Atheism

Originally posted by Omega Vision
'I believe there is no God' isn't a claim to knowledge, it's a statement of belief. It would be a claim to knowledge if the person said 'I know there is no God'.

I both agree and disagree. Perhaps if the statement were put like so: "I believe, there is no God." The knowledge claim is that which falls after the comma.

If Prof. Y came over and said "There is no God" and Student X responded, "That is what I believe", we would not hesitate to say that Prof. Y made a knowledge claim and X accepted it. (Though, as an aside, we know that Prof. Y has no proof, and so his knowledge claim is not Knowledge but in fact merely Belief.)

So, when one assents with the words 'I believe' to a proposition such as, 'there is no God' or 'there is a God', regardless of whether or not this is done in dialogue with another, they are assenting to a knowledge claim which is not based upon proof and therefore falls under the term Astra has called 'Belief'.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
However, if the person were to say "I know there is no God" he would be making a knowledge claim AND stating a belief because anything that one claims to know must first be believed, going back to the example of the car keys.

Again, I think I agree but disagree. For example, the statement: 'I believe carrots exist and are orange' contains two knowledge claims which are based upon, as you say, my belief. However, they are also based upon proof, ergo, the statement is not one of belief but one of Knowledge.

All statements of Knowledge require, at some level, Belief, but no statements of Belief require Knowledge (defined as a belief established as true with proof)

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Saying, 'I believe there is no God' contains a knowledge claim, but as it is one without proof, it is what Astra calls a 'belief'.

Why does that contain a knowledge claim? I'm not seeing it. I agree with everything you are saying, however.

Edit - Nevermind, I see your response right above mine...you dirty ninja.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Why does that contain a knowledge claim? I'm not seeing it. I agree with everything you are saying, however.

Edit - Nevermind, I see your response right above mine...you dirty ninja.

I hope I am on the right track...

I think it is useful to keep in mind that Omega's original problem, that I tried to respond to, was whether or not Astra's system precluded the notion that 'belief precedes knowledge'. I don't think it does, as I've tried to show. [Though, on review this does not seem to be the central issue in our tete-a-tete]

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I hope I am on the right track...

Yes. It fits nicely into my own personal belief:

"I don't know if God exists but I believe God exists."

I have several "knowledge" claims with which to conclude my belief. However, those knowledge claims are by no means perfectly objective which makes my belief almost purely faith-based.

Originally posted by dadudemon
"I don't know if God exists but I believe God exists."

This could open up an interesting avenue,

Does it make more sense, based upon each sides internal world-view/philosophy, for a 'believer' to say: "I believe God exists." than for a 'non-believer' to say: "I do not believe God exists."?

For, based upon his belief system, the believer suspects, usually, that God has or at least can 'transmit' to him, in some ineffable way, knowledge of his existence. That is to say, he does not believe that the existence of God is an 'unknowable'.

However, the 'non-believer' does not believe there can be any way in which the non-existence, or existence, of such a posited being can be communicated/known, and so, he can never bring himself to say "I believe there is no God" without committing to a position he believes he has no means of knowing.

Does that make sense? Just an idea, but certainly Agnosticism, that is embracing the un-knowability of the God's existence is the most prudent measure for those who do not believe by the phenomenon that is 'Faith'.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I both agree and disagree. Perhaps if the statement were put like so: "I believe, there is no God." The knowledge claim is that which falls after the comma.

If Prof. Y came over and said "There is no God" and Student X responded, "That is what I believe", we would not hesitate to say that Prof. Y made a knowledge claim and X accepted it. (Though, as an aside, we know that Prof. Y has no proof, and so his knowledge claim is not Knowledge but in fact merely Belief.)

So, when one assents with the words 'I believe' to a proposition such as, 'there is no God' or 'there is a God', regardless of whether or not this is done in dialogue with another, they are assenting to a knowledge claim which is not based upon proof and therefore falls under the term Astra has called 'Belief'.

I disagree, if I'm reading this correctly. Obviously I follow your linguistic line of thinking. But if someone is making a claim of knowledge about God, they're almost never going to start with "I believe..." Saying "you're making a knowledge claim" to any person saying this is dumb, because most aren't, or will admit that they aren't if pressed. It's letter of the law vs. spirit of the law. Most don't dissect statements at this level, because a general idea of their viewpoint is enough for most conversation.

