If the Bible condones slavery, how did anti-slavery proponents use the Bible to justify their position? [II]
![If the Bible condones slavery, how did anti-slavery proponents use the Bible to justify their position? [II]](https://thenewstalkers.com/discussion/image/discussion_image/45095/xxxlarge/_v=63f541553229923)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
[This topic was so interesting and me so busy that I could not reply to all the comments on the topic before the other article was moderater closed.]
Disclaimer: This article is an answer from a writer to a question. I just find it a conversation starter with the whole kidnapping verse. Let's talk!
Hard questions require hard answers.
To my fellow Christians, the bible does, in fact condone slavery. Read Exodus 21. When God set the Israelites free from Egypt, before he brought them into the promised land, he gave them rules for what to do when they took a slave. God could have said, “But as for slaves, you will not take any.” He didn't do that. God imposed significant changes on Israelite culture, including dietary and religious instruction. He never changed the question of whether they could take slaves.
This is important because God never calls the taking of slaves, in that context, sin. However, this statement requires serious clarification. Notice in [Exodus] verse 16 that the forceful taking of a slave via kidnapping and selling the man, like was done to Joseph in Genesis was illegal. Slavery, in and of itself, was not deemed immoral, but forceful slavery, the kind of slavery that our term “slave” most often describes, was.
Here's the weakness of language. Slavery is one word but can describe a myriad of institutions. As an example, let's use the slavery described in Exodus. This form of slavery is explained more in detail in Leviticus 25. “If your brother becomes poor beside you and sells himself to you, you shall not make him serve as a slave.” (25:39) But, “…you may buy female and male slaves from among the nation's that are around you.” (25:44) This form of slavery, in context, is understood as purchasing someone who was in debt, who sold themselves so that they wouldn't die from their poverty. Slavery, in the context of ancient Israel, was not chattel slavery, but debtor slavery.
So, how did proponents of Scripture use the bible to argue against slavery? By showing that modern slavery (that practiced up to the 19th century in much of the West) was antithetical to Scripture. The bible explicitly condemns the form of slavery that was practiced by slave traders in Europe, Arabia, and Africa.
Capturing a man, taking him from his people, and selling him was condemned with the death penalty in the bible. The emancipation movement was able to use the bible to condemn slavery because the bible condemns the slavery that was practiced in our culture. There needs be no equivocation in this regard.
Article is LOCKED by moderator [smarty_function_ntUser_get_name: user_id or profile_id parameter required]
Who is online
755 visitors
Okay, I am opening this so we can continue discussing the Old Testament condoning of slavery or is it?
As with pretty much everything else in the bible it does both. Those books can pretty much be used to justify any behavior and turn on a dime and condemn it.
Welcome Atheist! As one can tell the Bible spans many different periods of Ancient Israel's growth and development. It is written with a definite assent to slavery and that is a "done deal" to the whole of this thread. Unless, you have a different perspective for us to consider.
The New Testament apostles and letters introduced something to the faithful, a consideration of liberty. That is, a means to depart from dogma and become branches mixing influences over time and space. Pretty much what you see today, up to and including the liberty to diversify denominations and opinions on what constitutes spiritual liberty. Using the Bible foundationally, of course.
The Bible (NT) clearly is against slave-traders - those who steal slaves from others:
It does not, as you note, ever condemn as immoral the practice of owning another human being as property. Thus in terms of core morality, the Bible (for perpetuity) leaves the owning of a human being as property to be implicitly moral.
Slave stealing is very different from slave owning. Ownership of human beings as property remains condoned by the Bible. So here in the USA our ownership of slaves was condoned by the Bible.
Slavery of pagans from nations outside of Israel was de facto permanent. However, it does not follow that slavery in the USA should follow after Israel's model. You have not made a case for it.
The Bible condones the ownership of human beings as property. Regardless of circumstances, ownership is the key.
I make no claims of ‘models’.
I am not trying to weasel out of a claim by using the world, "model." The operative word in that for me is, *"should," nevertheless.
It does not follow that the USA was obligated or had a duty to follow after Israel's model.
*Obligation, duty,
Nobody has claimed that — there is no value in rebutting a point that has not been made.
I could, for example, rebut the hypothetical claim that all slaves wore chains. But since nobody has made this claim it makes no sense for me to put forth a preemptive rebuttal.
I have a clarifying question to ask. 1. Assuming you agree with the definition provided, where is your emphasis on the meaning of this word:
I want to get a sense from you that is not being conveyed across the 'great' distance.
* OED Dictionary: Approve or sanction (something), especially with reluctance.
Splitting semantic hairs is pointless; it will not change the truth.
The Bible never condemns as immoral the practice of owning human beings as property. Instead of condemnation, the Bible makes rules for enslavement.
One can talk around this until blue in the face but the moral guidance from the Bible in terms of owning people as property is clear: it is okay to own human beings as property but there are rules associated with the practice. Follow the rules and you too can own another human being as property and the Bible is cool
with it.
Interesting, I overlooked that first position definition, maybe because of the crowded data "up there." 1.1 definition was oddly 'cleaner' and in plain sight of my eyes. Oh well, no harm-no foul. Good catch.
I am not splitting any "semantic hairs." And, NO ONE here should feel like s/he is a foe, having a need to humiliate the others. We simply need to look at the facts straightforward, and let the 'chips fall where they may.'
Now, as you know, I have no problem with what the Bible says about slavery. It happened in Israel for good or bad. It happened in America for good or bad. It happens currently about the world for good or bad. Those are facts about human slavery, Tig.
To be explicit, I do not feel I have to make excuses for God or the books of the Bible. I will write what I mean and mean what I write. I am perfectly fine with letting the Bible defend or fail itself when/where it occurs.
Now then, there is a New Testament doctrine called, "Christian liberty." Taught to the churches by Apostle Paul. In America, those "Christ-centered" church leaders of the slave period in America should have been aware of what was known about liberty in Christ. Albeit, they would have applied it according to their understanding of the teaching, and its ease of interpretation in the English bibles of the time. That is, there is no certainty that bibles of the period were as plain to understand as they are at the present. Much 'light' has gone into translating hard passages!
I do not see how any of this applies to my comment so I have nothing really to offer.
Well, do not let that stop you from writing something 'nice' about the Bible!
Slavery was not a crime in the Old Testament or U. S. A. while it was the law of the land. Do you agree? You may ask what does this have to do with morality, I ask that you be patient and let the case be built in stages, whether than a rush to conclusions.
Correct. And, by the way, by definition. If something is the law of the land then it ipso facto is legal (not a crime). No need for anyone to agree to that which is true by definition.
If you have an argument to make then just go ahead and make it. Put it on the table.
I did it for emphasis. And to "clear it off the table" if it was there later.
As then, as it is now, when a government activity is lawful, it has been pondered and declared: Right to do. People can do it under authority of those whom approve it. Also, there is no guilt.
The law of contradiction: A right cannot at the same time and to the same degree be a wrong.
Do you agree?
Yet the slave is considered property of the master:
Okay. No problem.
Interestingly, that law was written down by Moses who supposedly killed an Egyptian for whipping an Israelite slave. Did Moses wait to see if the whipped slave recovered after a day or so before killing the Egyptian? No?
I migrated this article twice now: 1. Group: Christian State of Mind. 2. Forum. Very nice ability, Tig!
Good night!
These are simple yes-no questions: is slavery the owning of a human being as property? Does the bible condone slavery? Is the practice of slavery immoral? The answer to all questions is yes! See, simple.
That sounds like an arbitrary statement. See @2.1.10. Interestingly, you sandwiched the Bible in between owning property and immorality!
This is why few respond anymore. Gordy's post could not be more straightforward. Further, you have already agreed with everything he wrote yet you bring up some vague sandwiching notion as if there is something interesting to discuss ... some clever move by Gordy.
Congratulations, you and Gordy fully agree on his 'arbitrary statement'.
Please spare me this vain grandstanding and attempts to dissect what motivates anyone else to come by and write. It gets 'old.'
You certainly know I do not agree with you, Gordy, or anybody else's presupposition, as y'all would say, that Ancient Israel was an immoral people following immoral slave laws, issued by a fictional, immoral god character.
Gordy makes an arbitrary statement and you 'rush in' to defend him. That speaks volumes about what the focus is here, Tig. @2.1.10 is still open.
Lastly, your third bullet is a presumption. You have passed judgement on the entire practice of slavery as wrong. Do not speak for me, I can do so for myself. Argue the points and not a personality!
Making my point. That is not anything close to what Gordy wrote. Strawman. You take a straightforward comment from Gordy and go into areas he did not even touch.
The third bullet is: 'You agree that the practice of slavery is immoral.'
You object to that?? You do not agree that the practice of slavery (owning human beings as property) is immoral?
/smh
Who would have thought that it is wrong to pass judgment on the entire practice of slavery as immoral?
No kidding. There is no nuance involved here.
Owning another human being as property is obviously immoral. It is incredible (to me) that anyone today would disagree with that obvious statement of morality.
X: You consider owning another human being as property to be immoral.
Y: How dare you presume that about me?
Yikes!
This discussion marked by the numbers "II" is a carry-over from John Russell's discussion of the following weeks. [See the banner at the top of the content section above.] In that discussion y'all said a great many things about ancient Israelite's God and culture. It fits in appropriately with you, Gordy, and anybody else's attempts to get a 'free-ride' out of connecting the ancient past with modern western views of slavery today. Make your case for why ancient Israel was an immoral people for holding slaves.
See @2.1.10 for context.
My view of slavery is not on the table. This is an academic discussion of Ancient Israel, the Bible, and African slavery.
You can disapprove of slavery in your own individual relative world, katrix. It is not at all plain that doing so qualifies you to apply and past arbitrary judgement on people in another part of the ancient world. For instance, it is certainly known that the existence of God is not sufficiently proven for the atheists who lack a belief in God, gods. Yet, it would seem that in this discussion of slavery laws in Ancient Israel, you are implying that it is highly improbable that a God spoke to the leaders of Israel directing them to do approve any such thing.
Well, you have to make your case for why Ancient Israel was wrong about its God, its slave rules and laws, and the practice of slavery itself. You can not say, "katrix says. . . ."
Non-sequitar. See @2.1.10.
It is on the table now. Gordy stated that owning another person as property is immoral. I stated that you (naturally presuming a moral person) agreed. You objected.
You are the one who put your (inexcusable) view of slavery on the table. I advise that you let everyone know that you really do not consider owning another human being as property to be moral and apologize for the confusion.
If not, then everyone naturally will take you at your word that owning another person as property is moral.
Noting (the obvious by the way) that owning another person as property is immoral is quite different from claiming that all ancient people who engaged in slavery are categorically immoral.
Learn the difference.
Ancient people lived in a time where slavery was legal and commonplace. They knew nothing else. To them it was right. In their relative morality it was right. That is why the Bible does not condemn slavery — because the authors did not consider it immoral. We know (at least per our relative morality) that slavery is immoral but they did not.
See?
And this raises the point that's interesting about all this. We know that human morality is subjective.
Yet, wouldn't you think a god who is described as a perfect being would have objective morality? Even though humans, during our journey towards being more civilized, thought that it was moral to own other people or commit incest - wouldn't a god have always known those things were immoral?
Yet clearly, the Christian God's morality is also subjective.
By definition (in the Bible) this must be objective morality. Thus, per the Bible, owning a person as property is objectively moral since this is the word of the arbiter of objective morality. (One person argues that God might consider slavery immoral but had a good reason to never tell anyone.)
Condoning slavery is evidence that the Bible is not the word of the arbiter of objective morality but merely words from ancient men expressing their own mores and values. Just as one would expect.
In that case, take me as anything/anyone you personally wish. It is a "free" country. It won't make it so, nevertheless.
See @2.1.10
Your words. I am asking you to take them back. I certainly will accept your reversal and move on. I would greatly prefer that you hold the position that owning another person as property is immoral.
But you refuse to correct that and, in so doing, double-down and announce to everyone that you actually hold owning another person as property to be moral.
No thank you for this flagrant vanity display of trying to make the subject of slavery personal and about me. I am not the topic, nevertheless.
The bible is. See @2.1.10.
The Bible does not consider slavery to be immoral.
Is that a moral failure of the Bible?
I asked very simple, straightforward questions. A yes or no is all that was required to answer. I'm not surprised you try to twist things around or make it more convoluted than need be in some attempt to be obtuse or dodge the questions.
Agreed. If God's morality is objective, then .. God is immoral, because it condones slavery.
Which is why it's so hard for a literalist to claim that slavery is immoral, because then the person has to accept that their god is immoral.
