[quote]Varqanir wrote:
But something resembling Sharia law was practiced in the 14th and 15th centuries of Christianity, if you’ll recall. Christendom managed to outgrow the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition and all the other joys of theocracy, and eventually, I imagine, so will the Muslim world.[/quote]
you would think the internet and globalization would speed up the process of becoming civilized…
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
That doesn’t make sense to me. That god would teach how to treat slaves while not supporting it. Why not just say that slavery is wrong.[/quote]
Who says slavery is wrong?
If all morality comes from God, and he’s okay with it, then it must be okay.[/quote]
I thaik that is exactly what the bible is implying. If god gave instructions on how to treat your slave then slavery is ok. Otherwise god would have set out rules on how to properly murder someone.
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
That doesn’t make sense to me. That god would teach how to treat slaves while not supporting it. Why not just say that slavery is wrong.[/quote]
I would look at it in it’s historical context, with slavery being relatively common in that time.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
That doesn’t make sense to me. That god would teach how to treat slaves while not supporting it. Why not just say that slavery is wrong.[/quote]
I would look at it in it’s historical context, with slavery being relatively common in that time.[/quote]
Historical context is irrelevant. If something is wrong then its wrong.
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
That doesn’t make sense to me. That god would teach how to treat slaves while not supporting it. Why not just say that slavery is wrong.[/quote]
I would look at it in it’s historical context, with slavery being relatively common in that time.[/quote]
Historical context is irrelevant. If something is wrong then its wrong.[/quote]
I’ll have to disagree with you on that one. IMO, when something has become culturally acceptable, and people are raised in it for long enough, they don’t have a proper reference point. In this situation it would be that not owning slaves was uncommon and “strange” to most people.
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
If something is wrong then its wrong.[/quote]
Correct… Now factor in man’s fallibility, and the fact the book you’re referring to was pieced together by men, and…
The reasonable conclusion is there might be a misinterpretation of “God’s Will” in there, maybe in a couple of misinterpretations or embellishments.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
If something is wrong then its wrong.[/quote]
Correct… Now factor in man’s fallibility, and the fact the book you’re referring to was pieced together by men, and…
The reasonable conclusion is there might be a misinterpretation of “God’s Will” in there, maybe in a couple of misinterpretations or embellishments. [/quote]
I agree with all of what you’re saying. But the religious claim the book was divinely inspired. So how could man’s fallibility be an issue.
The Koran was divinely inspired, yet it’s doctrine changes according to what was going on in Mohammad’s life. Example: if he was in a conflict the message was that killing nonbelievers was OK, otherwise the message was if you kill 1 person you kill all of mankind. So the message from Allah was constantly changing. How can you reconsile those 2 statements? No wonder there’s so many problem with their religion.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
That doesn’t make sense to me. That god would teach how to treat slaves while not supporting it. Why not just say that slavery is wrong.[/quote]
I would look at it in it’s historical context, with slavery being relatively common in that time.[/quote]
Historical context is irrelevant. If something is wrong then its wrong.[/quote]
I’ll have to disagree with you on that one. IMO, when something has become culturally acceptable, and people are raised in it for long enough, they don’t have a proper reference point. In this situation it would be that not owning slaves was uncommon and “strange” to most people.[/quote]
That still doesn’t make it ok. I dont’t see how God would say “well since it’s culturally acceptable L’ll set rules for it”. Why would god even wait for something wrong to manifest into something culturally acceptable. You’d think he’d make it clear that it’s wrong beforehand. But he didn’t. Which would lead many to believe that according to the bible slavery is ok.
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
That doesn’t make sense to me. That god would teach how to treat slaves while not supporting it. Why not just say that slavery is wrong.[/quote]
I would look at it in it’s historical context, with slavery being relatively common in that time.[/quote]
Historical context is irrelevant. If something is wrong then its wrong.[/quote]
I’ll have to disagree with you on that one. IMO, when something has become culturally acceptable, and people are raised in it for long enough, they don’t have a proper reference point. In this situation it would be that not owning slaves was uncommon and “strange” to most people.[/quote]
That still doesn’t make it ok. I dont’t see how God would say “well since it’s culturally acceptable L’ll set rules for it”. Why would god even wait for something wrong to manifest into something culturally acceptable. You’d think he’d make it clear that it’s wrong beforehand. But he didn’t. Which would lead many to believe that according to the bible slavery is ok.[/quote]
It was written as being ok because it was written by men in a time when slavery was the norm. FWIW I don’t believe in the Bible or Christianity, but I do think that some portions of religious texts do provide good lessons in ethics or moral decision-making.
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
But the religious claim the book was divinely inspired. So how could man’s fallibility be an issue.[/quote]
Because the idea man can 100% understand the messages and intentions of an omnipotent being, and to assume that people scribing the book were impervious to evil for personal gain are both ludicrous.
I’m sure Push wants to lash me right now, lol, but think about it for a second.
On a side note, I find for the most part, the people who take the bible the most literate are the people looking to shit on Christianity, and none of the religious people I know take it anywhere as near literal, except for the dudes preaching… And even then…
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
But the religious claim the book was divinely inspired. So how could man’s fallibility be an issue.[/quote]
Because the idea man can 100% understand the messages and intentions of an omnipotent being, and to assume that people scribing the book were impervious to evil for personal gain are both ludicrous.
I’m sure Push wants to lash me right now, lol, but think about it for a second.
