Calling it "more morally excellent" is kind of loaded, and goes to values debates, Zarr.

I never called it morally excellent. You seem to be getting what saying.

But, to answer your question - yes, I think democracy is better, both in ethical and practical terms.

Exactly. It's better because it works not because it's more morally excellent.

It gives everyone a fair say. And, while you have a point about a benevolent dictator, the dictator won't live forever, and under that setup you are GUARENTEED to eventually get a malovent dictator. Democracy is also the most stable thing around, for the transfer of power.

Totally agree.

I disagree. Most people (and note that I'm not one of them) think that slavery is such a bad thing, that anyone that condones it (which Jesus did, at least implicitly) makes it impossible for him to be perfectly good.

This is where I disagree. I don't think that Jesus condoned slavery anymore than he condoned the empirical set-up of Rome. He just lives morally within that system. When it comes to slaves, he understood and lived out the principle that people are valuable regardless of their social status. A person may be a slave to people of this world, but to God all are equal. It was this lived out principle of Jesus that was the driving force behind Wilburforce and also Lincoln when he said, "Four score and seven years ago, our forefathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal".

Myself, I think extreme pacifism is a wimpy copout by people not willing to make the difficult decision, so I'd also toss Jesus out of the running.

I don't think Jesus lived life as an extreme pacifist. He was a peacemaker, but he also did not just stand by and watch injustice happen.

I disagree. I think it is all about the life he is reported to have lived. The teachings about Jesus are what has transformed lives. But that comes from a "I don't buy it" perspective, so you should expect that from me. :)

I do expect that. But really, I think you would do well to realize that Jesus continues to have an impact in the lives of people not because of what he taught, but moreso because what he did for people. When the gospel takes hold in your heart, it transform you. That's about as close as i can come to explaining the supernatural power of what Christianity is really about.

Treating people as things is immoral; it is in fact exactly what Jesus is getting at with the Golden Rule.

So, let me ask a single question: Would you mind being a slave? How about your fiance? Would you mind if she was made a slave?

The key here Viz is in the first five words that you say here. Slavery is not immoral. Treating people as things is immoral. That is totally what Jesus was getting at with the golden rule.

Would I want to be a slave? Well, it depends. Obviously I prefer the life that I have now over that. But, if it means the difference between life and death, I'd love to be the servant of someone like Abraham or Potiphar in the Bible. Those slaves lived very good lives and, as I showed from my example in Genesis 24, sometimes a slave will genuniely love his master. For many slaves in the past, either you live in the house of a good master who would protect you, cloth you, feed you, and care for you, or you fend for yourself in a world where you are never going to get anywhere unless you are a land owner. You're basically homeless. Again, how do you explain Abrahams servant in Genesis 24?

Even a benevolent dictator is still a dictator. Definately not better than a democracy

Well there are fewer risks that is for sure. Everyone is watching everyone else in a democracy. That's why it's better. But, if the dictator genuniely loves his people and puts their interests ahead of his own, I don't see how that couldn't work just as well or even better. Of course, as Mork says, it's pretty tough to make that work. But, it certainly can. The point is that one is not more moral than the other. They are different. Both can work. Both have advantages and disadvantages.

And, Hitler was democratically elected, Zarr.

Right, so there we have an example of how democracies and dictatorships can both fail miserably. One is not more morally excellent than another.

Democracy has its bad sides ... but is still a FAR better system than one which has dictators and slavery.

I agree. It is a better system because there is less risk involved.

Zarr, are you a bible literalist? Just wondering.

Pretty much I guess. Though I really don't get too hung up on things other than the message of the gospel. That's really the only thing I'll go to the wall for. I really don't get up in arms over 6 day creation or billions of years anymore. I just don't care enough. I just thnk that God know what he's doing. I like the creation story. I like the flood story. But you know? Those are both very brief accounts. I just don't know how it all looked. But I do think that a flood occured and I do think that God spoke the world into existence. I think that Genesis 1 is amazing in it's poetic structure. I think that we need to keep that in mind. It is, in fact, poetry. You're not reading documented science. You are reading the human expression of our historical experience with God.

Viz, you are really pushing this issue. You are absolutely sure that slavery is always immoral? Hmmm...

Obviously I agree that what happened in the history of the US was terrible. Obviously I agree that the slave trade in Europe was horrible. Slaves crammed into tight quarters and thrown overboard to lighten the load during bad weather? Yeah that's terrible and immoral stuff. I'm not arguing that. But honestly, I think you are totally inconsistent here. There was a time when becoming a slave gave you a chance at life. It worked for some. I don't know how you can stand up against it as a moral relativist. I thought that the only thing that mattered was that no harm is done to anyone. Well, read Genesis 24. Abraham's servant was given all kinds of freedom. He actually wanted to do the things that his master asked him to do. Not only that, but he wanted to do his best. It worked for him.

Isn't that what moral relativism is about? As long as it works for a society, then it's not immoral. Yet here you are saying that there is never ever a circumstance when slavery is a good way to go. I just don't see how you can say that and still deny a moral absolute. Given the option of living on his own or staying with his master, Abrahams servant clearly choose to remain a servant.

Viz, just because it's immoral in your mind for right now doesn't mean that it is always immoral. Hello relativism. The reality is that it is not a moral issue. It's a means of functioning. It can work, but it really does lend itself to abuses where people are mistreated. That's where the immorality enters into it.

Really, I find it very funny that you are trying to convince me of some sort of moral absolute on this issue. I do think that there is a moral absolute, but I just don't see it as applicable here because I can think of situations where becoming a slave was actually a good thing and the best decision under the circumstances. It's a system of hierarchy. Nothing more. It can work. It only becomes immoral when a person is not treated with the dignity that a child of God deserves.

He was very lucky (of course, Genesis wasn't written by him, it was written by people who were masters, not slaves -- what would his version of his life be like, I wonder), but how many slaves were (and are -- slavery still exists) as lucky as he was?

Say whatever you like but you just affirmed my point. Call it luck if you want. It worked for some slaves.

You would have no choice in the matter, since you would be a slave. How did Abraham's servant become a slave in the first place? Was it his choice? Was he sold into slavery to redeem a debt? Was he prisoner taken in war?

What if he owed a debt to Abraham and agreed to become a servant in order to pay it off? That is VERY common in the Bible. Often, a person would owe a debt and in order to pay it off they would personally agree to become a slave. What do you do with this issue when a person sells themself into slavery???? Is it still immoral??? Come on Viz.

Seriously, slavery in ancient Hebrew culture was very very different from the slavery that we think of in America. HERE is a fantastic and concise answer to the question. I'm tired of answering it. You are wrong. And really, this whole issue has only come up because someone here wanted to point out some sort of moral blemish in the character of Jesus. Regardless of this whole argument, Jesus never went around telling people that slavery was the way to go. So the whole point is silly and very poorly argued. The source is a crappy quiz from Lanover Baptist for pity's sake.