What arbitrary statement did I make? The 'yes' answer, which is my own answer (one which I think most would agree with)? Do you disagree with 'yes' as the answer to my questions?
A common misconception.
God is not immoral. Man is immoral when he acts immorally.
God gives man the freedom of choice to act in the manner they so chose.
So to say that God is immoral, because man chooses to act immoral, is not correct.
We're talking about things like God clearly condoning slavery, and explicitly telling his followers to murder all the men and non-virgin women of an enemy tribe, and to keep the young virgin girls for themselves to rape and enslave. Those are immoral acts and therefore if the bible can be taken literally, God is immoral.
My mom doesn't believe the bible is literal, so she doesn't think God did those things - she attributes that type of passage to men writing things to justify their immoral actions, and not as the word of God. She doesn't believe her loving God would ever tell people to do things like that.
But if one takes the bible literally, and man acts immorally at God's direction, then how can they claim that man is choosing to act immoral for obeying God?
So is God moral for condoning and/or not prohibitin slavery? Or is man immoral for prohibiting slavery?
Clearly how? Based on what information?
Certainly not the bible. The bible was written/interpreted/modified by man not God.
I've already answered your question. God is not the problem. Man is.
You're apparently not a literalist, so coming from you, that makes sense. But to a literalist like CB, to whom the bible is the living, breathed word of God, it's not that simple. To a literalist, God has clearly commanded men to commit immoral acts (whereas most people figure that men wrote those passages to try to justify the immoral things they wanted to do).
I'm not. I tend to not trust "literalists" of either side.
They're the ones blowing up buildings in the name of religion and doing things like saying the are fighting fascism using fascist style techniques.
It can get pretty crazy i agree.
Those are untrue statements, except the words to the effect of: inspired by God.
Hi Sparty On! If you have a question for me, be sure to ask me (too). Atheists have a great many antagonistic ideas about me and my belief system, so I am almost certain they will not get it right in the offing. I will gladly reply to you and share my points of view. Then, you can decide who I "be" for yourself! (Smile.)
For now, trust me when I say I have never blown up a building in or out of religious teachings and understanding; and, I believe people can live and do what they wish as long as they do no lasting harm.
How that last sentence applies to the topic of discussion—it does not. Because this discussion is "set" in bygone periods!
You have said you believe the bible is absolutely true. If it were merely inspired by God, it wouldn't be absolutely true.
Now that is an interesting framing of the question! Fact.The (Torah) Bible does not consider slavery to be a wrongful institution.
Q. Has the Bible (the Torah) failed in its purposes to teach humanity what is right and wrong?
A. The answer hinges on the law of the land in Israel. Were ancient Israelites wrong to follow its directives regarding the institution of slavery?
As then, as it is now, when a governmental activity is lawful, it has been pondered and declared: Right. People can execute what is just under authority of those whom approve it. Also, there is no guilt.
The law of contradiction: A right can not at the same time and to the same degree be a wrong.
OFF-TOPIC EXAMPLE: By way of a 'hot topic' in today's America, this would be similar if not the same, as asking a group of people in eight thousand thereabout years from 2019 to pass judgement on our current U.S. law regarding abortion of millions of fetuses. The overriding concern would be the appropriateness of judging if we were right or wrong to respect a woman's privacy, or simply accepting the activity as a reference to history.
Do you agree?
That is why it is always important to define terms. The seeder defines 'God' as 'the God of the Bible' and he does not consider the Bible to be merely the work of ancient men but the divine word of God.
So if you were to argue that none of the passages in the Bible which define what you can and cannot do with the human property that you own came from men and are not actually commands from God (as written) then you will find very little disagreement (except from the seeder).
If, however, you hold that the passages which claim to be direct commands from God are indeed the will of God, then that view leads to God being immoral.
Depends on your meaning and only you know what you mean, so ...
You just never listen. The Torah (= the Penteteuch = the first five books of the OT = the books of Moses) is what we have mostly been discussing and clearly it does not consider the owning of a human being to be wrong.
That is what all those who challenge your nonsense have been saying all along. Do the math.
Intellectually lazy ad hominen attacks are not sound argumentation. The discussion is available for you when you are ready to engage it. Until then, be well.
Agreed. One can make a sound argument that the Bible was written by ancient men. Indeed, without any additional information that is the base conclusion.
Anything beyond that such as 'inspiration from the supreme entity who created everything' has no supporting evidence; mere claims. And to go beyond that and claim that rules such as this ...
... come from the grandest possible entity are baseless and largely self-contradicting.
In fact I will defend the supreme entity. If there actually is a supreme entity who created everything it is insulting for people to think such an entity would have the morality of ancient men and consider the owning of human beings to be moral. And, worse, to never ever correct the situation.
Er,' make it plain and straightforward already: If Tig existed in Ancient Israel is there a high probability Tig would have known it was right to own a slave or slaves?
No. I would have been a product of my environment.
Think.
Full frontal irony.
You have a 'built-in- presupposition in your statement that you have not established. You SAY slavery in the Ancient world was wrong and you base what you are saying on your feelings and opinion from today's world. Modern humanity rules of morality do not apply to God, then or now.
Off-topic EXAMPLE: God permits a great many acts/activities in this world which take the lives of people every day like nuclear weapons and chemical weapons; are you willing and ready to SAY these mass casualty weapons are wrong and our nation should dismantle them immediately?!
Well, are you?
And there is the gist of your raison d'etre, the "arbiter of objective morality" can not disagree with the sound reasoning of Tig!
Or, can it be that God can disagree with you?
Note: It is significant to point out: Because, you do not adhere to a belief that something outside of nature can exist, you reach natural (godless; spiritless) conclusions. Others, namely, Ancient Israel, are holding other points of view can and do differ in their conclusions.
Yet again, that has nothing to do with what I wrote.
Plus you are (no surprise) making personal derogatory statements.
I have and will continue considering your naturalistic point of view to see what, if anything can be borne out of it. Now then, will you consider and continue to open your mind to a supernatural point of view? Inquiring minds will be watching. . . .
See @6.1
Excuse me, but since you insist on displaying a member of your family as an object-lesson, may I KINDLY inquire if the Bible your mother reads is remarkably different from the one which clearly and utterly disgusts you?
Where did I say that the Bible is absolutely true? Please, point it out to me.
The statement is untruthful. I have never deigned to deal with this issue (and shall not to suit you).
There is my basis for agreement, if you need to read it. It is not a dogmatic assertion. Scripture has to be interpreted in all its many facets, including natural and spiritual.
Everything I have shared here is stating the OT permits slavery in Ancient Israel. You're reading the negatives in my statement above and coming away with a positive. This is not my intent, nevertheless.
Once and for all: The Old Testament permits slavery in Ancient Israel.
I can not be any clearer! (You can refer back to this as often as you need.)
... to match one's beliefs. Without the spin one would be required to actually deal with what God ostensibly commanded. Many theists ⇒ atheists note that studying the Bible (objectively) is what enabled them to break free of the indoctrination. Studying the Bible objectively was, in effect, the red pill. Easy to see how that would be the case.
OT and NT does not condemn as immoral the practice of owning human beings as property.
OT and NT (albeit much lighter) condones the practice of owning human beings as property.
Thus, one can easily point to the Bible as divine justification for owning human beings as property.
You may refer back to this.
Setting aside the rhetorical qualifier, "if":
1. How will you defend "the supreme entity"? As a naturalist, you do not accept there is or ever can be a supreme entity barring God materializing inside nature giving evidence of "the Presence" to humanity's established five senses.
2. Next, how would you know God is offended by slavery? Know is a strong word for someone who does not accept or acknowledge an existence whatsoever of any spirit-dwelling Being.
3. Thus, this statement of knowing god is arbitrary.
4. Finally, the prophets and apostles, and believers, at the least, operate in a sense and acceptance of the supernatural and spirit realm, and you do dispute their words and meanings on a near daily basis.
Putting your qualifier, "if" back now.
What does this, "no" mean? Are you stating you would not have known it was right to own a slave or slaves in Ancient Israel? Do be clear.
No more ironic than a member carrying comment weight for others! Yo, commenters pick up your load!
It has EVERYTHING to do with what is written. Moreover, one is a naturalist, when one does not acknowledge anything outside of nature as existing.
Do you acknowledge the spirit world or the supernatural order of existence?
Is the "red pill" what you took to stay away from any spiritual understanding whatsoever?
For your information, if God treated this world objectively, demanding utter precision of directives, according to the magnitude expressed in the word, SIN, none of us would be left to our own devices to contemplate the logic, evolve to an idea position, or express an emotion! We would simply "do" as we are directed. That is, Exist as automaton. Many only knows of machines to NOT act inappropriately at varying points and times.
Moreover, care and compassion would be superfluous features. It is like logic and science which care nothing for care and compassion; but, here you are fully engaged in attempting to infuse both care and compassion with morality. A machine thing simply could not care no matter how it tries.
Well, for the NT, if by "much lighter" you qualitatively means there is liberty to not own human being as property. Then, I agree.
Incidentally, that is the form or similarity of idea of liberty which swept the western world in order to prick the conscience of slavers and put down its large-scale slave TRADE 'factories.'
You may refer to this post.
Point out where I've engaged in either! or are you just projecting?
Another deflection I see. Not surprising.
But god makes no effort to correct man for their mistakes, especially those they create in god's name or use god as a justification. At the very least, god isn't doing anything to correct the problem. Which is a problem in itself.
That changes the meaning of my comment. The 'if' stays.
Given I and others have repeatedly explained the concept of analysis of a character - even if fictional like Darth Vader - I refuse to yet again explain a concept that a young teenager could understand.
Where did I use the word 'know' or make a claim of certainty? Honestly address what others actually type without putting words in our mouths and then blaming us for your invention. Read my comment below ... ↙
... and show me where the word 'know' is used.
Outside of inventing a statement for me, I think you need to look up the meaning of the word 'arbitrary'.
I do not care what they proclaim, I only care what they can demonstrate. People can claim to have direct contact with God (a few on NT actually make that claim). Shall we simply take them at their word and listen intently on everything they claim is truth? Or should we weigh their arguments and evidence as we would anyone else?
Rhetorical. Show me facts and logic. Claims without support are meaningless.
Why play this pointless game of asking questions that are clearly answered?
You asked:
I answered:
And you pretend to not comprehend the answer. How does this faux obtuseness game translate into something good for you? (Other than something pedestrian and petty like upping the comment count.)
I mean that the NT only briefly touches on slavery compared to the OT. And the NT's treatment of owning people as property basically is to acknowledge that it exists and then, just like the OT, fail to condemn as immoral the owning of human beings as property.
The OT is blatant and given the god of the OT (Yahweh) who clearly has issues, it is not at all surprising he was portrayed as an entity that condoned owning people as property. But Jesus is god of the NT. Not condemning slavery is way out of character for Jesus. It just flies in the face of 'love thy neighbor'. But, alas, the authors of the NT were still living in a time when owning people as property was commonplace and standard. It would be politically difficult to have Jesus condemning the foundation of their economy as immoral.
So, very similar to why nobody should be surprised that the OT neglects to condemn owning people as property, we should not be surprised that the NT also fails.
Be well, Gordy. (Smile.)
I am not going to waste time on this: You are using personal whim to make overarching statements you can not validate about God and the Bible, using a jaundiced eye of naturalism and what it entails.
This may be an academic exercise for you and some others who assemble while you wait for a secular lecture to begin offline; it is day-day-living for people of faith. Much more real time and effort goes into this way of life, then you can possible care to comprehend through your academic contemplation. As you attempt to simply piss it all away in rhetoric.
Your continued deflection is noted.
Would you have owned a slave or not?!
I do not have to pretend not to understand you, Tig. So you can knock off the grandstanding.
I have no more words for you. You win, I guess.
Spoken as a naturalist, and one who cares not to consider any spiritual aspects of the Bible whatsoever. I can see why a naturalist can come to such conclusions. But, it does not make the conclusions correct.
It is just partial and arbitrary statements and judgements by a man who wishes to apply logic and reason to a set of books that go way beyond that; to come away with a partial understanding of what the Bible is delivering. And, doing so with a big chip on one's shoulder, too.
(For emphasis.)
If a sound rebuttal cannot be found, just go personal, eh?
Naturalistic arguments over and against a set of books sharing spiritual insights and values valid? Who knew?
It may be that there is a Jefferson-styled Bible with supernatural and spiritual EXCLUSIONS present and accounting nearby!
It's the same bible. She, not being a literalist, discounts much of the O.T. because it is so clearly just mythology or analogies. She knows that since the bible contains so many contradictions, it can't possibly be taken literally. She knows the Tower of Babel and Noah's Ark and all those other stories are not factual, so she has no problem with also discounting the idea that God wrote the passages telling people to rape, murder, and enslave others. That's not what a loving god worthy of worship would do.