Your example of carrots has no bearing either. There's context. You can't hold them as equivalent statements to a God belief just because the linguistic structure is the same. Language isn't that rigid, and context informs any statement.

It never got fully dissected, but I couldn't understand why Astner resented the idea of a lack of belief. It seemed to do more with his views of atheists than anything. But, we "lack belief" about an infinite number of things. It's a valid position, and avoids the linguistic messiness of the idea of belief. At one point I would say "I believe there is no God." I wouldn't have considered it a statement of knowledge, btw; the only knowledge statements I'd make would be about the gods of the world's religions. But even that is inadequate. I think the universe is understandable and possible without a God, and see no reason to believe in one, but a positive belief in a lack of existence is almost self-contradictory. I can say "no" to "Do you believe in {insert particular God}?" ad infinitum, but it doesn't represent a belief, but simply a lack of belief in each of those gods. I think it's a better representation of atheism, but is harder to comprehend and/or explain, so it doesn't have much footing in the cultural zeitgeist.

In short, under a particular interpretation, you may be right that the phrase "I believe there is not God" is a knowledge statement. But it doesn't hold up when most wouldn't refute your claim, even as they make the statement. Frankly, most don't think this hard about statements of belief...it's just a convenient way to express their general viewpoint. To say otherwise is to ignore a large swath of the atheist population simply to create linguistic absolutism.

Now, to throw you a bone, because I think you're close, I think that when we hear "I believe there is no God" in pop culture, society, conversations, etc. we should usually hear dudemon's statement: "I don't know if God exists but I believe God does/doesn't exist." It removes the knowledge claim; most just don't bother to say it or think it because they're not as nit-picky as KMC.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
All statements of Knowledge require, at some level, Belief, but no statements of Belief require Knowledge (defined as a belief established as true with proof)

This I can agree with.

Originally posted by Digi
I disagree...if someone is making a claim of knowledge about God, they're almost never going to start with "I believe..."

I find it difficult to discern if your disagreement is with the content of what I have said, or with the possible imposition of conclusions taken from that content onto the conversations had amongst folk talking casually...

I think you are right, what people say is not often quite what the mean. Which is why dissecting and nit-picking and arriving at clear definitions is a worthwhile and engaging pursuit. Let us not confine ourselves to the more basic conversations since we have the time, apparently, to be more in depth. (And it's fun!, I think. 🙂 )

I accept your third paragraph, in its entirety, as a valid explanation of why you feel it acceptable to communicate in the terms described. The stuff about Astra, is for him to comment on.

On the carrots, the issue was not really about God, it was about whether or not Belief precedes Knowledge. I was trying to show that that relationship can be held to exist whilst saying that a Belief excludes the prior-possession of Knowledge. I cannot be said to have come to believe something after knowing something, though I can come to know something after believing it. (necessarily so.) As you said, context is very important.

I would have much preferred:

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I both agree and disagree. Perhaps if the statement were put like so: "I believe, there is no God." The knowledge claim is that which falls after the comma.

If Prof. Y came over and said "There is no God" and Student X responded, "That is what I believe", we would not hesitate to say that Prof. Y made a knowledge claim and X accepted it. (Though, as an aside, we know that Prof. Y has no proof, and so his knowledge claim is not Knowledge but in fact merely Belief.)

So, when one assents with the words 'I believe' to a proposition such as, 'there is no God' or 'there is a God', regardless of whether or not this is done in dialogue with another, they are assenting to a knowledge claim which is not based upon proof and therefore falls under the term Astra has called 'Belief'.

Again, I think I agree but disagree. For example, the statement: 'I believe carrots exist and are orange' contains two knowledge claims which are based upon, as you say, my belief. However, they are also based upon proof, ergo, the statement is not one of belief but one of Knowledge.

All statements of Knowledge require, at some level, Belief, but no statements of Belief require Knowledge (defined as a belief established as true with proof)

Originally posted by Digi
This I can agree with.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I find it difficult to discern if your disagreement is with the content of what I have said, or with the possible imposition of conclusions taken from that content onto the conversations had amongst folk talking casually...

