely as simply lucky fools.

Some here may view Shakespeare as that, literature being taste, but it's undeniable that the overwhelming majority of people down through the ages over the last 400 years have not viewed Shakespeare's works as lacking effort or simply being the by product of a lucky fool...people tend to view Shakespeare quite oppositely, and celebrate his writing prowess.

More concretely, if Einstein were but a lucky fool, and had done no work at all to find e=mc^2, we would not celebrate him, and no one would call him a "genius" or stand in awe of that and his many, many other accomplishments.

But we DO view Shakespeare and Einstein as examples of those who worked hard and achieved some level of greatness few of us ever approach.

THEREFORE, excellence and achievement as being the outcome of hard work is viewed as the rule and NOT as the exception, there are very few who we feel have achieved something great completely by accident and were largely undeserving because they put no work into it whatsoever.

And thus I close my problem with this Marxist idea of equality, or at least the opening salvo, as I'm sure others--hiya, Putin--will tear this to shreds.

But Equality of Opportunity IS to be desired, even if total equality is not plausible...

And Equality of Status and Outcome regardless of excellence or effort is deplorable, inhuman, and again, I'd argue it is NOT a call for actual unity and equality, but rather targeted at the social advancement of one specific group--the disenfranchised who feel they have nothing they have excelled at and no fruits to show for their labors.

AS LONG AS the majority in a society achieve different kinds of excellence (and I would argue that by and large they do, in America, I'd say most people do achieve some sort of excellence, again, having a happy marriage or raising children well is a GREAT achievement and requires a definite amount of excellence to be a good spouse, provider, and parent) then trying for an upheaval of the majority's excellence in favor of the minority who have failed to find any success economically or personally is unjust.

SOCIAL MOBILITY is just, and that's why I support it, and vote for programs that are aimed at helping this to occur.

But a SOCIAL RESET, otherwise known as the political equivalent of overturning the entire Monopoly board with everyone's pieces on it in a tantrum and demanding that everyone else start over and lose their turns and gains in the game because it was going badly for one player, is unjust in American society as it stands today.

"He wanted them to be equal with everyone else, wanting to overthrow oppressors is not bad. Taking from the rich to give to the poor is not doing anything wrong - it is writing the wrongs of society!"

I refer you to my above statement. ;)

And yes, yes it is--

Taxing the rich extra to aid the poor is, in my view, just, within legal limits.

TAKING from the rich directly to GIVE to the poor is unjust when the poor are not the majority.

They are NOT here--and neither are the rich.

The middle class remain the majority, and taking from one extreme unfairly to give to the other extreme unfairly not only is unjust to both extremes, but unjust to the majority who you have just overlooked.

Equality financially and in conditions of living is not making everyone the same or trying to limit excellence, it is about ending economic oppression, economic hardships, and the unfair nature of a capitalist society. Equality of opportunity is impossible, and cannot exist – it is the most utopian idea of them all, which is why most of its proponents settle for limited equality of opportunity which is not satisfactory. Equality of outcome is to create equality of opportunity. Also as I’ve said it is not fair that one should gain more just by virtue of being more naturally talented – it is not fair that because one person was born with more talent they are rich and can live with many luxuries whereas another person has to toil hard their entire life just to make ends meet.
I’m not even talking about all these differences but many other things such as postcode lottery or catchment area systems for schools, where although anyone in catchment can go to a school, better schools are in more affluent areas so poorer people cannot afford to purchase homes there and ergo their children cannot go to the better schools and do not have equality of opportunity.

There is personal satisfaction, not everything boils down to material gain obi, and I feel sorry for you if you think it does. They are not equal in terms of literary talent, and we can admit one work is better than another, but that is irrelevant (also you should have used a better playwright like Ibsen but we can debate playwrights later :P). I wouldn’t say Einstein is more important than Shakespeare, I would argue the opposite but I will address your point nonetheless. What is wrong with them both having the same quality of life? It is not fair that one must live worse than your Einstein for lack of brains. Is it not bad enough that Einstein will be looked up to by everyone, will have more success in personal relationships most probably and will have more pride etc? And for Einstein who has done all these great things and contributed so much, is it all just so they can have a nicer car than the average joe? No, they get personal satisfaction, and also they can use their talents for more good than the average joe, something they should be happy to do.
Also many jobs that are paid more do not contribute more to society, and many talented people have their talents used for things that do not benefit society.