You've certainly given that impression. If I'm wrong, my apologies. So please answer these:
Do you believe the Exodus happened as stated in the bible?
Do you believe the biblical creation story in its entirety?
Do you believe we speak multiple languages because of the Tower of Babel story, rather than the evolution of language as people migrated from Africa?
Do you believe the story of Noah's Ark?
Do you believe all the laws stated in the bible were written by God?
Just to be clear, rape is your word used for dramatic effect. You have no proof of it in the text as sanctioned by law. Or do you?
A 'book of contradictions' does not sound very interesting or Christian to say, worship, put hope in,o r live by, in my opinion. Or, is this another set of dramatic effect statements meant just for NT?
Nope. I am not going to take the bait. I will accept your apology. Your 'fishing expedition' was an epic fail.
Her questions and your predictable dodge speaks volumes.
Hey CB,
I'm making no judgements of anyone here, well almost. I believe one can believe just about anything as long as it doesn't devolve into trying to control or hurt others not of like mind. And hurt feelings don't count for "hurt" in my book. I haven't read this entire thread but you don't seem like that type of person from what i have read here.
I do speak more of the "fundamentalist" thinkers. The "my way or the highway" type of thinkers. They're the one's who cause most of the issues with the rest of us IMO.
I haven't apologized yet, because you haven't answered the questions.
Funny how you love to ask questions, but consider it an insult when you're asked to clearly specify what you think about something.
A 'book of contradictions' does not sound very interesting or Christian to say, worship, put hope in,o r live by, in my opinion. Or, is this another set of dramatic effect statements meant just for NT?
You're clearly not a biblical scholar. One of the classes in Mom's theology training when she became a deacon was specifically about the contradictions. How can you discuss them with your congregation if you pretend they don't exist? You'll lose all credibility in bible study if you are blind - you don't have to be blind to be a Christian, unless you're a literalist. It's not just interesting, it's fascinating ... and it is absolutely Christian. A more moral and honest version of Christianity than that of a literalist, IMO. And much better to worship for those very reasons.
Just to be clear, rape is your word used for dramatic effect. You have no proof of it in the text as sanctioned by law. Or do you?
Yes, I do - you really don't read the bible much, do you? Enslaved women were permitted to be raped by their owners; as a matter of fact, if the owner STOPPED raping his female slave, she got to go free. The little virgin girls kidnapped and enslaved after God commanded its followers to murder their tribes (including the non-virgin women - I imagine it wasn't much fun for those women as the men determined which of them were, or weren't, virgins) - the men were told to keep them for themselves, which obviously connotes rape. Only an immoral person wouldn't consider it rape when a widow was forced to marry her dead husband's brother and be used sexually by him. What about Hagar - she had no say in whether Abraham had sex with her, so yep, that is rape. The kidnapping and rape of the women of Shiloh? The bible says that rapists must buy their rape victims from their fathers, and then they got to rape them for the rest of their lives. I could go on, but perhaps you could read the bible instead. Or maybe rethink your idea of what consensual sex is, if you don't consider these to be examples of rape.
Funny how asking specific questions is considered asking him to "take the bait" - despite all the convoluted questions he constantly asks, and how he constantly tells us to ask him directly if we want to know what he thinks. Hypocrisy at its finest.
There were laws against rape. If a woman is raped but does not scream then she and her rapist would be put to death. That kind of stuff. But Katrix I suspect was referring to passages wherein God sanctioned rape. This is Moses ostensibly carrying out the wishes of Yahweh:
Young healthy women were killed, but virgins were captured: 'saved for yourselves'.
Probably the best approach when trying to defend the indefensible is to keep asking questions (even after they have been answered at an irreducible level of detail) but never, ever answer a direct challenge.
It is obvious and feeble, but one can generate comments and pretend one is actually making an argument.
Both hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty/cowardice at its finest!
Well, you're really getting in the weeds there ....... but in my view, the Bible is the word or God, interpreted by man and therefore is not a perfect document because man is not perfect. But that doesn't automatically mean it should be discounted. It's still the word of God IMO.
Its just not an exact equation like many would like it to be. Say i take "though shall not kill" absolutely literally. If someone came to kill, a friend or loved one or anyone really in front of me, if i were to take that literally i could try to stop them but would have to stop at killing them if that is what it took. Thats not gonna happen for me. I'll do what it takes to protect me and mine and deal with any consequences later.
I really don't worry about such things because i believe God knows what is in ones heart. He knows i would never take such as action lightly. Perhaps i will still burn in hell for it if that happens, who knows but i really don't think the loving God i know operates that way.
That said if anyone wants to have a sincere conversation about that train of thought i'll be happy to but i'm not interested in the typical irreligious sniping that tends to pop up here on NT. That won't get response from me so i suggest folks don't bother if so inclined.
You seem to claim to be a man of science Gordy so you should be able to answer this question clearly or admit that you simply don't know.
How do you know God makes no effort to correct mans mistakes? Are you, as others here to appear think, omniscient?
You and my mom appear to share the same view of God. You also share the same lack of arrogance - you say "who knows but" while she says "I could be wrong but" - I find it rather arrogant when someone claims they personally, absolutely know what God thinks. Usually the same people who are telling me that we can't interpret God through human ways of thinking!
Mom discounts the parts of the bible that don't fit with her idea of a loving God. So, if I asked her to read the passages where God supposedly commands his followers to rape and enslave virgin girls, her response would likely be that that's clearly a passage written by men and is not the word of God. Since her loving God would not issue such commands, that passage couldn't have been inspired by God. She focuses more on the idea of resurrection of Jesus and the commands to love God and each other, far more than any specific scripture. She also references "that's not the loving God I know" often - and often did when she was a chaplain, ministering to someone dying who was afraid of going to hell because they weren't worthy enough.
She doesn't think anyone will burn in hell, either. To her, hell is separation from God - not eternal torture in fire. Definitely a punishment, of course. I always found the Catholic idea of purgatory to be interesting, where you can earn your way to heaven after you're dead.
How do you tell what parts are the word of God and what parts are the word of man? If you abstract the Bible you will include in the abstraction words from both man and God (per your view). How do you ever know what is true and what is purely man-made?
In this topic, we are discussing the Bible as a tool for justifying slavery and as a tool to fight against slavery. That necessarily gets into the actual content of the Bible. If the Bible (and it most certainly does) condones the owning of a person as property to be bought, sold and passed as inheritance that makes it easy for slavers to point to the Bible and claim that 'God is okay with slavery'.
That is an unfortunate reality because for thousands of years slavers had God on their side and could provide many quotes of scripture to prove it.
Here is how I would answer that. Nobody knows.
But that is not what we are discussing. We are talking about the Bible - that which billions of people go to directly to get the word of God and many of them use it as a moral guide for their lives. What the Bible actually states then become rather important.
Yet you are quite willing to constantly badger others about issues which have no relevance ... when this issue clearly DOES have relevance. What's your worldview, Cal? Are you a biblical literalist? Do you believe the bible is the living word of God?
Mom just goes by her idea of God, and since she believes in a moral god, she discounts the parts that are clearly immoral. Of course, hundreds of years ago someone who believed that slavery IS moral or that women are the property of men would not discount those passages, and would use them to justify their acceptance of slavery.
I don't know if you recall, but a member once basically said that Mom is immoral since she was a deacon, and was teaching men. /smh
Which makes sense. She is realistic. She holds belief in a creator but does not simply accept as truth what ancient men claim.
Seems like an obvious point but some inexplicably think they can argue against that with smoke screens and other dishonest tactics.
Not the first time I have been disappointed in this manner.
It is safe to say that God is sovereign and it follows can not be immoral. That, in itself, would be invalid and unreliable. Moreover, a sovereign being with without a sense of good would simply act in our reality to cause all to accept that it is good and thought of as only good.
You do not find that kind of sovereign Spirit acting in the Bible. God in the Bible is holy, that is, set apart, and still lends in to humanity so as to be approachable.
Of course, humanity has to do the work of practical daily living, given directives, and spiritual guidance from God as spirit in our lives. We have hands to labor with; feet to transit about; mouths to utter, instruct, chastise, and correct; eyes to pinpoint with precision; and, minds of intellect to pour over concepts and determine choices. And, more besides!
So God does not need to 'come down' from the immaterial world to do the work in this world we are qualified and able to do for ourselves.
Ancient Israel was given directives regarding slavery, the removal of people God wished to punish through expulsion, and ultimately through subordination in stature. It was a practical activity which "men" could accomplish using their hands, feet, mouths, eyes, minds, and tools besides.
God, as Alpha and Omega, is a big statement. It speaks volumes, in and of itself! God sees the nations and world as they go into and exit out of slavery; and, if need be going into slavery at some future point yet again!
This is what it means to comprehend the power of omnipotent power coupled with sovereignty. God holding the "eternal perspective" and humanity a "historical perspective."
I enjoy speaking with you Sparty On!
True. The creator of everything - the supreme entity - will be objectively moral by definition. That does not mean we would agree with this morality. For example, God may actually hold it moral to engage in honor killing. Many Muslims think so. Most people disagree, but God might just think otherwise. God might also think it is moral to murder men who engage in homosexual acts. Most rational human beings would disagree, but we would all be wrong because God is right by definition. And, per this seed, God might hold the owning of a human being as property to be moral.
The real trick is to know God's objective morality. Where does one turn to find the true objective morality from God? Is there a rule book somewhere or are human beings free to posit whatever they think are objectively moral rules? For example, can they just claim to 'know' what is right because God 'speaks to their heart'? If so, God seems to be changing His message per individual.
Well, he persist!
Has it ever crossed your mind that slavery would have existed apart from the Bible? That a lack of justification from one quarter of the world (Ancient Israel) would simply shift the thesis of slavery over to others.
You will say to me that man evolved and became "enlightened" to the wrong that is slavery. To which I would respond, of course man practically evolved to not need slavery anymore, because as an activity and a way of life slavery was passing out of the world. That is, it simply outlived its usefulness. Becoming more of a mounting problem to maintain and explain than it was worth! We see this happen with a great many institutions in our own day.
Some state that at some future point people will once again struggle with how to survive and prosper in the age of AI? When machines "slave" and people are considered diminished and a "dime a dozen." Especially those people not willing to allow themselves to experiment with the new and edgy advances in trans-humanism.
Transhumanism, a new "ism" that is just over a new horizon!
It did exist apart from the Bible. Slavery was in place well before the Torah was conceived. In fact I have stated that several times in this seed alone.
Yikes.
You will not even give mankind (humankind) credit for realizing the immorality of owning another human being as property?? You claim we do not enslave (en masse at least) merely because it no longer had sufficient worth?? Fascinating.
Nobody knows.
Self-contradictory: If nobody knows a thing, how can one know nobody knows it?
What the Bible speaks to is Ancient Israel and it raison d'etre (reasons to exist); and, spirituality which this single tribe of people expanded to offer the world.
Now then, atheists, who lack belief in God, gods, some - not all, are naturalists who do not accept spirituality can exist in any shape, form, or fashion, only see merely words on a page to 'wrestle' and argue over, and can extract nothing of spirit or by revelation from these words themselves.
Relevance of this emotional diatribe?
That's what one would think - but if one takes the bible literally, one would have to assume that God is immoral, because so many of the actions, commands, and statements attributed to it in the bible are immoral. A god's morality would be objective and not subject to changing as humans evolved from a civilization standpoint; just because humans thought slavery and rape were moral thousands of years ago, a god would have known better all along.
If one is not a literalist, it would be possible to believe in a loving god who did not make all the statements attributed to it in the bible, and is thus not immoral, unreliable, and contradictory.
Agreed, not for sure that is ..... which is where the concept of "faith" enters the discussion if you are a believer.
Certainly correct.
Sparty On! Just remember this: Though, I will come down on some rough sides of issues, which can rub some people raw, I am a good stable spirit of diversity. Ultimately, for all my 'gruff,' I can love and get along with nearly all our internet participants—differences of opinions, "digs," and all. Tig and I can get 'red hot' discussions ("debates" he loves to call them - HA! As you may be aware, the point of a debate is to win! So, Tig competes.) going and still come back together for new ones!
Again, with the dramatic flair and presuppositions. Are you a bible scholar? Is it typical for bible scholars to pass judgement on women in the bible as being raped in general sense? You have no proof that virgins were raped, and some probably were. But, you are using the word as a sledgehammer to paint the worse image possible, because of private hatred and a bias narrative.
