Fulham writes -

"Furthermore, placing the human races on a vertically stratified categorisation with the ''''savage'''' races closer to the apes and the ''''civilised'''' races at the apex is first degree racism."

Putin writes -
Yes well he fails to meet the anti-racist criteria of sanctimonious webdippers who live in 2011

Ah the ''man of times defense'' again, how quaint. Richard Cobden, Willianm Wilberforce etc...etc...In my view Darwin's words are extremely racist in any context. It might be to see how the present-day Aborigines feel about Darwin's stereotyping.

http://cafewhispers.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/theyre-gonna-die-out-anyway/

Which is also very good on Herbert Spencer, survival of the fittest and Darwin.

Indeed, Charles Perry (another man of his time), the Anglican Bishop of Melbourne, wrote in 1869 -

"What is the significance of these terms, savage and civilised? The terms [are] inapplicable and are, we think, calculated to mislead. A highly-civilised man may be a cruel, profligate libertine. A comparatively moral, nay, a truly spiritual man, a Christian, may be, if not a savage, yet certainly an uncivilised man."

Some blog? That talks about Spencer? That's the best you can do to come up with zingers about Darwin's "racism"?

How pathetic. Your religion justified slavery and the very colonization that wiped out the Aborigines. Colonization was undertaken to spread Christianity by the sword. Missionaries were usually the first deployed when colonization occurred. Yet you can sit and both claim that Darwinism is "anthropocentric" (laughable) and "racist", when Christians around the world were saying slavery and genocide were "God's will".
Darwin argued for the similarity of races, and was fiercely anti-slavery. He also argued against eugenics. He also said we all descended from the same animal ancestor. Yet you sneer about Darwin's "racism" when the very ideas of Darwin have led to the scientific annihilation of any support for racism whatsoever.

"What is the significance of these terms, savage and civilised? The terms [are] inapplicable and are, we think, calculated to mislead. A highly-civilised man may be a cruel, profligate libertine. A comparatively moral, nay, a truly spiritual man, a Christian, may be, if not a savage, yet certainly an uncivilised man.""

Notice your quote supposedly condemns these terms civilized and savage, but yet goes on to categorize people according to civilization anyway. All the quote is suggesting that is people from "civilization" can be immoral, and "savages" can be immoral. Fantastic. Darwin, incidentally, doesn't suggest anything different in his accounts of the morality and humanity of so-called "savage" races. But you still call Darwin a racist.

And yes, that one quote makes up for the fact that whole Christian sects were created out of a desire to defend slavery, and all the Biblical passages supporting slavery and racism (the "Curse of Ham"), and the fact that Jesus not once condemned slavery. It also makes up for missionaries colonizing Aboriginals and being the driving force behind colonization. Christopher Columbus was by all accounts, a fanatically devout Christian. I'm sure the Aboriginal peoples of the Caribbean loved him.

Not only does Jesus not condemn it, he endorses it.

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)"

Imagine if Darwin said anything like this.

Slavery was very different in biblical times, but i dont feel like getting into that. Just suffice to say it was completely different from New World Slavey

I realize. Although I don't know why any moral teacher would endorse slavery, no matter what it's form. Is slavery sometimes acceptable?

At any rate the Bible is supposed to be this timeless moral guideline. And these passages were used to justify and support New World slavery. The Anglican Church, from whom Fulham quotes, was very active in promoting and supporting the slave trade.

Or at least very least, owned slave plantations itself.

Dont you believe in relativism, Putin?

Or maybe you don't I'm actually asking an honest question.

There is such a thing as "moral innovation," i.e., someone prominently saying for the first time: "hey - I think slavery is wrong."

We derive a big chunk of our present morals from these innovators. And we hallow the innovators as great people and forward thinkers. Jesus as it turns out was one of these moral innovators. Just because he happened not to see anything wrong with slavery... that's not really significant in itself.

Back in the day practically every great person was an anti-Semite. We have, these days, gotten the innovation "it's not okay to hate Jews because they're Jews or any other ethnic group for that matter" but in these guys's day, no one thought like that.

Do you see where I'm going?

@Putin - As pointed out, that is a very differewnt form of slavery. Slavery in the time of Christ was an indebted nature that could be worked off. But beyond that, Christ is not endorsing Slvary. He is telling those already caught up in it how to act and respect those which, I should point out, was very good advice as a respectful slave was not chastised by his master in Christ's time. But nowhere does he say "yYe would-be masters, go find yourselves slaves and enjoy". In fact, his Jewish upbringing would have forbidden that very aspect as theJewish belief was that you didn't lend at interest and, if you did lend at all, you didn't even expect it back. Jews were never masters of slaves.

