[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
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]
So, I take it you’re a subgenius [/quote]
As a matter of fact, that was a total coincidence. I had originally written “smh_23,” and then decided that, anonymous or not, I didn’t want a line about my being OK with rape, so I tapped Bob in.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[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.[/quote]
We probably need to clarify what we’re talking about. When you refer to “slavery,” what are you talking about? I imagine that God is perfectly okay with one voluntarily working for another in exchange for a place to live/food to eat/whatever.[/quote]
Why would you think that that’s what anyone is talking about here?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
I went through
And all I read was how to treat slaves, not to enslave.
I may have missed the passage about this.
[/quote]
Matty, you’re a good guy, and a thoughtful one. So please take this in the spirit in which it’s offered.
You are not going to find answers from sources with agendas.
The site you quoted is an evangelical Christian website. This is their agenda:
Assist individual Christians and the church in growing in knowledge and understanding of the Christian life;
Bear witness to God’s truth, beauty and holiness, and to the Lordship of Christ in every area of life;
Help bring men, women, and children to Christ as their Lord and Savior;
Glorify our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in every way.
Not criticising this agenda in any way, just saying that one cannot expect them to be objective about the Hebrew Bible, particularly the awkward bits.
For example, the reason you missed, say, Leviticus 25:44-45 (which tells the Israelites exactly who they are allowed to enslave) is because it does not abet the cause of glorifying Jesus.
And notice that the site quotes Ephesians 6:6-8, but leaves out the crucial verse 5, in which Paul tells the slaves of Ephasus that they should obey their earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as they would obey Christ.
Not, it should be noted, that they should throw off their chains and assert their right to be free men and women. Because let’s face it: in the first century, the truths that all men were created equal, and that they were endowed by their creator with the unalienable rights to life, liberty and property, was not held to be self-evident by anybody. Not even by Paul, and not even, I daresay (at the risk of offending somebody) by Jesus.
But I digress.
If you want to know what the Bible really says about anything, then read it. Don’t read a bowdlerised regurgitation of carefully picked cherries presented by people who want you to think about it in a certain way.
It goes without saying that this goes for anything I write, as well. I may deny that I have an agenda, but of course I’m full of shit. As are we all.
But if you’re pressed for time, here is a better source than open bible.info.
Shalom
PS: Don’t be fooled by the word “bondservant”, a word that you’ll encounter quite a bit. The words 'eved in Hebrew and doulos in Greek mean “slave”. Yeah, ‘bondservant’ sounds milder, but not really, when you think about it. A bondservant is a servant who is in bondage. In other words, a slave.[/quote]
Well done, as I’ve come to expect, Mr. V.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[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.[/quote]
We probably need to clarify what we’re talking about. When you refer to “slavery,” what are you talking about? I imagine that God is perfectly okay with one voluntarily working for another in exchange for a place to live/food to eat/whatever.[/quote]
Why would you think that that’s what anyone is talking about here?[/quote]
Because that is what the link I posted is discussing. I didn’t say that voluntary slavery is what anyone is talking about here; I said that the topic needs to be clarified, because kidnapping a man(the way we typically view slavery as coming about) is prohibited in the Bible.
[quote]Aggv wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Well… with the possible exception of the leaders of Algeria, Bahrain, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen, as well as Turkey, and Al-Azhar, the leading Sunni organisation … but they’re probably not sincere.
[/quote]
Out of all those countries, how many of them still do public executions?
The ones that no longer do, what year was their last public execution?
^ hint, probably sometime in the 20th century…
[/quote]
Of these countries, only Saudi Arabia and Yemen practice public execution.
Of the others, I couldn’t say when they abolished the practice. Then again, I admit I didn’t look very hard.
I do know, however, that the last public execution in the United States was in 1936. Which as far as I am aware was sometime in the 20th Century.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[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.[/quote]
Okay… Hence the word faith.
[quote]
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.[/quote]
One has faith either way. You either have faith that the bible is accurate as written, faith it is a proper guide or faith it is total bunk. Every inch in between requires faith. Something tells me, based on being one week short of 35 years on this rock, that in fact, faith is the whole damn point.
Does it reconcile with you that we’re told NOT to kill and fuck another’s wife, but we’re told it is totally cool to enslave people? Does that not jump out at you as an inconsistency, an error, omission or manipulation?
Does man’s hand stirring the pot cause you to lose faith in god, or just the men that claim the bible as the alpha and omega?
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I’m thinking you’re confusing “severity of punishment for wrongs” with “is it moral”, but please elaborate.[/quote]
Na, I used that example on purpose.
Suppose someone attempted to steal your hat. That is all he intended to do.