Marxism is appealing because it is about true equality, ending exploitation, and showing that there are things much more important than material wealth. There is a reason many of the great socialists have not been average joes – nor seeking power.

This is not about success, and your argument on shame and doing what you want fits much better with equality of outcome than equality of opportunity.

Oh please, look at social mobility charts in the states and the UK (I assume you are from the former, if not then the later) and you will see the problem. And many many poorer people work very hard, harder than many people that earn more, but despite ‘excelling’ will have a worse quality of life. There is not this great justice that you speak of – a smart person can relatively easily settle into a relatively well paid job which does not work them to death, whereas your less intelligent person, especially if they are less intelligent than your average joe, will have to toil in some menial job they do not enjoy and gives them little satisfaction.

It is a dream for a fair society, not a tool of the disenfranchised at the bottom.

"There is personal satisfaction, not everything boils down to material gain obi, and I feel sorry for you if you think it does."

I'm going to look at the rest of that post--it's only fair, you read mine--but this phase just popped out at me, so...

What makes you think I only care about material gain?

I expounded on and on above how non-material gain and excellence (again, like beinga good parent or spouse) is a very, VERY great thing and part of the (for lack of a better word) formula for a better life.

So no, not at all about material goods...after all, what material good do *I* get from being Shakespeare Fan Obi? :)

Some--after all, it means I can get tutoring jobs from folks who know I know the Bard well, and it's helped me to get my AA in English already and do well already working towards my BA--but plenty of the good that comes from reading a Shakespeare or Dickens or Dostoyevsky (I just finished "The Idiot" and OH MY GOD IS THAT A GREAT ENDING! lol, I mean, such great characters, a great start, and then it sags, but the last 50 pages or so are so *intense,* with sometjhing like four climactic moments or speeches or twists one after the other, and just how everyone winds up, WOW! go read it if you can! lol, but I digress) is definitely a personal good and non-material and just enriching yourself and your life in reading and thinking about their work and about the issues they raise.

The same goes for Mozart or Beethoven or Tchaikovsky, or, hell, plenty of music, most kinds of music, I think...after all, I have Mozart/Tchaikovsky/Bach with 15+ pieces or so each on my iPod, and plenty of other musical artists...

But I like The Beatles and Stones and Billy Joel and Elton John and some jazz and swing music as well...

And listening to music isn't a material good, right?

So why do you think I'm only advocating for/interested in material goods when, after all, I'm maybe the most notorious and blatant "YAY Literature and Humanities!" blather-er here?

:)

@ obi

I saw nothing about slavery in that. Can I assume that now you see that it wasn't an immoral Christian mess, but rather an immoral economic mess that some Deists, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc. etc. perpetuated because they made money on it.

It doesn't make sense to point the finger at CHRISTIANS when they have a long history of both fighting against it and promoting it. That's why any argument that relies on a stereotype like that is doomed to fail. Look at the places in the world where slavery is still an institution; They aren't prodominently Christian areas, and that didn't occur because (as Hitchens tried to claim) atheists shamed us into it. The movement was well under way before you guys showed up, it just had a much longer way to go than you suppose. As SC rightly claims the Atlantic Slave Trade was a horrific institution (and anyone who drank rum or bought furniture at the time supported it) that finally got enough people on board to do away with it. As if shown, many of those people opposed that trade on grounds based in Christianity. It is not their fault that others defended it drawing from similar material. We seem to agree that the right interpretation won.

@ SC

"The funny thing about religion is you can usually find citations for any stance or point of view."

That's true to a point although you'd have a much harder time supporting some stances than others. I acknowledged that; but I have to agree with WiIlltor. It doesn't apply only to religion. What use would courts be if there weren't more than one way to interpret secular law? Somebody has ot have the final say that's why we appoint judges. It isn't as if our laws are written so clearly that nobody has any room to disagree.

CA, that's a well-supported point you make.