And katrix, it does not bother me in the least to confront you over this 'exploitation' of the word, "rape." Because you should not get to demean an entire nation for the actions of a view, if and as the cases may present themselves. Hagar, you have no record of consent or refusal from Hagar in the Bible, so you arbitrarily you know she was forced into fathering a child for Abraham? Other than a supposition, where is your scriptural evidence? You speak so highly of evidence! Until, you don't.
I accept your apology. I am not interested in feeding one person's one-dimensional view of the Bible.
Not how I see it. The point of debate is to provide information for readers to consider. Have you never read me discuss the value of the dialectic?
Besides, religious debates are lopsided; not really a contest. Not much meaning to the concept of 'winning' when one side is based on personal opinion and feelings.
To be crystal clear, in most of your seeds my motivation is to challenge what appear to me to be incorrect or unsupported claims.
Hypocrite? Your worldview is hidden; private; personal. Even as you struggle to pull down world religions. What would you replace world religions with: A lack of belief in God. You SAY that is a neutral position. But, atheism really is not neutral under your care is it?
Ancient Israel and slavery:
As then, as it is now, when a government activity is lawful, it has been pondered and declared: Right to do. People can do it under authority of those whom approve it. Also, there is no guilt.
The law of contradiction: A right cannot at the same time and to the same degree be a wrong.
Do you agree?
So is that explicitly rape? Or, does a mental assumption have to be made that these virgins were all or nearly all, or to x percentage raped? What was the alternative? Forced relationships of some kind or death sentences? How many non-virgin women would opt out of the death sentences if given the chance?
These are complex issues of war and judgement, and yes, these types of issues can be easily exploited with rhetoric.
Hard questions deserve hard answers.
You go first.
(You went personal again.)
Ancient men (biblical times in particular) believed owning a human being as property was perfectly normal. Given the normalcy of the practice and the fact that it was legal, the mores and values of these ancient men deemed such ownership moral. That was their relative morality.
What about this confuses you?
What the . . . is an "idea" of God even mean? And, why do you think it makes sense and is realistic at all?
No. To be explicitly rape the Bible would have to detail what these men did with their captured virgin slaves. This is implicit rape.
But you doubt that the intention was rape. These men may have had very honorable intentions for enslaving only virgin girls for themselves and murdering females who were not virgin. Let's see, what is the functional difference between a woman with an intact hymen and one who has been in contact with a penis? Virgins make better house maids? Better cooks? Are more likely to bear male children?
Any ideas?
What makes you think I am confused? (You went personal again.)
and now this:
Tig, some atheists, lack of believe in God, gods, who are not maintaining a neutral position, can stop compelling some Jews, not all, to say Ancient Israel was an immoral people. Because Tig, you assent these slave-owning Israelites acted rightfully .
Nevermind, you careful wording. The meaning is loud and clear.
But nothing, Tig. Read it katrix!
Another case where perfectly obvious language is deemed by you to be a mystery.
Katrix wrote:
And you cannot figure out what that means? Her 'idea' of God is how she envisions God. It is her belief about what God is and what God wants.
Because she uses her brain and does not simply accept what people tell her to believe. Katrix has described her mom for years as a highly religious Christian who does not simply accept as truth what others tell her. She considers and concludes. In the case of this discussion, katrix told us that her mom recognizes that just because the Bible claimed that God said something does not mean that God actually did so.
My guess is that katrix' mom would instruct you that the Bible was written by ancient men who were the product of their times. That one must not simply accept what they wrote as truth. Quoting scripture as if it is divine is a mistake because there is nothing about any scripture in the Bible that is demonstrably divine. Thus when katrix' mom comes across something like the murder of men who engaged in homosexual acts she dismisses that because that contradicts her idea of God.
In short, consider a continuum where on the left we have BELIEVE WHATEVER YOU ARE TOLD and on the right we have BELIEVE WHAT HAS BEEN SUBSTANTIATED AS VERY LIKELY TRUE. YECs and other cult members would be on the far left whereas Mr. Spock-level critical thinkers would be on the far right. I submit that in terms of religion the more one moves to the right, the more likely they are to be closer to truth.
You argue points that are not contested.
This was a strawman you tried days ago. I am not aware of anyone here who has claimed that the ancient Israelites were immoral people. I most certainly have not and I have corrected you on that several times. Ergo, you must be confused.
Just so you understand (maybe) I told you earlier that the practice of owning a person as property is immoral. Ancient people owned human beings as property. That is an immoral act by our standards (our relative morality). An act of immorality does not ipso facto make the people categorically immoral. That is confused thinking. Further, in their times the act of owning a person as property was legal and commonplace. They thought nothing of it. Per their mores and values it was moral to own another human being as property. To their relative morality it was moral.
I would think so. So no need for you to ask me to explain, right?
LOL you like the opening sentence but cannot stand the balance of the thought provided by the qualifying comments?
Quite an obvious example of cherry-picking. ( Cherry-picking, by the way, is an intellectually dishonest practice. Should not do it. )
What proof do you have that slavery has gone completely out of the world? Prove that slavery does not exist in the world: For instance, North Korea. Or, closer to home, here in the United States.
Has every form of slavery been eradicated in the United States ? Is the United States an immoral people, when slavery is found within its borders? Well, are we?
You can imply tha Ancient Israel turned virgins upside down and shook them. Imply all you wish. You are the people who SAY you demand evidence and you have none in this case.
I never made that claim. And really, Cal, who would ever claim that there is no slavery in the world? Think before jumping to such bizarre conclusions.
That is correct. We have no direct evidence that ancient men who took the virgins for themselves (and murdered non-virgins) actually raped the virgins.
We only have, in this case, the words in the book. So, what do you think the men did with the virgins they took for themselves?
No idea whatsoever? Nothing comes to mind? No way to get even a hint based on history and human nature (especially the male sex drive)? Do you truly have no idea what is most likely to have happened to those girls??
Why do you suppose Allah promises 72 virgins to his martyrs? Why do his martyrs find that appealing? Because they sing pretty?
Well, it has been a long, slow, and hazard prone progression, but you are coming along! Who cares about our modern relative morality, anyway? Do ancient civilizations complain about our immoral acts of decimating the earth's climate? To each according to its times!
You state something that is a position I have always held (and have already stated) and you think that I am 'coming along' because I still hold that position?
Everyone should.
Uh ....
Being fair to the people, it is difficult to blame someone raised in a culture for adopting the culture's relative morality. This is pretty basic stuff Cal.
Faux obtuseness,
maybe you should reread @ 6.1.85 which is addressed to Gordy and you intercepted it in the WAY you do. Read it again. Your answer does not fit the flow of the discussion at that point.
You 'inserted' yourself.
Go back and check it out!
I quoted you and responded to the quote.
Be specific about your complaint. Deliver quotes and show the problem.
( And you do not seem to understand 'faux obtuseness' ... ironically )
So you are SYMPATHETIC to your cohorts. I get it. It's prejudicial bias blindness. You are not even aware you are doing it, huh? Anybody else says something so vague about a belief in God or gods and you would still be negatively sounding off.
What about "the God character" who in your worldview is a fiction? Is it 'Mr. Spock-level' critical thinking for this mom to belief it is truth?
Damn, a youtube video of a team moving a goalpost could come in handy right now!
Well I do indeed understand that this ↓ in its original context ...
... means that katrix' mom has her own interpretation of God that is not simply the acceptance of what people tell her to believe. This is not complicated or mysterious. It is also what one would expect. Katrix made a comment in plain English that apparently confuses you.
No, belief in a god sans evidence is somewhere on the left side of the continuum. It is much further right than biblical literalists but clearly to the left of pure objective critical thinking.
On this point, I have no further questions. I read you loud and clear , Tig. Loud and Clear!
One can only hope.
"No more questions" eh?
Funny - tee-hee and ha- ha. Now then, what does that have to do with little old ladies and old men with bibles?
Scientifically, there is probably no god to correct man's mistakes. At least no evidence for one.
See previous statement. And since man keeps making the same mistakes, or some new ones, that clearly shows there is no effort on god's part to correct them. And trying to absolve god of any responsibility whatsoever is at the least biased.
Apparently, I am more of one than you are. Many atheists are, it seems.
Again, I haven't apologized yet, because you haven't shown that I'm wrong.
TiG has already addressed your comments to me about the virgins quite well, so I won't bother restating those things. The bible makes it clear that female slaves were to be raped, even going as far as saying that a Hebrew girl who was sold as a slave by her father would be set free if her owner stopped raping her.
And I am not demeaning an entire nation in the least - their subjective views of morality were far different than ours are today. It's your literalist god that I am demeaning, because its view of morality should be objective and not subject to the mores of the human culture in a specific era.
I am answering your question - the bible clearly shows people being commanded to rape by your god. Are you now denying that the bible commands that the rape victim must be sold to her rapist? Do you think he'd magically stop raping her once he owned her? Hagar had no option to refuse to consent to being given to Abraham, which means rape. The widow had no choice about being given to her husband's brother as a WIFE - wives were required to have sex with their husbands in that culture. Your views of consensual sex are somewhat disturbing to me; your bias means you refuse to think anything your god supposedly commanded could be immoral, so you defend the indefensible.
And I can't hate a fictional story, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you. I don't "hate" Cersei for murdering all those people in Game of Thrones - that doesn't mean I can't judge her character in the book as being evil, with no redeeming qualities. Unlike her brother Jaime, who has some good qualities despite throwing Bran out a window when he saw Jaime committing incest with his sister. See how that works?
Always 'gaming'? Sigh . Y ou should reread @ 6.1.85 again. You clearly did not get the message, even though it was not for you in the first place.
Gaming = asking you to make a non-vague, direct comment.
Science can't explain everything. A good scientist understands that.
See previous statements. Again, man is imperfect and has real free will to make his own choices and mistakes. Over and over again if he/she so chooses. God doesn't want puppets.
For my part i'm glad we don't live in a perfect world. That would be boring as hell.
Vague. Whatever that means. Not an answer.
Oh, but, but, critical-thinkers don't do vague. /s
I never said science can explain everything. But science is the best way to explain things. Or at least discover evidence and the means to explain things.
If there were a god, there would be no such thing as free will. But with man''s supposed free will and mistakes, that means god doesn't bother to correct those mistakes, as I previously said.
What's vague about it? The answer seems quite clear to me. I reckon it does to most.
That statement is untrue. You do not even believe Ancient Israel had a God, because you have a lack of belief in God, gods and a philosophical-naturalists (no acceptance of the supernatural at all - some of you not all).
Conclusion: Oh contraire, you can not in any way demean a fictional god; for logically it follows that a fictional god character never uttered a word to anybody. And only a fool would live life out of book of fiction. So, be honest, transparent, and come clean, katrix:
What are you accusing the Ancient Israelites of doing?
Nonsense. You can delude yourself if you must. But that meme nor its delusion will hold up in this 'court.'
The sheer absurdity of this, "I can't hate - as I hate" meme is mind-numbing.
God is a card-board image and a ruse for some atheists, lack of belief in God, gods, some not all, to hide personal disgust and rail upon.
COME CLEAN: what you JUDGE are the ancient people who you accuse of carrying out the acts you have come to a decision are immoral acts. It is these people, not a cardboard image, you are getting after.
A fictional god-character in a book is a smoke screen and I am bringing my handy 'blower' right here primed to disperse the substance of an untrue premise!
Finally, we can all see the ancient Jewish people in the land of Israel now! As they are being accused of rape by you and others of similar opinion!
Why continue with this absurd notion that one must believe in something to analyze it? Darth Vader, Cersei Lannister, Lord Voldemort, etc. are all fictional characters and people have no problem engaging in analysis of these characters. Your repeated declaration that atheists cannot analyze God because they do not believe in same is ridiculous.
Fascinating. ↑
Vague. Reread @6.1.85 again.
See @ 6.1.137 .
I am going to pretty much ignore your link only comments. They are devoid of content so there is nothing to rebut. Arguably they are worse than not responding since they illustrate that you cannot even formulate a single sentence summary rebuttal.
I never said you did.
Some things but not all.
I happily disagree. Very happily.
Actually, what I'm doing is discussing the article you posted. You're just pissed because I disagree with it, and its lame attempt to pretend the slavery condoned in the bible was nothing more than indentured servitude.
According to a literalist interpretation of the bible, your god not only condoned but commanded the permanent ownership of people.
OF course I can, just as I could demean Cersei if this discussion was about how what her character said in A Game of Thrones.
Your article is about THE BIBLE and what it says about slavery (and therefore what the god character said in the bible) and that is what I'm discussing.
... and it must be frustrating to not have a single argument with legs.
Let's be clear: Science (so far) is the best way to explain natural things. To discover natural evidence and the means to explain natural things.