So your interpretation that he was endorsing it is clearly a flase interpretation and I suspect you knew this. But I will ive you an opportunity to show me where he says a person should become a master or where a master should take on more slaves. He strictly provides guidselines for proper action when the situation already exists.

If I am teaching you to fly a plane and tell you to increase thrust and reduce flaps should the plane start to stall, am I endorsing making a plane stall? No, I am instructing you in handling the situation should it arise. Jesus was instructing slaves in how to handle their lot in life, not endorsing that particular aspect of society.

Wow, too many typos in that last.

"Dont you believe in relativism, Putin?"

Yes, I've said morality is socially constructed. I said Darwin's comments need to be measured in the context of the milieu in which he was writing. Fulham rejects that idea, and Christianity rejects the notion of relativism, considering its tenets to be the timeless inspired Word of God or whatever. So I'm saying then, if relativism is invalid, then Jesus's defense of slavery is indefensible.

But the religious, as usual, have exacting standards for their opponents, and no standards whatsoever for their own conduct.

"I realize. Although I don't know why any moral teacher would endorse slavery, no matter what it's form. Is slavery sometimes acceptable?"

Slaves were primarily captured in wars, when the decision is between wholesale massacres and taking slaves, slavery could be the moral choice especially when it is governed by the very strict laws of the old testement, but you have to see it in the context of the ancient world.

Seeing it in the context of our world slavery is obviously morally wrong, and if you poll almost all religious leaders they would agree

"if relativism is invalid, then Jesus's defense of slavery is indefensible."

I say again, that was not a *defense* of slavery. Nothing in Jesus' writings defended slavery. Telling someone how best to act if caught in a situation is not the same as defending the people who put them into that situation. By that same logic, Jesus saying "render unto Caeser that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's" is defending Caesar... No, it is telling his followers how to get along in life so that they may actually live a wholesome life without hatred. Remember, forgiving your brother 70 times 7 times (we view it as 490 times, but there is significance in the number 7 in Judaism) and forgiving those who have trespassed against us does not condone the activity being forgiven, it just shows us that the Godly way, the Christian way, is forgiveness. Likewise, showing respect to one's master does not condone or endorse the master slave relationship, but provides a blueprint for tyhe slave to live the moral life.

Also of note, Putin. Neither of your quotes is Jesus' words. So not only do you twist the message behind the words, but you attribute them to a person who never said them.

Epic. Fucking. Fail!

"Jews were never masters of slaves."

Um...

"Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. 45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. 46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour."

This is Leviticus. Why did the OT have such elaborate rules about slavery if Jews were not allowed to have slaves?

Please, everyone, look up the word "slave" in any Bible search engine, and see how many entries come up.

" “Praise be to the LORD, the God of Shem!
May Canaan be the slave of Shem."

"May God extend Japheth’s[a] territory;
may Japheth live in the tents of Shem,
and may Canaan be the slave of Japheth.”

"Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, had borne him no children. But she had an Egyptian slave named Hagar;"

“Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result,"

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2021&version=NIV

" “These are the regulations for the Passover meal:
“No foreigner may eat it. 44 Any slave you have bought may eat it after you have circumcised him, 45 but a temporary resident or a hired worker may not eat it."

"“‘No one outside a priest’s family may eat the sacred offering, nor may the guest of a priest or his hired worker eat it. But if a priest buys a slave with money, or if slaves are born in his household, they may eat his food."

I was mistaken about slavery and the Jews being masters, but I'm not mistaken in the context of which the NT authors spoke of laves respecting their matsers or of the fat you misattribute these statements to Christ himself.

Still. Epic. Fucking. Fail.

Can I just re-state what I was trying to say above?

In clearer terms this time:

It doesn't matter what people said or did regarding slaves back then, because everyone had slaves and supported the institution basically. Many slaves would be among their number, I'd wager, though I haven't got proof of that. It has also already been pointed out that this was nothing like American chattel slavery, so the argument because even more moot.

In super short terminology: who cares, and why are we talking about this?

I'm sorry, does the book of Timothy not begin with:

"1 Timothy 1

1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope,

2 To Timothy my true son in the faith:

Does Titus, which has passages essentially saying the same thing, not also begin in this way?