@CA - How did buying furniture support it? Starting in the 17th century, there was a strong furniture trade in the US with local craftsmen using oak, cedar, maple, redwood, pine, and other woods from right here in North America.

No, CA, you may not make that assumption.

I was speaking specifically about American slave holders.
They were--even excluding Mr. Jefferson and Founders--overwhelmingly Christian.
Those selling them the slaves were Christian.
The slaves were converted to Christianity against their will.
The empires of Africa and the Americas were broken apart by European Christians.

I'm sorry, but it WAS a Christian thing...what's more, the Vatican has even acknowledged it as such:

The Catholic Church issued one of its formal apologies (I believe I've quoted this before) and among it's confessed sins:

"The forced conversion of native populations."

This was made to include the African population and slaves in the Americas.

"It doesn't make sense to point the finger at CHRISTIANS when they have a long history of both fighting against it and promoting it."

'i see that as their but preaching one thing and practicing another.

I care not what they preach if their practice doesn't back it up; historically, even you must admit (unless you want to argue this SPECIFIC CASE, NOT the whole history of the event, and somehow claim most American slaveholders were NOT Christian) that the group I refer to, Christian American Slaveholders, did NOT practice what they preached.

I'm sorry, but I don't give points for rhetoric when someone turns around and does quite the opposite, especially when the opposite is deplorable.

"Given the number of Church Fathers who were African, it's hard to suggest that "the curse of Ham" as applied to Africans was anything but convenient innovation. And the idea of converting people so as to exploit them isn't internally consistent. These are views that can be believed only if there is enough monetary incentive to find a reason to justify them. The slave trade led to these views, not the other way around."

Church fathers such as St. Augustine were african. But the curse of Ham only applies to sub saharan "black Africans" of which, to my knowledge there are not any church fathers. There is not doubt it is a convenient innovation. But it was a convenient innovation used by the majority of society.

"Like that is doomed to fail. Look at the places in the world where slavery is still an institution; They aren't prodominently Christian areas, and that didn't occur because (as Hitchens tried to claim) atheists shamed us into it."

I'm not even arguing THAT.
I'm not saying atheists are the heroes here.

I AM saying that Christians began the slavery mess that the Abolitionists in America ended.

As such, I credit the particular Abolitionists, but NOT Christians on the whole, as it was by and large Christians buying, selling, and holding these slaves in the first place, again even excluding the Founders.

how did that comment get 3 likes? It wasn't the most stupid thing I ever read, but are you serious. Anyone can see that "African" I meant did not apply to North African church fathers.

@CA - the courts would be necessary even if laws were clear cut. You have to determine innocence or guilt and if the evidence, especially testimony by witnesses, is reliable and factual.

Hey Obi, I'm still waiting for that information about the huge European African colonies from which they grabbed all their slaves.

And again, you idiot, the fact that slaveholders that bought and sold slaves were christian is incidental. They bought and sold slaves for profit, not for religion. Abolitionists opposed slavery because of their faith. It is not a 1 and 1 comparison.

sort of like how the founders were christian but that is incidental to the republic they created. It was based on their understanding of human nature, not the nature of god.

"We seem to agree that the right interpretation won."

Yes and no...?

I agree that the right action was taken...

But again--I must ask how you say there is a right or wrong interpretation of these sort of Biblical passages...?

If it's open to interpretation, WHAT OBJECTIVELY--and I must ask you exclude "God" from your answer, as you cannot conclusively prove that anymore than I can disprove it--makes one interpretation valid and another not?

Sure, you can say plot points are fixed...if someone interprets Abel living at the end of his story, they'd be as wrong as if they said Hamlet's story ended happily...

But there is still a WEALTH of different interpretations to the Bible, as there are with "Hamlet."

When *I* say "X is how it is in the Bible, you cannot have it otherwise" I mean it in an extra-textual, moral sense--

To give an example, I can say "The Bible advocates genocide, ergo, I find it immoral."