Is it highly possible for God to live separate and apart from humanity, allowing humanity to chart its own course for an extended period. We see this in the natural order, as naturalist say everything is connected and simultaneously separated and distinct. Charting its own course.
You're making an assumption there is something beyond the narural, like god and/or the supernatural. A flawed premise like that will lead to a flawed conclusion. But there is no reason to assume or believe there is something beyond the natural, without evidence, other than emotional comfort or wishful thinking. Not to mention that, by definition, the supernatural cannot interact with the natural, which renders it irrelevant to begin with.
How convenient. Your patronizing tone is offensive.
No matter. I will continue plying links, and you can wash your. . .digital dishes with them as far as I am concerned. For me, at least, I won't be retyping and others can look back on them. Oh goody! Get ready.
You're mistaken and your factoid fails. I am not pissed at all. I have been saying all alone that the Bible approves of slavery. What I have not permitted to stand is the misinformed statement that Ancient Israelites and God are immoral. Big distinction.
I'd have you know the Jewish nation take themselves quite seriously. There real and existing history is not some fictional set of characters you can connect with a trivial television series called "Game of Thrones."
How invalid. How offensive. How tone-deaf.
Whether or not you "permit it" - your god is immoral to anyone who takes the bible literally. The bible literally describes an immoral god. As to the ancient Israelites, as has been explained to you repeatedly, their culture did not regard slavery as immoral, and morality is not objective.
The article you wrote specifically claims that the bible talks about indentured servitude instead of forceful slavery, which is dishonest, and easily discounted by anyone who's read the bible. And while constantly demanding that we answer your questions, you repeatedly refuse to answer the simplest questions from anyone else (i.e. - do you believe Noah's Ark is literally true - a simple yes or no question which even you shouldn't be able to convolute), which is both intellectually dishonest and hypocritical.
See: 6.1.150.
Thrash around all you wish. You are chained to your dilemma. You want to answer the questions, but you can not without giving up the game some not all atheists-naturalists play.
The fictional Ancient Israelites and their fictional God according to your narrative, are joined at the head. You offend one and the other is offended.
Offensive.
Strawman. Katrix nailed it.
Now you're claiming the ancient Israelites are fictional?
/smh
Bias is on full display. Blind allegiance to a fellow atheist. Quite interesting, since you know I wrote an entire article on various types of slavery six months ago. Be fair-minded.
Here have a look at the title of that 6 month ago article (Tig, you were there with me. Besides my comments the rest of the "33" are yours.):
The Treatment of Non-Israelite Slaves: From Moses To Moses
Put forth logic and facts that are sound and watch me agree with you too.
Continue to use tactics like strawman arguments and you will continue to be effectively rebutted.
Then why did you bother writing this? As I recall, Gordy wrote one a while back. Beating dead horses much?
They are according to your narrative. Their God and the people rise or fall together. Struggle with your dilemma as long as you wish.
I think you missed this.
It has been argued that the God of the Bible is immoral. But to my knowledge nobody has argued that the ancients were categorically immoral. Indeed, the argument is that the ancients were products of their times and that owning human beings as property was standard and legal. In our relative morality they engaged in immoral practices. But not in their relative morality.
You claim that katrix et. al. are arguing that the ancients are immoral. A textbook strawman. Tactics like this are offensive and tend to further your opposition. To wit, if you want people to agree with you the best way to do so is to put forth intellectually honest arguments that are based on solid facts and logic.
Now why is God different from the ancient authors? Because the ancient authors are mere human beings. God, per the Bible, is the grandest possible entity - the arbiter of objective morality. God knows better. Thus God gets no slack for being products of the time, being ignorant, etc. If you are going to be perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, etc. then you are held to a higher standard ... indeed, the highest standard.
As I have noted before, the authors created a God character that was too powerful and, in so doing, shot themselves in the foot.
( The meta complaining about comment counts, bias, likes, etc. is now so far over the top ... it is laughable. That too works against your objectives. )
And so will you. Do you recognize the article from six months ago? Do you remember being there with me?
katrix, he was there so and as you can clearly see from the title we did not discuss indentured servants. So rebutted.
Oh God, here we go. . . . the "wounded wing" fallacy is up!
Rebutted. "Last gasp" fallacy.
My apologies if I mistakenly thought the inference was there.
I didn't say it could explain all things. Only that it was the best way of explaining things.
That is your prerogative.
Nice try. I don't have a dilemma. You're the one who's getting all upset. As TiG pointed out, nobody is claiming that the ancient Israelites - who, for some reason, you refer to as fictional as though they didn't actually exist - were categorically immoral. They were a product of their times. What we are pointing out is that your god should NOT have been a product of their times if it actually existed and weren't just a fictional character the ancient Israelites created from older myths created by older civilizations.
Since you love demanding that people answer questions, answer this one: Why do you claim that the ancient Israelites were fictional?
I'm sorry that you cannot grasp the possibility of people agreeing with each other without somehow doing it because they're ganging up on you. Some of us happen to have each independently come to the same conclusions about certain topics over our lifetimes, but if any of this "crowd" you constantly refer to disagreed with any other "member of this gang" we would certainly say so. TiG and I certainly don't agree with each other about, say, the Trump/Clinton election - just because we happen to like each other doesn't mean we won't argue if we disagree. You seem to validate yourself only by whether others agree with you and vote up or like your articles and comments, and you take it very personally when someone agrees with someone else and not with you. Note how you make sure to thank anyone who agrees with you, for the mere fact that they're validating you. This type of emotional attachment to your articles and comments makes it impossible to have a rational discussion with you; you ask vague questions over and over, try desperately to label others so you can disdain them, and refuse to answer direct questions while getting all butthurt about assumptions people make from your comments.
You are insulted because I said you believe the bible to be absolute truth - a valid assumption to make from your comments over the years - and then play coy and refuse to answer direct, clear questions about that. All while badgering atheists about weird psychological crap and bastardizing the word "worldview."
You are the one who has the clear prejudicial bias blindness.
You have your own idea of God - all religious people have their own idea of God. That is why there are 33,000 Christian sects and even within sects, people disagree on many aspects. You have your own interpretation of the bible, which many other Christians do not share.
That's realistic. I never claimed it made sense; all these different views, and many people (not people like my mom and Sparty On) go around claiming they alone have the correct interpretation and that everyone else is wrong (often while claiming that God is too far above us for humans to understand, but yet they themselves can magically understand it). I find that extremely silly.
Unfortunately, this sentence does not 'compute.'
I do not claim Ancient Israelites were fictional people. Their God and the people rise or fall together. If you are too distracted to make cogent comments, I understand. But, back-tracking over your comments simply to have you reissue a stubborn reply "ain't" worth my time.
You all, and you know who you all are, are on, "the buddy system," all the time. TiG, completes your sentences and calls himself, "making it plain," (although, it fails to correct). Fortunately, I can help too!
This form of blindness has a cure! Hallelujah! From now on, I will make a show of pointing these events out to you all. That's all.
I'm sorry it's beyond your ability to understand. You're the one who claims objective morality exists and that your god is the source of it, but I guess you don't really know what you mean by that.
Their God and the people rise or fall together
What on earth does that have to do with your specific comment about the fictional Ancient Israelites? Perhaps in your convoluted manner you're trying to claim that if we think their god is fictional, we are also saying that the ancient Israelites were fictional? It's impossible to get you to actually provide a straight answer, but is that what you mean? If not, what DO you mean by that comment about the fictional Ancient Israelites?
Paranoid much?
You find a great many things silly. So what else is new?
As usual, you refuse to address the actual topic. So what else is new?
Straight answer: You need to fix your sentence and resubmit it. Enough said.
The key point is that one can analyze the God character of the Bible and conclude that it is immoral as defined. That analysis would use our relative morality which, for most of us at least, means that it is immoral to own a person as property. Since the God character condones this practice and since this character would not be a product of the times (but is rather the arbiter of objective morality), God is ipso facto immoral by our mores and values.
The ancient people who engaged in slavery and crucially those who wrote the Bible, were simply products of their time. To them, it was standard practice (and legal) to own people as property to be bought, sold and passed as inheritance. Nobody has categorically declared ancient people as immoral since per their mores and values they were quite moral.
You refuse to separate the God character from the ancient people (and the ancient authors). That is an absurd arbitrary binding. The two are quite different and should be treated as such.
As you are the only person who can't understand it, I would say the onus is on you to work on your reading comprehension.
Your comment is absurd, period. Separate the "god-character" from its authors who created it? Do that and what remains, Tig? Let's clear out the clutter!
If as you say, '"the God character of the Bible" can be analyzed and concluded to be immoral,' then by definition, the character is controlled by the minds which created it: The ancient Israelites who owned slaves. It is clear as a sunny day that without the Jewish people, we do not have a "god-character" stating, declaring, or assenting to anything imagined or real. Moreover, we can not even extrapolate to a Christian, "Jesus-character," according to this understanding.
Tig, your argument is invalid.
This ploy, to hide the truth in plain sight, fails. This wish to separate the "God character" from the Jewish people is due to how clearly one can see the insult to all Jewish people-dead and living.
Well, I will state it as often as it needs to be stated: Atheists, lack of believers in God, gods, some of you not all, are:
Now Tig, show me where I am wrong!
That is like arguing J.K. Rowling is immoral because she created the Voldemort character. Think.
The God character as defined in the Bible is a self-refuting contradiction. For example, an omniscient entity cannot be surprised by what his creations do.
The God character as defined in the Bible condones owning human beings as property and never condemns it.
I am done explaining the concept of analyzing a fictional character to an adult who pretends to not understand that extremely basic concept.
Uh, yeah. This is news?
The only person doing that is you. Go read our comments which talk about people being the product of their times.
Done. What is funny is that you pretend that in some way you are right. As if you did not even read the nonsense you have just posted.
You just admitted it. You plainly imply,The OT God the Jewish people invented for themselves made them act immorally to enslave people.
You can not have it both ways. You can not say it and not mean it. That's all.
We have both already shown you where you are wrong, multiple times. Your hatred of atheists won't let you actually read what we've said. By our current moral standards, the ancient Israelites' embrace of slavery was immoral. Hell, my own ancestors' embrace of slavery and theft of the Native American lands was immoral. So was the human sacrifice committed by the Incas, the practice of some ancient cultures to leave babies born with deformities exposed to die, and many other things. To a Hindu, we are immoral when we eat beef. Pretty much every ancient - and some not so ancient - culture has done things we consider immoral today.
So yes, they were immoral by our current standards, but not by the standards of their day. Pretty much every ancient culture was. How you manage to twist that into some vast insult against the Jewish people is beyond me and can be explained only by your extreme negative emotions about atheists.
Bullshit. The Jewish people invented their god, as many people invented their gods, to impose some order on their society, to try to explain things for which they didn't have enough science to understand, and also to make themselves believe they were special people, and that their actions against other tribes were justified because some god(s) approved it. They did not see these actions as immoral.
They would have enslaved people without inventing their god, most likely, as it was pretty much the status quo for many ancient cultures.
The ancient authors of the Bible did not view owning people as property to be immoral.
Take a moment and let that sink in.
They created a God character that made sense to them. In result, they inadvertently created a supreme entity who was supposed to be the arbiter of objective morality but was no more morally advanced than they were.
Digest that.
If God were real, He would be immoral by our standards. Since this is God, He would not be a product of ancient times. God would know better. To know better and still condone owning a person as property is to be immoral.
Katrix and I agree because we honestly employ logic and facts. I disagree with what you write, routinely, because IMO your comments rarely meet that criteria.
Have you watched "American Gods" on Starz? My boss suggested it to me. The character Mr. Wednesday said something along the lines of humans inventing and killing their gods.
katrix: So yes, [Ancient Jews] were immoral by our current standards, but not by the standards of their day.
There it is FINALLY: An admission of the immorality of the Jewish people using YOUR modern atheist standard of relative morality.
Next: According to your comments, the Jewish G-d is immoral. Please explain to us why that should matter. Remember this: You have established already that the Ancient Jews were immoral people who enslaved others, according to modern standards of cultural moral relativism.
I don't generally watch TV except football and hockey (GO CAPS!!!) but I agree with that character. A god comes to life when a human invents it, and only exists as long as a human believes in it. And of course gods tend to reflect the culture, values, and morals of the humans who invented them. The environment where they lived also played a major part. The stories about the Abrahamic god clearly reference volcanoes, the Native Americans include thunder and lightning, the Inuit gods include the polar bear god ... and most of them include floods since earlier cultures tended to congregate around water sources.
You cherry-pick a phrase from a single sentence and present it as though that was katrix' complete thought.
That is an example of not only a despicable level of misrepresentation, but one that is obvious to everyone and anyone reading it.