I think you are right, what people say is not often quite what the mean. Which is why dissecting and nit-picking and arriving at clear definitions is a worthwhile and engaging pursuit. Let us not confine ourselves to the more basic conversations since we have the time, apparently, to be more in depth. (And it's fun!, I think. 🙂 )

This has been a usual sticking point with me on the forums. I'm more interested in the practical application of ideas by people, not necessarily philosophically exact definitions.

I still can't entirely accept your explanation, because when we get down to this level, the phrase "I believe there is no God" is ambiguous. It could mean what I'm talking about OR what you're talking about. A statement of belief or a statement of knowledge. Attempting to pin either one down as "the answer" is wrong. Language, as mentioned, rarely is devoid of context.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I accept your third paragraph, in its entirety, as a valid explanation of why you feel it acceptable to communicate in the terms described. The stuff about Astra, is for him to comment on.

Fair enough. I just wanted to bring it up because, as an atheist, it's how I'd describe myself if asked. Well, if asked in-depth. Usually shorter explanations suffice. As such, I think this debate over the common atheist phrases is somewhat invalid...relevant only because such phrases continue to be used, not because they represent an atheist position in the best possible way.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I would have much preferred:

I agree that you would have preferred this.

313

Two videos, both with different points:
YouTube video

Obviously this is tongue-in-cheek, but it has a point to make. But here's my thing with it: arguments like these, be they videos or written, tend to be dismissed with a wave of the hand because of their tone. But my question is, why? Second, the inconsistencies and brutalities of the Bible are also well-known, yet equally dismissed. Again, why? Why aren't we constantly demanding answers for each of these, the supposed Word of God. Historical or metaphoric context be damned, what the hell is the Word of God doing saying ANYTHING that could lead to believing slavery is acceptable (or any of the other atrocities). And if you choose to ignore it, as most Christians rightly do, what is it doing there? Why is it left like a time-bomb for literalists to abuse?

This, to me, is one of the least used arguments relative to its merit. Why is the holiest of books arguably worse to read from a moral perspective than a bullsh*t self-help book on the cheap shelves at Barnes & Noble?

And since this example is Bible-only, the same questions can be applied to pretty much any holy text in modern monotheistic religion.

Video 2:
YouTube video

Again, the disclaimers, so that we're not mired in things that miss the point:
- I don't like purpose of the video, which paints religion with too broad a brush.
- Yes, these are case studies, nothing more.

Now the relevant points:
- What your parents are is, overwhelmingly, the most likely factor in determining your religion. Don't rebut with your personal story - I'm an exception too - we're dealing with statistical likelihood.
- Many faiths do explicitly target children, either consciously, or it is passively built into their model of practices and messages. It's a very good business model. And chances are if you don't have a way to bring children in (through a school or Sunday school program, activities, programs, etc.) you won't last long. In any devoutly religious community or church, it's easy to see how the religion becomes infused into aspects of one's life other than the weekly hour-long service (or similar observance).

Now, the question:
Is it acceptable to indoctrinate a child into any religious belief? This includes atheism; I'm not holding my beliefs to a different standard. Because, make no mistake, raising a child as any religion is indeed indoctrination. They don't possess the critical faculties to believe otherwise until they're much older.

The potentially defensible religious argument I can see here is that the child's immortal soul is more important than their freedom to choose their own religious path. Don't want the Devil intervening or something, etc. etc. To me, though, it seems like stripping them of their ability to choose...or at least weighting the decision heavily in one direction.

I have a friend whose family is a perfect case study for this. Parents are atheist/agnostic, respectively. Never raised to be anything, but encouraged to explore and think thoroughly about options and questions. A good approach, imo. Both sons experienced heavy criticism for their lack of belief in a particular brand of Christianity (this is in the northeast, not south or midwest). Several religious parents caught wind of it and actually tried to start to talk both sons into religion, to go along with the peer pressure of being in the minority without stated beliefs. My friend thrived on the adversity, and is one of the best atheist debaters I know. His brother is now Catholic, having been uncomfortable with being ostricized and eventually exploring religion. He may have other reasons, and is an intelligent adult now as well, but this is what I've gleaned from talks with my friend.

I think we can all agree that the pressure was wrong. From what I know, my friend's parents fought against it, rightly so, but there's only so much one's parents can protect you when, for example, you're subjected to chants of "YOU'RE GOING TO HELL!" on the playground. Whether or not the brother was subjected to this, I don't know, but my friend definitely was.