And it does.
EVEN IF you wanted to somehow try and JUSTIFY the genocide of the Amalekites (and I know there are those who do so, my friend and I just got into an intellectual tussle with everyone else in Bible Lit class yesterday on that, as everyone else answered that they, too, would unquestioningly kill people if they thought God was telling them too and call it moral...hence why I am so outspoken about atheism, *THAT* kind of talk, from everyday people in the 21st century in America, frankly, scares the SHIT out of me, that people would say and think that!)...

EVEN if you wanted to say it was justified genocide--an oxymoron if there ever was one--you cannot deny:

1. It WAS genocide (it fits the definition of it, that's undeniable) and
2. God approves of and advocates for it.

You simply cannot.

And THAT is what *I* mean when I draw the line in the sand with Biblical interpretation, ONLY that The Bible's text literally SAYS (not means, but says) X, and you cannot therefore say it says something else there.

NOW, how you interpret that is your own business.
You can interpret the slaughter of the Amalekites, as I do, as another example of why Biblical morality is not only a myth, but a highly dangerous one.
You can interpret it as perfectly moral, as most everyone except myself and fellow atheist friend did in that class.

That she and I both felt it was immoral and they felt it was moral and perfect, divine justice are two allowable interpretations.

What one thinks about those interpretations is something else.

Everyone else who spoke to my friend in that class viewed her as being terribly in the wrong, and myself as being even worse, and probably thought we were both horribly immoral...

And I have no trepidation saying that I feel the same about them for, well, saying that they were not only perfectly fine with genocide of people, and fine with a loving God advocating it, but even going so far as to say that TODAY they would view it moral if someone committed genocide just as long as "God" told them it was OK.

Never mind the fact most genocidal tyrants think they're in the moral right and that such thinking has led to some of the worst atrocities in human history, but I digress.

The point is, even something so wicked in MY view as that is a valid interpretation, if you allow the Bible to be open to interpretation.

The same goes for you, CA:

Where can you possibly draw the line, other than merely saying X = X, as I do?
Yes, saying Passage X says Y when it really, textually says X is wrong...
But as to the MEANING of X...

Who are you to say what the "correct" interpretation of is?

So I am NATURALLY happy that finally Abolitionists took a nicer interpretation...

But I cannot say it was any "more valid" an interpretation than the wickeder ones, I may only say that the outcome of their interpretation was decidedly more moral and good.

(On a side note to end, this is incidentally a problem I have with people saying the Bible is figurative in some places, literal and others, and may shift back and forth between cold hard fact and open-to-interpretation subjectively or otherwise at will:

For something like "Hamlet," this is fine, or, at least, no one will get HURT if you open it up to differing interpretations...

Because neither "Hamlet" nor Shakespeare claims any MORAL authority--

It has moral and ethical arguments, but makes no moral and ethical demands that you must accept.

For the bible, this is not the case...

To Bible gives moral absolutes many times, cases where it says "God says/said X is right/wrong, or Tribe A was evil and had to be killed and it was just they were," and you MUST take it as such...

You can't shake that off...

But what's worse, open it up to interpretation, and you'll not only have the built-in moral problems of the Bible, but introduce whole new ones. that people will debate and, as we've seen time and time again throughout history, fight over.)

"Hey Obi, I'm still waiting for that information about the huge European African colonies from which they grabbed all their slaves."

From Wikipedia:

The Atlantic slave trade is customarily divided into two eras, known as the First and Second Atlantic Systems.
The First Atlantic system was the trade of enslaved Africans to, primarily, South American colonies of the Portuguese and Spanish empires; it accounted for only slightly more than 3% of all Atlantic slave trade. It started (on a significant scale) in about 1502[39] and lasted until 1580 when Portugal was temporarily united with Spain. While the Portuguese traded enslaved people themselves, the Spanish empire relied on the asiento system, awarding merchants (mostly from other countries) the license to trade enslaved people to their colonies. During the first Atlantic system most of these traders were Portuguese, giving them a near-monopoly during the era, although some Dutch, English, and French traders also participated in the slave trade.[40] After the union, Portugal came under Spanish legislation that prohibited it from directly engaging in the slave trade as a carrier, and become a target for the traditional enemies of Spain, losing a large share to the Dutch, British and French.
The Second Atlantic system was the trade of enslaved Africans by mostly British, Portuguese, French and Dutch traders. The main destinations of this phase were the Caribbean colonies and Brazil, as European nations built up economically slave-dependent colonies in the New World.[41] Only slightly more than 3% of the enslaved people exported were traded between 1450 and 1600, 16% in the 17th century.
It is estimated that more than half of the slave trade took place during the 18th century, with the British, Portuguese and French being the main carriers of nine out of ten slaves abducted from Africa.[42] The British were the biggest transporters of slaves across the Atlantic during the 18th century.[43]