On a side note, I find for the most part, the people who take the bible the most literate are the people looking to shit on Christianity, and none of the religious people I know take it anywhere as near literal, except for the dudes preaching… And even then… [/quote]
So you’re telling me an omnipotent being can’t properly communicate with it’s creation? That makes sense to you? I am thinking about it and it just seems like a stupid argument to excuse Christianity’s dark past. I have a hard time believing that the most powerful being cannot properly convey a message to man. Maybe you should think about it a bit more.
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
So you’re telling me an omnipotent being can’t properly communicate with it’s creation? [/quote]
No. I’m telling you that it is arrogant beyond belief to think that:
a) Humans made no mistake in the interpretation of the omnipotent
b) Humans were pure in thought, mind and expression while scribing the book.
Yes. It doesn’t make sense to you because you’re trying to place the blame on God and not on man, which is the ultimate of folly. You’re giving humans way too much credit.
I’ve done no such thing, and we’ve been over this a few times now.
Christianity doesn’t have a dark past, the people involved have done dark things and used Christianity to gain their lust for power.
Your arrogance is astounding. Not only do you assume God is the fallible one, but you also assume I’ve not considered the possibilities quite a bit.
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
But the religious claim the book was divinely inspired. So how could man’s fallibility be an issue.[/quote]
Because the idea man can 100% understand the messages and intentions of an omnipotent being, and to assume that people scribing the book were impervious to evil for personal gain are both ludicrous.
I’m sure Push wants to lash me right now, lol, but think about it for a second.
On a side note, I find for the most part, the people who take the bible the most literate are the people looking to shit on Christianity, and none of the religious people I know take it anywhere as near literal, except for the dudes preaching… And even then… [/quote]
So you’re telling me an omnipotent being can’t properly communicate with it’s creation? That makes sense to you? I am thinking about it and it just seems like a stupid argument to excuse Christianity’s dark past. I have a hard time believing that the most powerful being cannot properly convey a message to man. Maybe you should think about it a bit more.[/quote]
I will never understand why people can not grasp this.
The book did not even have to be divinely inspired and scribed by man. It could have magically materialized. Perfect message and all. However, those in power may have not liked certain passages, teachings etc. so, they changed it to benefit them. Add in a thousand years and you have a book that it no longer recognizable.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
So you’re telling me an omnipotent being can’t properly communicate with it’s creation? [/quote]
No. I’m telling you that it is arrogant beyond belief to think that:
a) Humans made no mistake in the interpretation of the omnipotent
b) Humans were pure in thought, mind and expression while scribing the book.
Yes. It doesn’t make sense to you because you’re trying to place the blame on God and not on man, which is the ultimate of folly. You’re giving humans way too much credit.
I’ve done no such thing, and we’ve been over this a few times now.
Christianity doesn’t have a dark past, the people involved have done dark things and used Christianity to gain their lust for power.
Your arrogance is astounding. Not only do you assume God is the fallible one, but you also assume I’ve not considered the possibilities quite a bit.
[/quote]
Well then, given that we can’t know what was transcribed faithfully and what was not, and given furthermore that god has suggested no emendations of which any of us are aware, we can’t trust a single sentence of the thing.
So much for objective morality.
The alternative interpretation being that god really is OK with slavery. Do you think that impossible, Beans?
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
The alternative interpretation being that god really is OK with slavery. Do you think that impossible, Beans?[/quote]
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
The alternative interpretation being that god really is OK with slavery. Do you think that impossible, Beans?[/quote]
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/slavery_bible.html[/quote]
Oh I’m perfectly aware of the silly pretzels into which the faithful have twisted themselves in order to try and forget all the nonsense in their book. Note that, above, I said “OK with” rather than “approves of” – and for that very reason, no less.
If an omnipotent/omniscient/omnibenevolent being is talking to you about slavery, in a book in which he’s telling you all about what’s wrong or right, and does not mention that slavery is unequivocally among the former, then either he is OK with it, or he is not omnipotent/omniscient/omnibenevolent.
Bob’s house rules:
Don’t kill people.
Don’t take Bob’s name in vain.
When you are raping women in Bob’s house, be sure not to do it on Saturdays.
Q: Is Bob OK with rape, generally speaking?
A: Yep.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
So much for objective morality.[/quote]
Why? How does the fact the book itself may be tainted by man, eliminate the over riding themes?
Look at the big picture of all the religions. They share more than many are willing to admit, and those that deny deity try and use to attack each particular one. The funny part is, it is one of the very reasons I feel my faith is properly placed.
Do I think it’s impossible that an omnipotent being gave human’s the free will to try (and very often succeed in) enslaving one another? No, I’d say it is very possible. The fact we can do it sort of points to God being “OK” (whatever that means to an omnipotent) with it.
That still doesn’t speak as to it’s morality.
You’re still projecting human emotion and perspective unto God and refusing to acknowledge that it is quite possible the morality set forth by a high power isn’t even the road map of instinct, if you will, imprinted upon us.
Maybe the whole thing is set up so that acting morally is the hard, and unlikely thing to do, and it was purposely set up that way…
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
So much for objective morality.[/quote]
Why? How does the fact the book itself may be tainted by man, eliminate the over riding themes? [/quote]
Because there is no way to know what is, and what is not, tainted.
It isn’t about free will. We have the free will to kill our children and fuck our neighbors’ wives. But god told us not to. He didn’t tell us not to own slaves – he told us how to own them. Which means either that the Bible is so prone to error as to be useless, or that god is fine with my buying and owning you.