Now, I would imagine most of us would say that murdering a guy for trying to take your hat is a bit extreme. Indeed, I believe that’s why you asked “Do I know he is simply trying to take my hat, or is it reasonable to assume he’d kill me for said hat if he had to?” You interpreted my statement as being quite extreme for the crime committed, and so you sought to clarify the situation at hand. The questions you asked are all legitimate, and clearly show why my question isn’t a good one.
And therein lies the issue I see. That a victim exists of on itself doesn’t mean a whole lot when it comes to moral issues. It’s the degree of damage the victim receives that people are almost always more concerned with. I very much doubt you’d agree with me attacking a guy with intent to kill for stealing a lollipop from my hand. But suppose the guy stole a briefcase filled with my life savings instead?
Indeed, this is an issue I have with morals in general. They generalize. They seek to find an absolute truth that applies to all given situation. And so they’re sort of useless. We always have to work to specify what they mean and find situations when they may or may not apply.
Look at this website I randomly pulled out of the internet; it has a bunch of basic morals- Examples of Morals in Society and Literature
I’ll focus on the Ten Commandments. One of the Ten Commandments clearly state “Thou shalt not kill”. It seems pretty damned obvious what that means, right? Don’t kill. Period. The End. The Ten Commandment never specifies on it, so we can’t do anything but take it at face value.
Yet the Jews have passages later in the OT clarifying what that means, and in doing so creating what are supposed to be moral and immoral killings.
As I wrote earlier, morals are meaningless unless they’re objective morality. This means that they must be absolutely, undeniably, true. Any other claim to morality is essentially a matter of opinion. The very fact that you have to attempt to clarify a moral renders it subjective, and thus an opinion.[/quote]
You’re missing the point because you are trying to dig too deep into the details and ignoring the obvious.
It is immoral to steal my hat. Period, full stop.
It is moral for me to react to that theft, as I was wronged. HOWEVER the situation’s details dictate WHICH of my possible reactions are moral, or excessive and therefore turn myself into the aggressor.
The book generally referenced says something like “an eye for an eye”. Well, my hat, 50 yards away on a park bench getting stolen is different than someone bludgeoning my to steal it off my head. In the former, the eye in return is not the same eye in the later.
Context matters. Which everyone likes to ignore when it comes to religion.
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
If man is fallible it is because god made us that way. Assuming that man was created by god.[/quote]
Agreed.
I very much feel we have the limitations we have on purpose, for a reason if you will.
No it isn’t “man’s fault”, but don’t add entitled to arrogant here.
If (and I believe that God did) man were made unable to perfectly comprehend the messages, it was on purpose. There was an intent there. And not for one second do I think man is entitled or deserves any different.
Jesus H. Really?
I’m not even remotely close to a religious or otherwise scholar and the answer to this is beyond obvious. The dozen or so times I was forced to go to church outside of wedding and funerals answered this quite clear. Most religious conversations on this board answer this quite clearly.
You seem like a thoughtful guy. I’d be surprised if you actually believed what you’re writing here, and not just typing to argue.
Or maybe, just maybe, faith, understand, the search, the unknowing and the lack of clarity is all part of the human experience on purpose?
[quote]Clearly an omnipotent being would know better and would have no problem delivering a message for it’s creation to understand. Also such a being would not need us to write down his message and ineffectively pass it on.
So you’re the one limiting god’s ability and thus implying his fallibility.[/quote]
Clearly you arrogantly hold human’s in a high regard and project human understanding and rationality upon an omnipotent being, yet again.
You really don’t get it. You hold man at the center of the universe and see God as their servant. It is obvious by your perspective. That really isn’t the case. We aren’t that damn special.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Because that is what the link I posted is discussing. I didn’t say that voluntary slavery is what anyone is talking about here; I said that the topic needs to be clarified, because kidnapping a man(the way we typically view slavery as coming about) is prohibited in the Bible.[/quote]
Read what V said above with regard to biased sources.
Head to a propaganda site like Gotquestions, for example, and you’ll find this:
[quote]
People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their masters.[/quote]
…And it’ll sure seem a lot like slaves were all voluntarily enslaved in Biblical times. Funny that they don’t mention enslavement’s devolving on children born to slaves. (Gamliel Shmalo, “Orthodox Approaches to Biblical Slavery,” The Torah U-Madda Journal, Vol. 16 [2012], Page 3: Among many others.)
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
One has faith either way. You either have faith that the bible is accurate as written, faith it is a proper guide or faith it is total bunk. Every inch in between requires faith. Something tells me, based on being one week short of 35 years on this rock, that in fact, faith is the whole damn point.[/quote]
This is a false equivalency that is trotted out by the battle’s losing side in a plea for a tie.
Yes, there are epistemological caveats built into all knowledge.
Yes, I must trust that my mind perceives with something like accuracy, that I am not living a feverish hallucination, etc.
Yes, I don’t know either that Jesus did or didn’t walk on water. (In the same way that I don’t know that the sun isn’t pulled by fiery chariots, that G.W. Bush didn’t have foreknowledge of 9/11, and that there isn’t a talking hippopotamus made of cheese singing R&B in my basement at this very moment).