"It is estimated that more than half of the slave trade took place during the 18th century, with the British, Portuguese and French being the main carriers of nine out of ten slaves abducted from Africa."

Sounds like the Christian Europeans were taking African slaves by the 1700s to me...

"And again, you idiot, the fact that slaveholders that bought and sold slaves were christian is incidental. They bought and sold slaves for profit, not for religion."

1. You know, I find it JUST a bit irritating that I take the time to answer the objections raised to my points civilly and without any name-calling, but somehow I don't get the same courtesy in return from people trying to claim the intellectual high ground...just saying.

2. No, I'm sorry, the religion IS in play here...when your religion says it's OK to have slaves, I find the religion then somewhat to blame for people thinking it's OK to have slaves when, after all, said God and religion say it's OK.

Did it cause the AST?
No.
Did it allow them to view slavery as morally acceptable for hundreds of years.
Yes.

Ripping the Amalakite passage out of context AGAIN I see Obi. So predictable

"sort of like how the founders were christian but that is incidental to the republic they created."

1. The Founders were NOT Christian:
A. I gave evidence Jefferson was not...
B. You say you have evidence he was, AT BEST that gives us a tie over Jefferson...
C. That still leaves Franklin, and
D. That still leaves Madison, and
E. That still leaves Paine, and
F. That still leaves Washington, ALL
G. Of which have cited reasons for being considered Deist/Non-Christian in the video I cited so
H. Until YOU can provide evidence against for each of them,
I. You have no evidence to claim they were Christian to battle my evidence they were not

"Ripping the Amalakite passage out of context AGAIN I see Obi. So predictable"

Well, I can cite God killing all the first-born Egyptian children to punish the sons for the sins of the father...

Or God saying he'll do just that to "the third and fourth generation" (why not just say "To the fourth generation, that'd imply the third, seems like God's being a bit too wordy, even by MY standards) later on...

And plenty of other fun little sections in the Bible.

I just feel the Amalekite situation is a well-worn one, and, well, rather blatant.

I also notice that your best defense of this genocide is that "I took it out of context."

I am now prompted to ask:

What context DOES make genocide acceptable, Santa?

Hm?

Even if the Amalekites did something to the Israelites...
The best the Bible can offer is "two wrongs make a right?"
What's more, the WOMEN, CHILDREN, and *ANIMALS* should be made to suffer, too?

Genocide is permissible...on any grounds?

Please, enlighten us, Santa--

When *IS* it OK to destroy an entire race, men, women, children, and defenseless newborn babies alike, hm?

"1. You know, I find it JUST a bit irritating that I take the time to answer the objections raised to my points civilly and without any name-calling, but somehow I don't get the same courtesy in return from people trying to claim the intellectual high ground...just saying."

If justifyable Genocide is an oximoron, the person who uses the term is an obimoron. I don't result to name calling all the time. Only when a person deserves it with their arrogant, nonsensical drivel, Ie. you on this (and most) occasions. It is part of my quest to get you to stop talking about stuff you don't understand. I don't talk about economics because I know I just can't carry on an intelligent conversation without pulling stuff from my ass. You on the otherhand seem to seek out topics in which your knowledge is wholly inadequite.

"Sounds like the Christian Europeans were taking African slaves by the 1700s to me.."

The fact that they are christian is incidental. And again it does not equate to the abolitionists whose actions were driven by religion

AND I AM STILL WAITTING TO HERE ABOUT ALL THE EUROPEAN CONQUESTS IN SUB SAHARAN AFRICA IN THE 17th AND 18th CENTURIES.

Please enlighten me, you were so insistent on it before