Liberals continue their attack on the authority of scripture

Once again, those progressive, mainline Protestant and liberal Jewish types are teaming up with the Obama White House to defy clear biblical teaching.

In explicit denial of the authority of scripture, these postmodern, anything-goes folks are calling for a “Global Fund to Eradicate Modern-Day Slavery.”

God is not mocked. If we turn our backs on the absolute truth of scripture and deny the authority of its clear teaching on the traditional institution of slavery, then we no longer have any basis for morality, meaning, truth or virtue. We lose our foundation, our anchor, and we are adrift. We become godless nihilists, or we set ourselves up as God.

This is how it always begins. People claim that their idea of morality should replace what the Bible tells us. They start out by attacking a God-given institution blessed by scripture and eventually they wind up calling for the abolition of all Ten Commandments.

It’s no coincidence, after all, that the same people seeking to “eradicate” slavery also deny that thy neighbor’s wife is his property. No wonder these people don’t want to see the Ten Commandments posted in our courtrooms. They hate the Word of God.

This is how things started in Germany. But where are the modern-day Bonhoeffers who will stand up against this anti-biblical crusade? Unless Christians take a bold stand in defense of clear biblical teaching, this will lead to the end of the Christian nation the Founding Fathers envisioned.

Once you come to see things this way, you’ll learn to decode the language of these “progressive” so-called Christians. You’ll come to understand that when you hear talk of things like a plan to “eradicate modern-day slavery,” what you’re really seeing is a plan to overthrow the traditional institutions established by the Bible. What you’re really seeing is a denial of the authority of scripture and a plan to persecute American Christians.

Update: Dr. James Dobson summarizes the gravity of the situation:

I am writing you this month about the institution of slavery, which is rocking and reeling like a ship on a stormy sea. Attacks on its stability and integrity are coming today from every major center of power. Each seems determined to redefine slavery and destroy its underpinnings. This 5,000-year-old institution, dating back to the dawn of humankind, is almost defenseless against the federal judiciary, the White House, the Congress, the Entertainment industry, large corporations, the Education monopoly, and the entire liberal movement. If people of faith don’t come to the aid of traditional slavery very quickly, it will be damaged beyond repair. …

"They aren't gonna let us back into the EU for a LOOOOONG time after this.Imagine ..."

LBCF, No. 181: ‘Meet the Steeles’
"To be fair, Hitler invaded quite a few countries without getting war declared. If he'd ..."

LBCF, No. 181: ‘Meet the Steeles’
"What system are you running, btw? I haven't actually played anything more modern than 3.5 ..."

LBCF, No. 181: ‘Meet the Steeles’
"Well, the question there is: are you talking about people who, in your example, are ..."

LBCF, No. 181: ‘Meet the Steeles’

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Joshua

    *slow clap*

  • Too realistic to be parody. I can readily imagine some backwoods pastor arguing just this.

  • JustoneK

    This hurt me to read. :/ It’s too accurate.

  • I have to agree. I might try using Fred’s line of argument in this post while arguing with some Biblical inerrantist.

  • I’m pretty confident that some still-living person has heard this exact sermon given in earnest.

  • Kubricks_Rube

    Thanks to mentions by Fred and Rachel Held Evans, I’m currently reading Mark Noll’s The Civil War as a Theological Crisis. And this post fairly closely mirrors the pro-slavery arguments made at the time.

  • Aha! I knew that you’d eventually crack and reveal your true colors, Fred. Sure, you always seem like you’re a decent human being and you always seem like you were allowing decency and kindness to direct your decision-making and morality. But as Christopher Hitchens has said, “religion poisons everything.” Now we know that religion has poisoned you and you were just disguising yourself as a liberal hippy so you could wait until the perfect time to strike.

    It’s obvious that you’ve allowed your religion to convince you that it’s okay if the Bible says so, and the Bible obviously says slavery is okay. It’s also obvious that you’ve realized that if Christians don’t stand up to slavery they’ll allow black people to start grabbing white people off the beaches of Club Med and forcing them to harvest opium on the Indian Subcontinent and that sort of thing is completely and totally against the Bible. Which also means, obviously, that you’ve become a racist bigot because the Bible says you should be. For shame, Fred. I hope for your sake you’ve also given up on shrimp and cotton-poly blends…

  • If for-profit corporations don’t have the religious right to own slaves, then the Constitution may as well be shredded along with the Bible.