No, this does not mean that all beliefs are equally reasonable.
No, this does not mean that someone who claims a snake to have had a chat with a woman made of a man’s rib is just as deserving of our attention as someone who says instead that we would be fools, given our rational minds and their insistence on extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims, to believe such a thing to have happened.
It appears to me to be exactly what it is: an excerpt from a text invented by men:
From a “stupider” time (e.g., didn’t and couldn’t know that starlight would one day give the lie to their bullshit genealogy),
With some rich literary gifts,
And with exactly as much claim on divine knowledge as have I.
Edited.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
…And it’ll sure seem a lot like slaves were all voluntarily enslaved in Biblical times. Funny that they don’t mention enslavement’s devolving on children born to slaves. (Gamliel Shmalo, “Orthodox Approaches to Biblical Slavery,” The Torah U-Madda Journal, Vol. 16 [2012], Page 3: Among many others.)
[/quote]
What would the child of a slave be but a slave? If Man A elects to become Master B’s slave, and Man A then sires a child(Child A), should the child be kicked off of Master B’s property and separated from his slave parents? Is it reasonable to expect that Child A will elect to leave Master B once he becomes an adult despite having no possessions and nowhere to go? Maybe he will, especially if Master B is cruel, and Deuteronomy 23:15-16 answers how he is to be treated: 15"You shall not hand over to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. 16"He shall live with you in your midst, in the place which he shall choose in one of your towns where it pleases him; you shall not mistreat him.
Which is not to say, Beans, that I don’t find good in most of what you write on the subject of god – the general creator whom I sort-of, maybe kinda believe probably exists.
I just think you’re getting a little soft on revelation, and I’ve never been a fan of the “well there must be some fuzzy warm Truth in there, linking all things together” line. I find that that is a conservative version of the worst things about liberalism: the softening of words like “lie” and “wrong” and “bullshit.”
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
…And it’ll sure seem a lot like slaves were all voluntarily enslaved in Biblical times. Funny that they don’t mention enslavement’s devolving on children born to slaves. (Gamliel Shmalo, “Orthodox Approaches to Biblical Slavery,” The Torah U-Madda Journal, Vol. 16 [2012], Page 3: Among many others.)
[/quote]
What would the child of a slave be but a slave? If Man A elects to become Master B’s slave, and Man A then sires a child(Child A), should the child be kicked off of Master B’s property and separated from his slave parents? Is it reasonable to expect that Child A will elect to leave Master B once he becomes an adult despite having no possessions and nowhere to go? Maybe he will, especially if Master B is cruel, and Deuteronomy 23:15-16 answers how he is to be treated: 15"You shall not hand over to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. 16"He shall live with you in your midst, in the place which he shall choose in one of your towns where it pleases him; you shall not mistreat him. [/quote]
Right: As I said, I’m well aware that you can twist yourselves into pretzels in order to justify a bunch of stupid things written in your book.
By the way, are you under the impression that all Biblical slaves were so voluntarily? Is this what you think?
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
This is a false equivalency that is trotted out by the battle’s losing side in a plea for a tie.[/quote]
Lol. Not even close. You assume I’m trying to win here, or haven’t already.
You’re incessant need to continue to ignore the points I’m making, over and over, is what is “being trotted out by the battle’s losing side.”
But I’m not battling anyone here. You can think me or any crazy. I don’t care. But at least acknowledge your purposely ignoring the point of my posts.
[quote]
No, this does not mean that all beliefs are equally reasonable.[/quote]
No shit. But you still cling to this nonsense that:
The bible says not to kill, but how to own slaves. Slavery is immoral, therefore the entire book and premise it is built upon is bullshit.
How on Earth you can recognize what I just quoted you as saying, yet toe this literalist line in congruent posts is beyond me.
I’d bet my eternal soul (if I have one) that Jesus didn’t walk on water. As I’m pretty sure that is, and was always intended as a metaphor if not a down right embellishment to make a point. Just because the book says he did, and people both for and against the book take it literal, doesn’t effect my faith in anything related to God, just men. (And I’m not missing the fact you avoided that question as of the time of my writing this post.)
Yeah, I always thought it was bullshit we had to read Homer, The Great Gatsby and Conrad’s Heart of Darkness in school. Fiction, embellishment and stories never teach us anything, or have meaning beyond literal interpretation of the word.
[quote]
It appears to me to be exactly what it is: an excerpt from a text invented by men:
From a “stupider” time (e.g., didn’t and couldn’t know that starlight would one day give the lie to their bullshit genealogy),
With some rich literary gifts,
And with exactly as much claim on divine knowledge as have I.
Edited.[/quote]
So again, does man’s hand stirring the pot effect your faith in God or other men?