Once I hear such stories, a PSA-style outcry like this video almost seems tame to me, because the whole system is borked. We can rail again the individuals and not the religion all we want, but no one can argue that the norm in our society promotes exploration among faiths or anything but adherence to what you've been taught. As long as "We think our beliefs are the right ones, and raising your children to believe them, and to espouse them to others, is the correct approach," as long as that goes unchallenged, nothing will change.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
[B]I both agree and disagree. Perhaps if the statement were put like so: "I believe, there is no God." The knowledge claim is that which falls after the comma.

If Prof. Y came over and said "There is no God" and Student X responded, "That is what I believe", we would not hesitate to say that Prof. Y made a knowledge claim and X accepted it. (Though, as an aside, we know that Prof. Y has no proof, and so his knowledge claim is not Knowledge but in fact merely Belief.)

So, when one assents with the words 'I believe' to a proposition such as, 'there is no God' or 'there is a God', regardless of whether or not this is done in dialogue with another, they are assenting to a knowledge claim which is not based upon proof and therefore falls under the term Astra has called 'Belief'.

Did you mean to say 'assert' when you said 'assent'?

No, they're making a claim of belief. That's why they wasted the necessary amount of time to say "I believe" rather than "I know".

Again, I think I agree but disagree. For example, the statement: 'I believe carrots exist and are orange' contains two knowledge claims which are based upon, as you say, my belief. However, they are also based upon proof, ergo, the statement is not one of belief but one of Knowledge.

All statements of Knowledge require, at some level, Belief, but no statements of Belief require Knowledge (defined as a belief established as true with proof)

Something to add to my last post:

there seems to be confusion between what is claimed and what is expressed. You can express knowledge while only claiming belief (e.g. "I believe that there are eight planets" when you actually know that there are eight planets but either don't know that you know (though I think many epistemologists will want to say that this isn't knowledge) or don't understand the meaning of the words 'believe' and 'know'😉 and you can express belief while claiming knowledge (probably the most common kind of epistemic declaration in the world) (e.g. "I know that there is a life after death" when you don't have a justified and reliably produced true belief, so you're really just expressing a belief but you're still claiming knowledge)

Whether a statement is a claim of belief or a claim of knowledge has nothing to do with the "proof" behind the statement or lack thereof, but rather the speaker's intent.

I can claim to know most things. But I don't claim to believe I'm telling the truth.

Originally posted by Digi
Two videos, both with different points:
YouTube video

Obviously this is tongue-in-cheek, but it has a point to make. But here's my thing with it: arguments like these, be they videos or written, tend to be dismissed with a wave of the hand because of their tone. But my question is, why?

No one that you actually want to read your posts are going to do it. Only people that agree with you are going to read your posts...except for me. 🙂

To answer your question and some of the video:

1. We most certainly learned that, as children, in our Sunday School. 😐 It may be due to how much hate Mormons get from both atheist and Christian Evangelical, alike. So we learn quite a bit about ancient history, the bible, and partially politics of the ancient world as kids...and as adults. We don't stop going to Sunday school as part of our standard Sunday "mass". So the video fails, there, with at least some people (not just Mormons. I noticed that non-denomiantional churches tend to be more well-read and educated about bible and history than their counterparts). When we get to those parts, they are discussed as "the barbaric days of the ancient world". And it is more of the line of, "This is just shit God tolerated because the people were a different culture: they were literally not ready for the "New Law" of love that Jesus would later come to preach. This is likened unto the Mormons stent with the Law of Consecration: we use that as an example of an even higher law that we are currently not capable of following. The Law of Consecration is basically Pure Communism: the good kind of communism that is supposed to be Utopian. We weren't worthy enough to live it so we can't live it. Instead, we live a lower form of that law and it is just ... charity, I suppose.

2. That was the old law. The new law says to turn the other cheek, like the video indicates at the end, sarcastically: beating a slave is not in accordance to the "new law" which is part of why Joseph Smith grew to be a strong anti-slavery advocate. We are still commanded to obey the laws of the land and to be law abiding citizens, however. That last sentence means that if slavery is legal and there are laws governing how to treat your slaves, you had better abide by those laws or you not only break the law, but you have sinned as a Christian.