Who do you think you are fooling with this crap?
There it is FINALLY! Cal's admission that the entire point of this article is to try to demean atheists, logic, and reality. EVERY ancient culture did things we would consider immoral today, but you conveniently left that part out in your pathetic, dishonest attempt to pretend you found some smoking gun.
The problem is that many Christians also agree that morality is relative, so there goes your pathetic attempt at what you consider an insult.
Please learn how to read. This has been explained repeatedly to you. Hint: it has to do with people like you worshipping it as it is literally described in the bible, and probably explains your inability to grasp logic.
Since leaving the Church and following my Pagan roots I have started reading more and more about all types of belief systems. I find it all fascinating. I love reading about the similarities among the different religions and practices that were lifted from more ancient peoples.
Okay. We have already determined and you have stated here along with others that the Jewish people were not immoral people because they fit the schema of the era, yes?
Next:
Hi Veronica,
Yes, people and cultures 'lift' and share truth in the midst of themselves. This occurs in the modern world. Indeed, such truth sharing and combining is a commonplace practice. Because, truth is truth. Plain and simple, dear lady.
Your offensive comment is noted. I don't care what you think about it, Tig.
Not to mention refusing to answer questions posed. Notice how he never answered the questions I posed at the start of this particular discussion column. But there sure is a lot of deflection and dancing around them.
The Wiccans today pretty much had to invent their own religion, as the original Wiccans left no written records, and what little we do know was written by their conquerors. Did Druids actually burn people in wicker baskets? Probably not, from what I recall.
There are Greeks who are reviving their old gods and, again, they are having to come up with new things as we don't know a lot about how the Greek gods were originally worshipped.
It would be interesting if we could compare and see if the "new" versions of these ancient religions are more moral than their predecessors, as our morality has changed over the centuries.
If the Abrahamic god were invented today, would it still be invented as a petty, jealous, immoral god, or as a god that's above the worst of human traits instead of the epitome of them?
Does dishonesty come from an immoral god?
Answer some questions you have been asked, why don't you?
Do you believe that Noah's Ark occurred literally as described in the bible?
You are being deliberately dishonest (would Christ approve?) and yet YOU are offended?
That's laughable and despicable.
This is very true. I wish I had more written from my ancestors in regards to this. It is hard to know if the Druids were as depicted since you are correct in your assessment as to who wrote their history. From what i have learned in researching my new chosen belief system many of the gods & goddesses from the Celtic pagan days were made into saints by the Christians to assimilate the pagans into the Christian faith. St. Brighid is a good example of this. Even our holidays took on new meanings. At the beginning of my journey I was more resentful towards the Christians, but I have come to accept and celebrate my own way. Let them have their Christmas - I will celebrate Yule.
Are you thinking the "older" version in today's morality or the morality of the time they we practiced?
Your insults are irrelevant.
It may take you a minute or two to get used to the fact that you are calling the Ancient Jewish people immoral (and not just their you say, "fictional G-d"), but:
Why do think it is relevant and right to compare and critically appraise the Ancient Jews institution of slavery to our modern times?
Moreover:
In this article, you have labeled the Ancient Jews' G-d as an immoral rapist, because of the virgins 'of war' so forth and so on. Are you updating this claim to include the Ancient Jews as immoral rapists, according to your modern atheist standard of relative morality?
In addition, how about he answers my original questions: is slavery the owning of a human being as property? Does the bible condone slavery? Is the practice of slavery immoral?
Some will probably say dishonesty comes from Satan and/or man's own failings. But somehow, a "perfect" god creates imperfect, easily influenced beings and then is surprised or angry when said beings don't act according to how god wants.
Well there's a surprise >sarc<
Since morality was so different back then, I'd imagine today's versions are more moral - in our modern subjective viewpoint - than theirs were. If you think that sacrificing a child would keep an entire village from drought, it was moral in your eyes back then. National Geographic just had a fascinating article about an area of child sacrifices in the Andes, genetic testing showed the children were from all over the area. And it coincides with a period of drought. They buried llamas with the children and they couldn't easily afford to lose any llamas, either.
These days, we'd be horrified and anyone who sacrificed a child would be jailed or put in a mental hospital.
It's the Abrahamic god, not just the god of the Jews. It's the god of the Christians and Muslims, too. Their god is immoral IF one takes the bible literally.
I am not answering another question until you answer some of the questions you have been asked. I'm tired of your dishonesty and childishness. You play games rather than engaging in discussion. Grow up.
But I have to wonder how they would look at us in regards to how we treat the world around us. Would they consider our actions in regards to the environment moral? Is it moral to destroy the habitats of non-human entities? Is it moral to cut off the fins of sharks and through them back into the ocean to drown?
Nonsense. Logically, by definition, a created thing can not be more of anything than its elevated Superior.
The only rationale for you trying to get away with passing such 'bunk' as, "If God were real, He would be immoral by our standards." and this willingness to repeatedly show up to argue the point is an admission neither of you accept that the Jewish people had or presently have a G-d to ever exist. Which you at last, are openly admitting to on this thread without equivocations.
Moreover, I am not responsible for what katrix writes. More to the point: I can not "pick it" if it is not there to begin with, can I?
You should be complaining to her about it. What are the chances of that occurring, you think?
Are you an atheistic philosophical-naturalist?
You mean the "fictional" Christ, that you SAY you can't hate because you can't hate a fictional story? Why would I care if you care whether I was approved of by a fictional Christ anyway?
Insults are irrelevant. This is not some atheistic game room for you to come bounce fhit off me. Unlike some lack of believers in God, god, (some not all) here, I choose to show up every day and not bow out of my discussions or challenges to discussion. You come and go as you wish, let others answer for you as you wish, answer what you wish, and you certainly won't answer what you don't wish, so. . . I can play that game too.
Moreover, at this stage of my development, I still may not answer your questions, because as is plain to see for all: You can't make me answer anything I choose not to.
A well-delivered insight. Thank you, Veronica.
Whole communities of sea-life disrupted and/or destroyed when this world's war ships and naval aircrafts hold "bomb explosions" and "firing sorties" practice and test exercises into the seas. The sea life never know what hit them!
I don't think they could have grasped the concept of what this many people could truly do to the earth. If the Europeans hadn't come to the Americas and the Native American population had expanded, at some point they would likely have exceeded the country's ability to support everyone.
For a long time, people thought the oceans were beyond our ability to harm, for example. People not that long before us made the passenger pigeon extinct.
But since morality is subjective, it's hard to say. Fascinating thought, though.
No, it isn't. I don't understand how anyone could justify such behavior.
But remember that back then, people committed equal (or worse) atrocities against harmless animals. We're no worse than they are in that regard. Passenger pigeons? Poof. Driving animals to extinction because they had pretty fur? Ivory?
We're by no means perfect, but many of us these days are doing better IMO. We have a long way to go.
I wanted to write an article about ancient religions being brought to life again since I read that Nat Geog article, but since I can't moderate it, I can't write it. The idea of Wiccans - like you and others I know - and the Greeks who are bringing their old religion back is fascinating. The Greeks have temples and such, and we know more about them, but not nearly enough for their ancient religion to be truly resurrected.
One of the arguments in the Nat Geog article made by the Greeks who are against this revival is that you can't transplant an ancient religion into modern day culture. And that's true - which is why we're thinking about it and discussing it!
There's a line in Star Trek about the Klingons killing their gods. They found them to be more trouble than they were worth.
Probably a lot like the petty, jealous, immoral Abrahamic god that condoned slavery, ordered genocide, and commanded the rape of virgin girls - all there in scripture, for anyone who has the ability to read and comprehend the written word. It seems some don't, and think "have sex with me or you'll be killed" equals consent.
Jesus fucking Christ.
The Klingons had the right idea. Killing a god who causes more problems than he solves is honorable.
Qapla'!
What the Klingons didn't understand is .. all that is needed to kill a god is to stop believing in it.
Oh Sandy's here! Hi Sandy. People like you have stated the Abrahamic G-d of the Bible is a fictitious character in a set of books. As you surely know,
Book characters have no effectual power in the real world to command anything at all.
Therefore, it is the citizens of Ancient Israel proper who would have invented the character-god, and in reality directed the Israelites to be "petty, jealous, immoral condoners of slavery, orderers of genocide, and rapists" if your comment is to have an validity.
Just wanted to 'alert' you to these facts. Peace.
Why do with your brain that which is more fun to accomplish with a bat'leth? They had the right idea, but they were still Klingons
Really?
Ah, you've finally figured out that we can discuss the characters of a book without actually believing that they exist? Remarkable progress.
Yes, the ancient Israelites most likely invented a god that agreed with that which they were already doing, and wished to continue doing.
Good point. Hey, since we're clearly a gang who sticks together, I'd like your opinion. Should I seed an article from National Geographic about the child sacrifices and llamas .. the largest child sacrifice we've found to date .. or write one about how some Greeks are going back to their historic religions, and (with Veronica's help) tie into how modern Wiccans are going back to theirs?
Is this an either-or, or a both? Because I'd be interested in both, if Veronica's game for the latter. I've learned a lot from her articles on Wiccan holy days.
I apologize - it was actually because of an abnormal period of flooding. Still fascinating!
I could write one and seed the other .. but I can't promise to moderate, so I'm hesitant to write or seed. Maybe seed the Nat Geo one, which shouldn't cause too much of a kerfuffle .. and then .. can I write an article and then give Veronica permission to edit it?
The citizens of ancient Israel did not write the Bible. The Bible was written by a relative tiny minority of each culture that participated over thousands of years. For the ancient Hebrew contribution (i.e. the Torah or the Pentateuch) the God character was defined by learned individuals at the service of the political leaders.
That corrects your first mistake.
Second, the God character is found to be petty and jealous by His actions. Finding the character to be lacking does mean the authors or the ancient people en masse had the same attributes. These are attributes of the character. Only you seem to not comprehend that the God character is distinct from the authors who invented it. Just like fictional queen Cersei Lannister is distinct from the author George R. R. Martin.
That corrects your second mistake.
The ordering of genocide, rape, etc. was done by the God character and the character is judged accordingly. On this point, however, the leaders themselves ALSO commanded murder, rape, theft, etc. One judges the God character on its merits. One may also judge the ancients on what they did (if one needs to do that). However, to be clear, one can (and should) judge a character of fiction distinct from real human beings.
That corrects your third mistake.
Finally, it is remarkably ironic to observe you, given your comments in this seed, recommending what is required for the comments of others to have validity. One should make a practice of trying to deliver intellectually honest clear arguments and direct answers to questions, and to not make facts and logic a casualty of discourse, before attempting to weigh in on the validity of other's comments.
You can always lock it while you're gone, and post a comment when you re-open it so it shows up in the trackers of those interested. I've had to do that with some hot-button seeds while I've been at work.
As far as giving Veronica permission to edit your article, I don't know that that's a problem, but I'm not sure it's possible with the site's publication tools. Perrie and TiG would be the best to ask about that one.
There is no mechanism to allow authors to edit the same article. Seems useful, but alas that is not how the underlying platform works.
Are you a biblical literalist?
What does, "most likely" qualify in this sentence? In your mind, the Jewish people either "invented" a fictional G-d or they did not invent a fictional G-d!
Similarity: "YIPPEE! I'm pregnant!" or "Blah! I am not."
What the Jewish people did was to own pagan slaves. Are you actually writing to me that a fictional god of their own creation, "Made them do it." Does that sound logical to you?
I do not believe I have ever witnessed such effort to serially NOT understand what people are writing.
that's a wonderful question posed to the religious quite often since they lack any proof whatsoever of their god, but many of them usually get quite emotional and offended when asked that question (i'm sure many people can come up with various reasons as to why).
A first mistake: in red: One is labeling Ancient Jews rapists, murders, thieves, et cetera. Tap dance around it all day and night long it won't change the facts of one's meaning.
A second mistake: In blue: One must judge the ancients on the "merits," because a fictitious G-d has not hands or feet or effectual power commit acts immoral acts of rape, murder, thievery, et cetera. Tap dance around it all day and night long it won't change the fact that one is calling Ancient Jews immoral people.
Third and final mistake: In gray: This is not being clear. This is someone trying desperately to deploy force of will to construct a phony dichotomy, a fake divide of words, between the mettle of Jewish people of the ancient past and the modern day by demeaning and "dethroning" their G-d in their eyes. If this someone could be successful, afterwards someone would send in a 'mop up' team to one would savage the Jewish G-d, and draw the Jewish nation into its 'orbit' around Humanism. An other worldview.
Genius! —NOT!
Ancient people did, point of fact, engage in murder, rape and theft. Read your history (even the Bible for that matter). Your mistake is to take that fact and pretend I wrote: ' ALL ancient Jews are rapists, murderers and thieves'.