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
Any other suggestions?
[/quote]
You, as the leader of your religion, have to wear a funny-looking hat.[/quote]
WTF?
I am THE profit, er, um, I mean, prophet, of my religion!
I ain’t wearing no funny-looking lids![/quote]
Reminded me of this one
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I just think you’re getting a little soft on revelation, and I’ve never been a fan of the “well there must be some fuzzy warm Truth in there, linking all things together” line. I find that that is a conservative version of the worst things about liberalism: the softening of words like “lie” and “wrong” and “bullshit.”[/quote]
I’d have to be a Christian that follows the book in question to go soft on revelation.
It seems people forget I don’t find divinity in any of the holy books, but rather within myself and the world around me. Not necessarily in the words on paper, however I don’t rule out the words on paper as an exception, just part (a small part) of the whole.
The slavery of the parent devolves on the child: “Well, yeah! What else would an omnibenevolent being want?”
With regard to this:
[quote]
Nick says: Is it reasonable to expect that Child A will elect to leave Master B once he becomes an adult despite having no possessions and nowhere to go? Maybe he will, especially if Master B is cruel…[/quote]
It is unreasonable to expect that a good god would deprive Child A of the choice, whether Master B was “cruel” with his property or not. (By the way, as a libertarian, you should probably believe that it is cruel to be someone else’s property by virtue of circumstance of birth.)
You mount a cogent argument against the emboldened portion and I’ll respond. Otherwise I am too busy at the moment.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Because that is what the link I posted is discussing. I didn’t say that voluntary slavery is what anyone is talking about here; I said that the topic needs to be clarified, because kidnapping a man(the way we typically view slavery as coming about) is prohibited in the Bible.[/quote]
Read what V said above with regard to biased sources.
Head to a propaganda site like Gotquestions, for example, and you’ll find this:
Not only that, but the prohibition on kidnapping in Exodus 21:16 did not prohibit the Hebrew from buying slaves who may or may not have been kidnapped or captured, only from kidnapping a man and either keeping or selling him.
Further to that, the equivalent verse in Deuteronomy, verse 24:7, specifies that what is prohibited is kidnapping and enslaving another Hebrew.
The only way you could enslave another Hebrew is if he sold himself (a woman was prohibited from selling herself into slavery, because she was not her own property. Her father could sell her, though), or if he was a criminal who was sentenced to be a slave by the court (you know, kind of like the 13th Amendment).
You also had to give your Hebrew slave his freedom after six years of service, unless he loves being your slave so much that he can’t bear to leave your side, in which case you pierce his ear and he’s yours forever.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that, sayeth the Lord.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
Any other suggestions?
[/quote]
You, as the leader of your religion, have to wear a funny-looking hat.[/quote]
WTF?
I am THE profit, er, um, I mean, prophet, of my religion!
I ain’t wearing no funny-looking lids![/quote]
Reminded me of this one[/quote]
Too bad. That would be JUST the outfit to wear when presiding over a gay wedding.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
If man is fallible it is because god made us that way. Assuming that man was created by god.[/quote]
Agreed.
I very much feel we have the limitations we have on purpose, for a reason if you will.
No it isn’t “man’s fault”, but don’t add entitled to arrogant here.
If (and I believe that God did) man were made unable to perfectly comprehend the messages, it was on purpose. There was an intent there. And not for one second do I think man is entitled or deserves any different.
Jesus H. Really?
I’m not even remotely close to a religious or otherwise scholar and the answer to this is beyond obvious. The dozen or so times I was forced to go to church outside of wedding and funerals answered this quite clear. Most religious conversations on this board answer this quite clearly.
You seem like a thoughtful guy. I’d be surprised if you actually believed what you’re writing here, and not just typing to argue.
Or maybe, just maybe, faith, understand, the search, the unknowing and the lack of clarity is all part of the human experience on purpose?
[quote]Clearly an omnipotent being would know better and would have no problem delivering a message for it’s creation to understand. Also such a being would not need us to write down his message and ineffectively pass it on.
So you’re the one limiting god’s ability and thus implying his fallibility.[/quote]
Clearly you arrogantly hold human’s in a high regard and project human understanding and rationality upon an omnipotent being, yet again.
You really don’t get it. You hold man at the center of the universe and see God as their servant. It is obvious by your perspective. That really isn’t the case. We aren’t that damn special.
[/quote]
I didn’t say man was entitled. Nor do i hold man at the center of the universe.I do not believe that man was created by an omnipotent being. I feel like you’re making shit up now cause you really have no argument. The best you can do at this point is say “faith”.
I will agree that it is possible that the limitations are there on purpose so that man has to work to be good instead of it just coming easily. But to me it still makes absolutely no sense at all for an important message to be so complex that we cannot comprehend. Then why give the message at all? I guess you’re in support of all the innocent deaths that resulted from interpreting the texts.