  • Now I’m curious why this got a downvote so quickly.

  • Magic_Cracker

    Agreed. The reason why this doesn’t work as satire is because it’s pretty much exactly the argument pro-slavery folks made pre-1860.

  • JustoneK

    EH is here.

  • But neither the Bible nor the Constitution says anything about corporations!

  • I think that might be my first downvote ever, too. I guess some people just don’t get snark. Or they did get the snark and they’re the sort who actually think that spouting Hitchens quotes against theists is an auto win…

  • Religion does poison everything it touches and Fred does not, to me, “always seem like [he’s] allowing decency and kindness to direct [his] decision-making and morality”.

  • Magic_Cracker

    Please, your use of the highly emotive word “slaves” reveals your agenda all too plainly. All we advocate is the freedom for consumers to buy their rights-protection from any number of freely competing Corporate Legal Action Networks (CLANs), and should you not be able to afford full membership and the rights and privileges that come with it, you can exchange your labor for a Special Economically Reduced Freedom-lover (SERF) membership.


    John Hawkins, Esq.
    Traditional Staffing Services, Ltd.

  • The cry of persecution and comparisons of slaveowners to those Jews killed by Hitler is surely a new one.

  • Yeah, I was thinking if it was one of those two possibilities. And now I know which one.

    I’m glad it wasn’t because of the snark. I expect a lot more of Fred’s supporters than people like EH.

  • JustoneK

    I’m not sure he counts as a supporter.

  • Huh. Naked Bunny was correct. Weird. Also, thanks for proving the exact point I made by putting that comment up. Hitchens is basically Nietzsche for the internet atheist set: source material for endless insipid quote mines that make the person using them feel superior and the people around roll their eyes and try to change the subject.

  • *rolls his eyes*

  • How doesn’t religion poison everything it touches?

  • Jereko

    So that means corporations should be abolished, right?

  • No. It does mean that it is difficult to use the Bible to argue that corporations have the right to own slaves.

  • See, that’s the wrong question. The fact that people keep endlessly promoting it as the definitive smack down to end all smack downs only makes it more annoying. The correct formulation is more like “tribalism poisons everything.” Or, to make it both more abstract and general, something like “binary, us-and-them thinking poisons everything.”

    I know this because I know of atheists who are massive, sucking assholes who get free passes on hideous beliefs and/or attitudes from other atheists because, hey, that person is one of us. Christopher Hitchens, ironically, is a brilliant example of this tribalistic thinking. Sam Harris, also, too. The thing about the whole “religion poisons everything” is that it is a statement that can’t be disproven, but it can’t be disproven because it can’t be tested and the people who use it stack the deck in their favor. As such, it’s a useless yardstick and it just makes the people who use it look like assholes.

  • Magic_Cracker

    True, that particular comparison is new, but the proslavery element in the South was frequently cried victim and claimed that the abolitionists wanted nothing more than to enslave whites.

  • What I meant is that I’d have been disappointed if someone had downvoted Geds for slagging on Fred. I’m used to Slacktivist fans reading for comprehension and being less “kneejerk” than those in some forums I haunt.

  • There’s some brilliant logic.

  • Naked Bunny was correct. Weird.


    Hey, wait a minute….

  • Bob

    Religion encourages people to give to charity and gives them excuses for cool festivals like Christmas and holi. Please stop making atheists look bad.

  • My main problem with religion is not its tribalism, but its support for irrationality in the form of superstition. Thus, if religion supports superstition, it poisons everything it touches.

  • Sure, religion can encourage good behavior. It still poisons that good behavior.

  • It’s fairly easy to disprove the statement “religion poisons everything it touches” by pointing to something that is touched by religion, yet, not poisoned by it.

  • Magic_Cracker

    I’ve read Hitchens fans talk about how witty he is, but he never struck me as witty, but as a sarcastic and mean-spirited. The only witty (i.e., funny) professional atheist I can think of was Robert Ingersoll, who could apparently make all but the most sanctimonious clergy laugh.