Not only is that practice intellectually dishonest, it is obviously so. Most people are not fooled by such tactics. Just makes the user of said tactic look bad.
George R. R. Martin cannot reanimate the dead either, but his main antagonist can.
Calm down. Collect your thoughts. Write something that is not 100% pure emotion.
Phoenyx13, qualify, "any proof whatsoever."
I have observed that the problem for atheist is not a lack of intellect, but a lack of spiritual interest.
Does that sound logical to you, Phoenyx13?
Should credible evidence ever surface regarding spiritual matters, you will find others taking interest. Until then, those of us who believe what can be evidenced rather than what people tell us will pursue truth based on evidence rather than wishful thinking (and/or fear).
Well, the way you are utilizing and engaging the 'buddy system' on this thread, I observe you telling others what to think 'all day long.' It may be a bit of hyperbole, but I think you have answered once or twice for nearly everybody on the team!
"If the Bible condones slavery, how did anti-slavery proponents use the Bible to justify their position?"
Answer: Such a thing is only possible if the bible contradicts itself.
Slavery is okay and here's how to do it, but don't ever do it!
Polygamy is okay for ancient Israelites, especially their Kings, but don't you dare have more than one wife!
Thou shalt not kill..., unless I tell you to, then kill even the women and children.
Incest is an abomination before God, unless it's Abrahams brother whose lineage might be threatened! I have no doubt Trumps favorite character in the bible is Lot. God murders his first wife and then lets him sleep with his two daughters, what a guy!
I am a jealous God who will smite any who dare disrespect me! But I'll also turn the other cheek when struck...wait, what?
I am perfect and never make mistakes, but I regret making humans and must destroy them all with a flood!
Complex statements spanning many thousands of years smashed together does not help answer the hard questions, DP!
Take @2.1.10 on for starters. . . .
1. "If the Bible condones slavery, how did anti-slavery proponents use the Bible to justify their position?"
A. Your comment may be discordant with your interest in the question.
What's so complex about not screwing your own daughter? What's so complex about not condoning owning humans as cattle regardless of how long ago it was?
Why not just defend any one of the glaring contradictions the bible presets with an actual argument rather then a rhetorical statement claiming my questions are somehow irrelevant or invalid because I used Old testament and New testament scriptures to contradict each other?
You often dismiss my biblical knowledge on the basis of my current beliefs, that of not believing in the God of the bible. You seem to believe that my knowledge of the bible can't be deep because apparently if I truly had as deep an understanding of it as I claim, having read it cover to cover many times and studied it for nearly three decades, you think I should be a true believer like yourself. In your brain my existence and that of other well studied and well read atheists doesn't compute. You are of the mistaken idea that most non-believers simply lack a proper introduction to, and education in, biblical scripture and that any right minded human will react like you did when being exposed to it. I hate to burst your bubble, but it's entirely likely that the vast majority of atheists here and elsewhere have a far more complete and deeper understanding of scripture than most believers.
Also, not sure why you had to re-state and highlight "anti-slavery proponents" in your comment as if I didn't address that. Of course the anti-slavery folk could use the bible messages of love and forgiveness and a few cherry picked scriptures like the one in Exodus 21 if the bible contradicts itself as it very clearly does over and over again.
Oh, and to your claim that the time that separates the statements somehow should absolve them of any weight here's an interesting scripture...
"8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." 2 Peter 3:8
So which is it, did the God of the Hebrews change that much in a day?
Because the topic is: Slavery.
I will meet you any other time to discuss the bible generally, but unless you tie your so-called, "bible contradictions" into this topic. I will pass each time.
Your 'rant' is noted.
Are you sure, can you clearly demonstrate, that the abolitionists used the Old Testament to justify their position? If so, make your case, please. I think differently, but am open to consider your point.
Your scripture reference 2 Peter 3:8 is noted, unfortunately, technically we are addressing more than a span of a literal thousand years. Moreover, Spiritually, you did not bother to illustrate its meaning or intent for being applied to slavery.
Nope, the topic is Does the Bible condone slavery?
and in 6.1.15 you clearly state the the topic is " the Bible"
But you know that you are deliberately moving the goal posts, don't you?
Which I cover, and my answer to the rhetorical question framed in the title is that anti-slavery folk can use the parts of the bible that contradict the ideology of slavery while those who want to support slavery simply quoted the many scriptures condoning it. I gave numerous examples of the contradictions because that was the answer to the question posed, that the bible is full of contradictions and thus can be used to both support and defend many thing, not just slavery.
" Your 'rant' is noted."
As is your constant attempt to validate your spiritual beliefs by seeding the same debates over and over.
" Are you sure, can you clearly demonstrate, that the abolitionists used the Old Testament to justify their position?"
The abolitionists primarily used the New Testament and the gospels to claim Jesus fulfilled the old law and that the slavery described in the old law no longer applied. The pro-slavery Churches like the Southern Baptists used mostly the old testament (along with 1 Peter 2:18) to support slavery.
" Your scripture reference 2 Peter 3:8 is noted, unfortunately, technically we are addressing more than a span of a literal thousand years."
" The Christian Bible has two sections, the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament is the original Hebrew Bible , the sacred scriptures of the Jewish faith, written at different times between about 1200 and 165 BC. The New Testament books were written by Christians in the first century AD"
So the "more than a span of a literal thousand years" was really around 1200 to 1500 years. Terribly sorry for rounding down. I guess an extra half a day makes a lot of difference in how a God might change eh? And before you claim it "covered" more time than that, remember that the laws condoning slavery were written after the exodus, were not talking about the supposed time period back to Eden. Nothing in the bible was written before around 1200-1500 BCE.
Every. Single. Time.
Moving the goalposts? How? The words, "bible" and "slavery" are in the title and the theme is ancient Israelites and early United States. Care to elaborate?
I get a lot of fhit thrown at me from atheists who lack a belief in God, SP—so does God, Moses, Jesus, Paul, the Bible. . . . I don't complain about it;
why ought you?
Care to back that up? Or, is this a solid example of a rhetorical 'drive-by'?
What 'parts' of the New Testament are you agreeing with then? Care to make it plain? If so, then why delay? Share what you SAY you know with me and your friends, please.
Important call out on I Peter 2:18); it will bear some contextualization at some point.
Span of a thousand years as a day? Excuse me, you wrote this @8.1:
DP, they could not use those, . . .expressions, if they were not there. Quite certainly you acknowledge the changes right there in the New Testament 'contract.' BTW, that is the operative contract for Christian believers.
It's been pointed out time and time again by others.
Considering the post was to SP you can take it any way you want. I don't want to be rude. You often raise interesting discussion topics. It's just very frustrating trying to discuss them with you.
I'm not here to proselytize.
"DP, they could not use those, . . .expressions, if they were not there."
I never said they weren't there, I said the bible contains contradictions, which it does. And of course many believers have developed their own excuses to circumvent those contradictions.
"Quite certainly you acknowledge the changes right there in the New Testament 'contract.' BTW, that is the operative contract for Christian believers"
I acknowledge that the bible claims there is only one true God, and that God is supposed to be perfect and never change, but the bible reveals its God regrets things, changes rules for his servants wildly allowing one thing for Lot or King David, but denying it of others. And this all concludes with the supposed arrival of God son who is supposedly really just another face of the trinity Father, son and holy spirit, but is now compassionate and turns the other cheek when struck instead of being the vindictive jealous God of the ancient Hebrews.
What I sense when you post these seeds is that you're trying to spread a certain message and get frustrated when you're confronted by so many alternate viewpoints. And instead of you just accepting the other viewpoints and saying "Wow, that's interesting" you push back basically saying "No! You're reading it wrong!". It's more than just wanting to debate two sides of an unresolved issue. You seem to be trying to present a positive side of the bible and your own spiritual beliefs but seemingly get offended when others poke logical holes in them.
Much appreciated, evilgenius. Listen, I try to get to the bottom of my discussions and not float along the surface. I get a tremendous amount of push-back from a specific set of "others." It is okay overall by me, because nothing worth getting to the bottom of is routinely easy. It is work! And, I get fatigued fingers for it too! (Smile.)
Let me add: this crowd can be rough on me, too. "Saloon brawling; tables flipping" down-right cold to me. So, my hard exterior is advantageous.
Because, jumping on a "bandwagon" is phony and plastic. I am not interested in it.
Pleasure meaning you. Know this, in my heart of hearts, I am a salt of the Earth, liberal, diversity-loving hombre and a man who is of his words!
Do you sense the bias here? No offense to women NT, but this is pregnant with lack of belief and no acceptance of the supernatural biases.
When you say something I can agree with I will surely let you know. The adherents to a belief in God are not under any obligation to let atheistic-secularists claim this world for there way of life, by simply declaring a thing old, invalid, or non-existence. Such groups will get constructive push-back; and, it will be well deserved!
Paul's writing to Philemon is interesting in this regard. In his letter, he advises that he is sending Onesimus back to Philemon. While he doesn't condemn the practice of slavery, Paul is telling Philemon that he should know what the right thing to do is, and that he should also do it.
In other words, I should tell you that its wrong to keep Onesimus as a slave, but I'll appeal to your better judgment as a Christian.
Another issue. Who is the audience of most of the NT? Slave owners and slaves. What's the message? Station, rank, status, wealth, possessions, etc. all immaterial. Focus not on what you have/who you are, but focus on God.
Loving your neighbor, the second greatest command in the Bible. Who is your neighbor? In the Parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus put the questioner on the spot by telling a story where the hero was a person whom the questioner would most likely despise...a Samaritan. Who is my neighbor that I am supposed to love as myself? Everyone, even the most despicable.
To answer the simple question of "does the Bible condemn slavery"? No.
However, I don't read Jesus' directive of love your neighbor as you love yourself as being compatible with slavery, and therefore do not see that the New Testament condones it, despite the fact that several books were written for slave owners or slaves.
Hello Transyferous Rex! Thank you for sharing this passage and for an even-handed tone.
I agree with this comment in substance. Let me point out one area of interest and clarification:
Eureka! A request to be generous to a loyal servant. So this means that all those other passages in the Bible that speak of owning human beings as property do not actually exist. Right?
I do not understand what you are asking me. Please elaborate.
You will have to figure it out for yourself. Sorry, too obvious.
Whatever. I will ignore that comment altogether.
From the perspective of the biblical stories as told in the bible Caananite Jews thought their bandages in first Egypt and then in Babylon were really bad no good terrible awful I.E. immoral. There is really no doubt that, according to the texts, ancient Jews believed that Jews being held in bondage by others was at in their biased view immoral. Also, slavery was ubiquitous 2,000 yeas ago. So, it was more a fact of life that something up for discussion. At that time it was completely possible that depending on circumstances being slave to a rich powerful beneficent master might have been preferable to being alone in the brutal world of early Julio/Augusine Roman Empire. Israel was an utterly conquererd Rome vasal state at the time of Christ. Roman governors and their legions of Roman troops and administrators pretty much treated all Caananites as slaves, human bounty of conquest, anyway. Nobody not a Roman was really free in first century Israel. So, it seems to me that a good argument could be made that in a big picture overarching thematic way the moral of the biblical narrative includes the concept that slavery is immoral but also just an unavoidable fact of life that needed regulation. In any case, I see this as less black and white than some. But then, in no way do I believe that the bible is the literal inerrant word of god. The Bible us chock full of immortality BTW...
To me there seems to be a need to clarify what 'slave' means in the Bible. The Disciples are referred to as slaves of Christ or slaves of God. The word 'slave' in the Bible can also mean 'servant' in our modern language.
I believe the pertinent question is whether or not the Bible condoned bondage? The Biblical descriptions of bondage appear more similar to what we call chattel slavery.
Since the bible said slaves could be passed to your children as a permanent inheritance, it clearly meant slavery as we view it today. Hebrew slaves could generally go free after a period of time (but could still be beaten) except when you sell your daughters; female slaves couldn't go free unless their owners stopped feeding, clothing, or raping them.
Which, unless you're a literalist, makes sense - the Hebrews who wrote those passages obviously thought their own people should be treated better than other tribes, and women back then had no rights and were basically slaves anyway, whether belonging to their fathers or husbands.
If you think God wrote the entire bible, that's where the real question of immorality comes in.
But not all references to slaves included ownership. Bondage always meant ownership.
So, determining whether or not the Bible condoned chattel slavery should include answering whether or not the Bible condoned bondage.
Volunteering for military service is selling oneself into servitude. And the military does treat soldiers as property. But is that chattel slavery?
Even today people can be treated as property without being owned. So there needs to be some clarification about the meaning of slavery as it is presented in the Bible.