" 9 Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them,"

Peter says the same thing too:

"Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh."

Colossians says the same thing:

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord."

Anyway here's a passage where Jesus himself is said to be explicitly talking about slavery:

" “Be dressed ready for service and keep your lamps burning, 36 like servants waiting for their master to return from a wedding banquet, so that when he comes and knocks they can immediately open the door for him. 37 It will be good for those servants whose master finds them watching when he comes. Truly I tell you, he will dress himself to serve, will have them recline at the table and will come and wait on them. 38 It will be good for those servants whose master finds them ready, even if he comes in the middle of the night or toward daybreak. 39 But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have let his house be broken into. 40 You also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.”
41 Peter asked, “Lord, are you telling this parable to us, or to everyone?”

42 The Lord answered, “Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom the master puts in charge of his servants to give them their food allowance at the proper time? 43 It will be good for that servant whom the master finds doing so when he returns. 44 Truly I tell you, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 45 But suppose the servant says to himself, ‘My master is taking a long time in coming,’ and he then begins to beat the other servants, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk. 46 The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers.

47 “The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked."

Of course, that's right above the lovely passage where Jesus says he's going to divide families against each other.

Not a single one of those was Christ's words. Find a quote in Matthew, Mark, Luke John, or Acts. Something where it says "Jesus said". And again, in all of those cases, admonitions to obey and respect are not an endorsement of the system. The Jews in the Nazi concentration camps would tell their children not to talk back to their Nazi masters. Did that mean they were endorsing the Nazi's slavery and genocide? No! And none of these are an endorsement either.

Why can't you see what is right in front of your face? Are you, once again, incapable of admitting your assertions are wrong?

"
It doesn't matter what people said or did regarding slaves back then, because everyone had slaves and supported the institution basically. Many slaves would be among their number, I'd wager, though I haven't got proof of that. It has also already been pointed out that this was nothing like American chattel slavery, so the argument because even more moot.

In super short terminology: who cares, and why are we talking about this?"

I already addressed this point. First, biblical passages were used to justify American/New World chattel slavery. Specifically that the descendants of Ham/Canaan should be enslaved by the descendants of Shem/Japheth, whatever. Second, either slavery is always wrong or it is only wrong under certain (Industrial) conditions. The defense for biblical support for slavery cannot be moral relativism, since it claims to be an absolute guideline for moral behavior.

I thought that was clear, since I've said it numerous times. We're talking about this because the Christians love to blame Darwin for supposedly not being progressive on these questions, and ignore their own doctrine. If moral relativism is no excuse for Darwin's comments about savage and civilized races, why is it an excuse for Christians?

My previous was being written when you posted the followup. But again I will point out that nothing in that *endorses* slavery or even being a servant. It teaches how to act when found in that situation, but does not endorse it.

And the followup about Jesus dividing families against each other is a passive reference to the fact that the strict believers in Judaism will never accept Him and his followers will be forced to leave their familes and become fishers of men.

"Not a single one of those was Christ's words. Find a quote in Matthew, Mark, Luke John, or Acts. Something where it says "Jesus said". And again, in all of those cases, admonitions to obey and respect are not an endorsement of the system. "

I just did above, why do the words of the Apostles, who claim to be speaking in Jesus's name and with his commands in mind, not count? And how are 5-10 passages imploring slaves to obey their masters no matter the conduct of the master morally justifiable?

OT teachings (which, quite honestly, have plenty of failings in them) aside, the NT does *not* endorse slavery. It teaches those caught in it a means to handle themselves so as to better their situation and remain upright before God and it admonishes those who would be masters in treating their slaves with kindness, not cruelty. In short, it attempts to reduce the wrong done by slavery by creating a peaceful attitude in both master and slave. But it never endorses slavery. Period.

You can spin anything, Draugnar.

So, by your definition of morally justifiable, the slaves should have had a violent revolt? Maybe Martin Luther King was wrong and Ghandi was wrong and all the other believers in passive resistance were wrong.

" it admonishes those who would be masters in treating their slaves with kindness, not cruelty"

Where? This is yet another thing you have made up.

It's not spin. It's fact. You are spinning an admonishment on how to act in a situation into an endorsement for that situation. Your's is the spin, Putin.

" the slaves should have had a violent revolt? Maybe Martin Luther King was wrong and Ghandi was wrong and all the other believers in passive resistance were wrong."

Your Bible condemns any form of resistance. It doesn't endorse passive resistance. It says commands should be obeyed without question.