Reply
Mon 25 May, 2015 02:06 am
And "on the subject" refers to "on the subject of morality"?
Context:
In response, Christians like yourself often point out that the abolitionists also drew considerable inspiration from the Bible. Of course they did. People have been cherry-picking the Bible for millennia to justify their every impulse, moral and otherwise. This does not mean, however, that accepting the Bible to be the word of God is the best way to discover that abducting and enslaving millions of innocent men, women, and children is morally wrong. It clearly isn't, given what the Bible actually says on the subject. The fact that some abolitionists used parts of scripture to repudiate other parts does not indicate that the Bible is a good guide to morality. Nor does it suggest that human beings should need to consult a book in order to resolve moral questions of this sort. The moment a person recognizes that slaves are human beings like himself, enjoying the same capacity for suffering and happiness, he will understand that it is patently evil to own them and treat them like farm equipment. It is remarkably easy for a person to arrive at this epiphany - and yet, it had to be spread at the point of a bayonet throughout the Confederate South, among the most pious Christians this country has ever known.
@oristarA,
No.
"It clearly isnt" is referring to "accepting
the Bible to be the word of God is the best way to discover" .
"on the subject" refers to "
abducting and enslaving millions of innocent men, women, and children is morally wrong".
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:
No.
"It clearly isnt" is referring to "accepting the Bible to be the word of God is the best way to discover" .
"on the subject" refers to "abducting and enslaving millions of innocent men, women, and children is morally wrong".
If that is the case, it would have meant "the Bible (it) clearly isn't accepting the Bible to be the word of God". It is a vicious circle; it doesn't hold water.
@oristarA,
Its meaning is that learning morals from the Bible BECAUSE it is the literal word of God is wrong (it is because there are chapters promoting slavery) . The "it" in "it clearly isnt" is the concept that people learn morals from the literal meaning of the Bible . In your question you ask if "the Bible clearly isnt the best way" is not a complete answer . You must include the concept of THE LITERAL MEANING because it doesnt say the Bible by itself, it says the literal meaning of the Bible, believing the Bible to be the word of God and thus infallible, is the problem . As to whether you could learn morals from the Bible if you did not believe it to be the word of God, it is silent on the matter . So it is not the Bible alone, but the belief that you can learn morals from it if you believe it is the literal word of God .
@Ionus,
Calm down, Io, we're not talking theology here, merely grammar.
(I avoid religious threads like a plague (of locusts
))
@McTag,
I'm calm . It is what the text says...isnt it ?
@Ionus,
Quote:This does not mean, however, that accepting the Bible to be the word of God is the best way to discover that abducting and enslaving millions of innocent men, women, and children is morally wrong. It clearly isn't, given what the Bible actually says on the subject.
The meaning of that is clear:
This does not mean that... accepting the Bible (the word of God) as the best way to discover that abducting and enslaving millions... is morally wrong.
It clearly isn't, given what the Bible actually says on the subject.
@McTag,
The excerpt is making several points :
"abducting and enslaving millions of innocent men, women, and children is morally wrong"
"accepting the Bible to be the word of God is the best way to discover....[what]...is morally wrong"
"It clearly isn't, given what the Bible actually says on the subject [of slavery]"
It makes other points, but do we agree on the above as meaning the Bible should not be taken as the "word of God" and is not the best way to discover morality ?
@Ionus,
Quote:but do we agree on the above as meaning the Bible should not be taken as the "word of God" and is not the best way to discover morality ?
but do we agree on the above as meaning the Bible should not be taken as the "word of God"
No
and is not the best way to discover morality ?
Yes.
@oristarA,
"
accepting the Bible to be the word of God
is the best
way to discover that abducting and enslaving millions of innocent men, women, and children is morally wrong.
It clearly isn't"
The verbal (gerund) "accepting" is the antecedent for "It."