Originally posted by dadudemon
2. That was the old law. The new law says to turn the other cheek, like the video indicates at the end, sarcastically: beating a slave is not in accordance to the "new law" which is part of why Joseph Smith grew to be a strong anti-slavery advocate. We are still commanded to obey the laws of the land and to be law abiding citizens, however. That last sentence means that if slavery is legal and there are laws governing how to treat your slaves, you had better abide by those laws or you not only break the law, but you have sinned as a Christian.

But presumably the laws of god are supposed to override the laws of the land. If the law required you to brand your slaves (for tax purposes, lets say) would it be a sin not to do so? Obviously not owning slaves at all is morally superior but I feel like the slave owner who doesn't mutilate his slaves would be less sinful than the one who does.

In more real terms: Is it a sin for a Mormon to try to free a slave they do not own? Smith doesn't seem to have broken the law to save slaves but that doesn't prove he wouldn't have done so in a different circumstance. Did he ever say anything on the topic?

Thoughts on the Atheist group getting the nativity displays outlawed in their city? I believe specifically that they got any kind of "religious-based' display blocked.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But presumably the laws of god are supposed to override the laws of the land.

Not true when it comes to the conduct of the individual (for Christians). The exception is if the laws of the land demand you commit sin...which is very very rare. An example is compulsory participation in a drinking festival or something. I really can't think of a nation that had a law that forced people to commit sin. Most laws in all lands are almost social-type laws: don't rape, murder, etc.

In fact, Paul preached that the slaves and the master are equal before the real Master in Ephesians 6:9. He told the masters to treat their slaves justly and not threaten them (I assume this means not to harm them...the wording/language is a bit off so there is a bit of translation that must be done from Early Modern English to Modern English so using the context of the previous verses, it seems harming them is a better fit then just threats of violence. I see it to mean "threat to their life" meaning beating them).

It should be seen that Slavery was tolerated rather than endorsed. And Paul makes it quite clear that slaves were equals to the masters in the eyes of God which would have been devastating/absurd for many people at the time. I am amazed at how the Evangelical South justified slavery while professing to be "Christians".

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If the law required you to brand your slaves (for tax purposes, lets say) would it be a sin not to do so?

Owning slaves was generally looked down upon by early Christians so I would say the argument is moot: they wouldn't own slaves to begin with. Many early Christians were slaves or former slaves.*

And, yes is the answer to your question. But I don't think that law has existed for Christians to follow.

*http://www.amazon.com/Slavery-Early-Christianity-Jennifer-Glancy/dp/0800637895 We had to read some of that in one of our humanities classes. I wanted to read more, actually. Seems like a good read and relevant to the topic. Early Christianity is not as pure as some would believe but it is purer and more "Christ-Like" than some realize, too. Meaning...they weren't perfect but they seemed much more "turn the other cheek" like than most Christians today.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Obviously not owning slaves at all is morally superior but I feel like the slave owner who doesn't mutilate his slaves would be less sinful than the one who does.

I agree to all of the above.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
In more real terms: Is it a sin for a Mormon to try to free a slave they do not own?

Yes. Joseph Smith, at one point, cautioned against inferring with slave owners, IIRC. I believe he, instead, spoke about buying slaves, legally, and freeing them that way.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Smith doesn't seem to have broken the law to save slaves but that doesn't prove he wouldn't have done so in a different circumstance. Did he ever say anything on the topic?

Yes, he spoke quite a bit about slavery. He went from almost indifference to saying the idea of one man being under the bondage of another as making him burn with fire. He hated slavery that much.

However, Joseph Smith is a flawed man who readily admitted he committed sins. He is not Jesus. I think a better example would be Jesus. I just don't see how slavery and the message of Jesus match up, despite the fact that many Christians tried to use the bible to support slavery. Maybe that's what pissed Joseph Smith off about it so much? While he was preaching against it, his Evangelical brethren were using similar scripture to support it. "DAT'S NOT JESUS STUFF!" is what I picture him saying. 😆

Originally posted by Ascendancy
Thoughts on the Atheist group getting the nativity displays outlawed in their city? I believe specifically that they got any kind of "religious-based' display blocked.

I mean, I don't think any reasonable atheist would want the Sistine Chapel's mural destroyed if it happened to be in a public building, so why do they care about something like a nativity scene? I say go for it, so long as they also allow displays from other religions.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I mean, the Pope just published a book that among other things calls the entire presentation of the nativity bullshit (no animals).