  • Fusina

    I am very curious as to the logic behind this conclusion. Please explicate?

  • Um, I feel I should clarify. The “weird” was more that it seemed the less likely conclusion and also it was surprising how quickly the less likely conclusion was proven correct.

  • Bob Ingersoll was funny. That is not in doubt.

  • It’s fairly easy to disprove the statement “religion poisons everything it touches” by pointing to something that is touched by religion, yet, not poisoned by it.

    There’s that deck stacking semantic game I was talking about. The burden of proof is most definitely on the person claiming that “religion poisons everything” in this case. The “neat”[1] trick then is the deck stacking in the reversal of the burden of proof. You define “poisoning” as “introducing the possibility of superstitious nonsense,” which is pretty fucking general and wide in scope. You then define “religion” as “superstitious nonsense.”

    This is actual, no shit, I’m-not-misunderstanding-the-term-like-99%-of-the-people-who-use-it begging the question. Your definition of “religion” and your definition of “poison” are inextricably linked and, as such, one cannot refute your claims because your claims are inherent in the wording you choose. As such, you still fail to meet the basic burden of proof.

    [1]I used scare quotes because it’s really not “neat” so much as “stupid and juvenile.”

  • Fusina

    In your words please. I have read that column. But here is my confusion, my best friend is an atheist. She has stated that she has no problem with my “superstitions” as you have termed them, and since I don’t do nice things out of fear of punishment but rather out of my sense of morality–eg, this is what should be done to make life better for people around me.

    Since she knows me, and you do not, I have to confess to confusion as to your logical thought processes. And, to be perfectly clear, she is not a “believer” masquerading as an atheist. She could admit that some of us are okay–so again, the logic behind your conclusion?

  • Magic_Cracker

    The poison is in the dose, and despite my japing about being a crypto-pagan-pan-material-anarcho-theo-nihilist or whatever, I’m an atheist, and I judge people by their actions and the consequences thereof. What motivates someone to do good matters less to me than the fact of doing good itself, and I have yet to see any evidence that religion is more likely to motivate (or rationalize) bad behavior than nonreligious ideologies.

  • Not for lack of trying, either, I’d imagine.

  • What “column”? I linked to a comment of mine. My argument is that superstition encourages irrationality, and irrationality, by leading people into incorrect conclusions, should not be advocated for.

  • I have yet to see any evidence that religion is more likely to motivate
    (or rationalize) bad behavior than a nonreligious ideologies.

    -Me, too. I, however, believe the poison is always there, although it may not always cause harmful effects.

  • Alcohol leads to drunkenness and thus should not be advocated for.

    Automobiles lead to car accidents and thus should not be advocated for.

    Airplanes lead to plane crashes and thus should not be advocated for.

  • Magic_Cracker

    I, however, believe the poison is always there, although it may not always cause harmful effects.

    Well, it’s fine with me if you believe that, but don’t expect me to take it on faith.

  • Which one of the premises of my, admittedly, circular, argument, do you disagree with?

  • Which one of the premises of my, admittedly, circular, argument, do you disagree with?

    The fact that you, Christopher Hitchens, and every smug, two-bit atheist “intellectual” on the internet think that it’s a winner and you get to use it to bypass rules of rhetoric? Does that count? A logical fallacy is a logical fallacy and the fact that the person using it is a smug, self-satisfied bastard doesn’t change that basic fact or allow that person to win by default.

  • What evidence do you have that religion offers greater social benefit than humanism? Cars and planes, after all, are irreplaceable in their task of transporting people or goods over rough, undeveloped terrain.

  • Fusina

    I am going to assume here that you are referring to a belief that something/one started the whole universe going. Which, since I wasn’t there, and as one friend pointed out, there were no cameras, video recorders, voice recorders or, indeed, witnesses, I cannot attest to what happened. I take it on faith, just as you seem to be taking by faith that I am irrational. So be it. We are probably both locked up in an insane asylum somewhere, in which case, I get to be Catherine the Great.

  • I never called myself an “intellectual”. No, it doesn’t count as it does not answer my question. Focus on the soundness of the argument itself, not on its purpose.