That's actually pretty cool. I'm glad to see some Christians going in the directions of truth. I'm seeing that with more religions, too: accepting evolution, the bible as allegorical instead of literal and scientific, etc.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I mean, I don't think any reasonable atheist would want the Sistine Chapel's mural destroyed if it happened to be in a public building, so why do they care about something like a nativity scene? I say go for it, so long as they also allow displays from other religions.

Wait, were the nativity scenes being setup on public property or church property? If church property, it should be allowed without question (and only those things the steward/preacher wants). Public property, it should not be allowed, imo.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's actually pretty cool. I'm glad to see some Christians going in the directions of truth. I'm seeing that with more religions, too: accepting evolution, the bible as allegorical instead of literal and scientific, etc.

Wait, were the nativity scenes being setup on public property or church property? If church property, it should be allowed without question (and only those things the steward/preacher wants). Public property, it should not be allowed, imo.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Not true when it comes to the conduct of the individual (for Christians). The exception is if the laws of the land demand you commit sin...which is very very rare. An example is compulsory participation in a drinking festival or something. I really can't think of a nation that had a law that forced people to commit sin. Most laws in all lands are almost social-type laws: don't rape, murder, etc.

That's actually the question I was asking. The laws of God override the law of the land where they contradict.

Originally posted by dadudemon
In fact, Paul preached that the slaves and the master are equal before the real Master in Ephesians 6:9. He told the masters to treat their slaves justly and not threaten them (I assume this means not to harm them...the wording/language is a bit off so there is a bit of translation that must be done from Early Modern English to Modern English so using the context of the previous verses, it seems harming them is a better fit then just threats of violence. I see it to mean "threat to their life" meaning beating them).

But in Ephesians 6:5 he says that slaves should obey their masters just as they would obey Christ. Its hard to reconcile "you two are equal" with "that guy's orders are as binding as God's orders" and very easy to see which slave owners would focus on.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It should be seen that Slavery was tolerated rather than endorsed. And Paul makes it quite clear that slaves were equals to the masters in the eyes of God which would have been devastating/absurd for many people at the time. I am amazed at how the Evangelical South justified slavery while professing to be "Christians".

Paul is human but other parts of the Bible are supposed to be the word of God. The leap involved is actually pretty huge. Noah curses Canaan to be a slave which results in the curse being transferred to all his descendants. For there is was assumed that Canaan went to live in Africa.

Paul makes all people, including slaves, equal via the "all one in Christ Jesus" statement but he also tells slaves to be obedient. That's a kind of twisted thinking that shows up to justify injustice a lot, you say there are proper roles to follow. This way you can say "we're equal because if I were your slave I'd have to do what you say". Inevitably, the people who benefit from the proper roles are the ones who support them most and refuse to understand how the people the roles harm can object.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And, yes is the answer to your question. But I don't think that law has existed for Christians to follow.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I agree to all of the above.

These two answers seem contradictory. How can it be a sin to do something (refuse to brand a slave in this case) but also be more moral?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes. Joseph Smith, at one point, cautioned against inferring with slave owners, IIRC. I believe he, instead, spoke about buying slaves, legally, and freeing them that way.

Yes, he spoke quite a bit about slavery. He wet from almost indifference to saying the idea of one man being under the bondage of another as making him burn with fire. He hated slavery that much.

That's about the impression I had.

Originally posted by dadudemon
However, Joseph Smith is a flawed man who readily admitted he committed sins. He is not Jesus. I think a better example would be Jesus. I just don't see how slavery and the message of Jesus match up, despite the fact that many Christians tried to use the bible to support slavery.

Jesus never comes out against slavery, though. He actually talks about how you should beat your slaves a bunch if they get uppity in Luke 12:
"And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes."

You can argue that the message implies you shouldn't have slaves but Jesus gives out plenty of explicit commands in the New Testament. Apparently he needed to make it clear that you shouldn't swear but didn't think slavery deserved a mention. We also argue that textually Jesus though severe things were obvious and didn't need a mention since in Matthew 19:18 he specifically says "do not murder."

The Bible is ultimately pretty neutral on slavery which is not really a moral standpoint by modern standards (I imagine you think forcible slavery is a Bad Thing rather than a Thing That's Okay If You Do It Right). Perhaps that was progressive at the time but God's commands are supposed to be timeless.