Obviously the Bible condones (and in many cases promotes) servitude and refers to that as slavery. There are many instances of 'slaves of sin' which cannot have anything to do with ownership as property. IMO accepting all references to slavery as being chattel slavery is an overly literal interpretation (or misinterpretation).
Nobody has argued that ALL references to slavery mean ownership as property. Flip this around. Are you actually suggesting that the Bible contains NO references to slavery as in ownership of human beings as property?
see: TiG @10.2.2 and @10.2.3
Obviously not since the Bible also mentions slavery in terms of bondage as ownership of people.
Bondage is owning slaves as property. Does the Bible condone bondage?
Yes, emphatically. Did you read the links I provided?
And many clearly did, such as non-Hebrew and female slaves.
Pretending that because indentured servanthood was also discussed in the bible means that it doesn't condone outright slavery is intellectually dishonest.
Which is why I am routinely using the phrase 'owning a human being as property' for clarity. The Bible, without question, does not condemn the practice of owning a human being as property. In fact, it condones it and makes rules for proper handling of one's human property.
Jeremiah 34 : (note the link is for the entire chapter) 14 ‘Every seventh year each of you must free any fellow Hebrews who have sold themselves to you . After they have served you six years, you must let them go free.’Your ancestors, however, did not listen to me or pay attention to me.
Romans 6: 16 Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves , you are slaves of the one you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?
So, the Bible apparently also condoned people selling themselves. But is that bondage or servitude? Is selling oneself into slavery moral/ethical?
1 Peter 2: 16 Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves.
How can free people also be slaves? The only rational explanation is that the term 'slave' doesn't always involve ownership.
Your first passage talks about Hebrew slaves being owned. They are owned for six years and then let go. And these are Hebrew slaves - these are the slaves that were treated the best!
Now read the rules for Hebrew slaves: Exodus 21
21 “These are the laws you are to set before them:
Hebrew slaves are set free after six years. However, if during his enslavement the slave married and had children then his family must stay with the master as they remain his slaves. If the freed Hebrew slave wants to be with his family he has no choice but to return to his master as a slave but this time it is for the rest of his life.
Lots more where this came from.
And on this point, if the only practice of slavery recognized by the bible was indentured servitude this discussion would not take place. The problem is that one can effortlessly find myriad passages in the Bible where it clearly is talking about owning human beings as property. That is the problem. Clearly the Bible never condemns ownership of human property and in fact condones it by making rules for how to properly own a slave.
The ownership of human beings as property in the Bible is the issue. To be very clear about the rules that 'God' made regarding slavery consider this passage:
Obviously not all references to slavery are in the context of indentured servitude because the Bible also mentions slavery in the context of bondage. There wasn't a single type of slavery.
That's my question: does the Bible condone bondage and the trading of slaves? Does the Bible condone auctioning people as slaves? Does the Bible condone capturing people and forcing them into chattel slavery?
IMO it isn't that easy to make the distinction between indentured servants who are treated as property and slaves who are owned as chattel property by a literal reading of Biblical texts. How was labor handled at that time? Were people paid wages? To me it seems that much of the arguments depend upon interpreting the Bible within the modern context of the language and not considering the context of the period.
Which is the covenant mentioned in Jeremiah 34 (that I linked). Jeremiah 34 also describes the consequences of breaking that covenant with God. The passage indicates that forcing people into slavery will not be condoned and will be punished by God.
Then it probably does not matter how much of the Bible you read. But here is another area that speaks about property and the sale of human beings as property. It even shows how 'slave' means property in that it gives special dispensation to Hebrews who sell themselves as property.
How Israelites are not to be treated as normal slaves when they sell themselves as property:
But standard rules of human ownership apply to non-Israelites:
All I can suggest is that you read this (and other passages). If you do not see the buying and selling of human beings and the ownership of same as property that can be part of an inheritance then no amount of examples will make a difference.
1. Servitude. (Indentured.)
2. Morally ethical, indeed.
Because it was codified in Jewish law. It is impossible to charge somebody with a "wrong," when the law gives it a seal of approval.
NOTE: It is God who declares what is justified as right and wrong in the law and prophets, people were obligated to treat the code accordingly.
Lots of good questions there Love that you are in Jeremiah. There is a good point coming up there).
Before answering your concerns, I see you have more below. . . . (Smile. I'll keep reading!)
Oh goodness be! I think I am caught up. One more thing left to do. Nerm_L, here I come!
Hi Nerm,
In order to find and keep truth exposed:
Unfortunately, King Jehoiakim, like his father King David, used forced labor (slavery) on native Israelites in his day, prompting a warning "Woe!" from Jeremiah 22:13 - 17,
13 “Woe to him who builds his palace by unrighteousness,
his upper rooms by injustice,
making his own people work for nothing,
not paying them for their labor.
14 He says, ‘I will build myself a great palace
with spacious upper rooms.’
So he makes large windows in it,
panels it with cedar
and decorates it in red.
15 “Does it make you a king
to have more and more cedar?
Did not your father have food and drink?
He did what was right and just,
so all went well with him.
16 He defended the cause of the poor and needy,
and so all went well.
Is that not what it means to know me?”
declares the Lord.
17 “But your eyes and your heart
are set only on dishonest gain,
on shedding innocent blood
and on oppression and extortion.”
What we see in this is forced labor (non-indentured servitude) was not to be imposed on Hebrews kinsfolk, and when it was eventually it was the responsibility for the prophets to condemn this activity. Hope this adds something to the understanding. More later!
Hi Nerm_L!
The word, slavery, used by Jesus and especially Paul was meant in the first century era to express spiritual bondage to serve the word wholeheartedly. Sold out.
Bondage, in the slave sense could be represented as chattel slavery or 'traditional slavery' for the pagan people so detailed in Ancient Israel. Under Israel's system of laws, such people had not rights and privileges not afforded them by their masters (owners).
NOTE: I will share informational passages to back up these two statements upon request. Right this moment, my wish is to catch up with the rest of the thread. I will come back anytime, nonetheless.
Yes, that is the really interesting aspect of the debate. The Semitic religions (Judaism and Islam) are very materialistic. So, it should not be too surprising that owning property was considered a matter of worldly law rather than a moral issue. The Ten Commandments (the law, the 2nd tablets described in Exodus 34 ) of the Semitic Bible is a contract for the Hebrews to sell themselves into servitude. God is the master; the Hebrews are the slaves of God and must do as God the master commands. God doesn't just condone slavery; God demands slavery in the Old Testament.
Christianity is a new covenant of the spirit. The New Testament frees humans from enslavement to the material world. In the New Testament people have immortal souls and there is hope of redemption and resurrection. In the New Testament slavery becomes a moral issue concerning slavery to self and slavery to sin. In secular terms the New Testament is asking "do humans have free will and what does free will mean?"
While admittedly over simplified, IMO those arguing in favor of slavery are Jews while those arguing abolition of slavery are Christians.
The Jews have written tons of analysis after the Torah. These are all recognized as words of men (vs. word of God) and these men are quite against slavery. Modern Jews do not hold the Torah as the literal word of God and for very good reason - the words in the Torah (the words in the Pentateuch and in the OT in general) are not expressing the wisdom of enlightened people. We have evolved over time and I think generally for the better. Most people (super-majority) nowadays, for example, recognize that owning a human being as property is morally wrong.
In short, words of latter men correct the now recognized moral flaws in the words of ancient men speaking for God.
Quite difficult to read passages like this ↴ and not recognize the Bible condoning the practice of owning human beings as property :
Yes, Jews are trying to become Christians without giving up their enslavement to the material world. Muslims (Islam is the other Semitic religion) are trying to do the same thing.
The abolition of slavery is justified by the New Testament of the Christians; not the Old Testament of the Jews. An example can be found in Galatians 4 :
Here is the Christian justification for abolition of slavery (based on Galatians 4 but other passages provide similar justification):
That passage does nothing to say slavery is wrong; it doesn't even slightly address slavery as we are discussing it in this article, the legal ownership of a person by another person.
On one hand, you have Paul (as in not Yahweh, not Jesus) preaching about not being a slave (vaguely). Yet even he does not condemn as immoral the owning of human beings as property.
On the other hand, you have God (Yahweh) making rules for buying, selling and passing along as inheritance human beings as property.
The Bible makes it extremely easy for slavers to justify their acts. Trying to fight that with glimpses of morality from the NT - and not even from Jesus - is clearly a tough argument to pursue.
Too bad the Bible has not been revised to have at least one of the God hypostases stating clearly 'thou shalt not own another human being as property' (or equivalent) to counteract the damage caused in the OT and the lack of condemnation in the NT. At least the Jews have the Talmud to help correct (as in re-interpret) some of the Torah (especially the laws which cause so much trouble). Christians are missing their official revision of the Bible. You know, take slavery, murder of homosexuals, virgin girls as spoils, sacrifices, etc. off of the table. Modernize the message and deem the Bible words of ancient men attempting to convey their views of God as best they could given they were products of their time.
Very interesting paragraph 1! There is food for thought there, because the Old Testament does intertwine slavery, servitude, and obedience into a tight 'knot,' while maintaining separate distinctions and degrees of each. Also, you are pointing out the extend of severity in which Judaism in Ancient Israel was literally God's priest where being taught how to be set apart from the ground up to a definite posture, and after Jesus' departure, the nation's were instructed to maintain a strong posture without God's 'hand-holding.'
I am busy and somewhat distracted at the moment, so this may be not fully explained. More later.
Stellar paragraph 2! In the New Testament, a quick thought: J
Jesus and Paul take time to develop that there is more types of slavery in this world than simply that involving our physical bodies, there are slavery of the mind, slavery to character traits and 'flaws,' and yes, the enduring spirit. But that spiritual liberty can grant new forms of freedom such that "whatever state the body is found to be in" it can know change.
That, in my opinion, what you are getting at when you write, "The New Testament frees humans from enslavement to the material world."
These life changes activities take time and as is clearly "evidenced" God is changing people, but is not in a mad-rush to do so all at once.
Moderately distracted. Hope this expands the discussion further. More later.
(Hope there are no grammar "oops"!)
What religion, secular philosophy, or secular law from antiquity condemned owning people as being immoral? Did the Greeks, Romans, or Egyptians condemn slavery? Did the Hindus or Buddhists condemn slavery? Did the Taoists condemn slavery? Was slavery condemned by Greek democracy? Did pagan and pantheist religions condemn slavery?
Christianity was a fundamental change in thinking about morality/ethics that had not been established by prior religions, prior secular philosophy, or prior secular law. Prior to Christianity the law was morality; Christianity elevated morality above law. A change must have a beginning and Christianity was that beginning. Christianity made secular humanism possible.
Today we see the reemergence of law becoming morality just as it was in antiquity. Is there a God? The answer has been 'no'; there is only secular law and law is morality. Why didn't secular law condemn slavery in antiquity? Why will this time be different?
You have now moved off the point. The point that this seed draws from is that slavers used the Bible to justify their deeds.
One of the odd things about slavery concerns the responsibility of the slave owner. The owner is responsible for their property. The sins of the slave are the sins of the master. The master is never free as long as they own slaves.
In the Old Testament the Hebrews are the slaves of God. So, the sins of the Hebrews are God's sins. For God to be without sin, the Hebrews must be without sin. Hebrews breaking God's law makes God guilty. IMO that's why the law is so important in the Old Testament.
While it may be an odd way to think about it, Jesus set God free by ending human slavery to God. Christianity makes humans responsible for their own sins. Humans must use their Free Will to make moral choices; humans are no longer judged by the law. God has the freedom to be benevolent and forgive sins; the sins of the slaves or sins of the children are no longer God's sins. Christianity completely changed the relationship between humans and God (any god, for that matter).
The question raised by the OP is "How Did Anti-Slavery Proponents Use The Bible To Justify Their Position?" Citing Exodus or Leviticus to show how slavery was justified does not address the point of the OP at all. In fact, showing how the Bible was used to justify slavery is off topic unless it is being done to show what changed.
I have already stated that the God of the Old Testament doesn't just condone slavery; He demands slavery. It's not too difficult to make the Semitic argument for slavery; God demands slavery. Hebrews (as God's slaves) are governed by laws that provide morality. So, achieving a moral life requires enslavement. But that concept of morality wasn't limited to the Hebrews or the Hebrew's Bible.
As I have pointed out, abolition is justified by the New Testament. That directly addresses the point of the OP. Continually citing the Old Testament does nothing to refute that contention. Christianity and the New Testament fundamentally changed the concept of morality from that found in the Old Testament.
And your post started discussing how other religious views did not condemn the owning of people as property.
As I explained Nerm, the seeder made it clear that he is continuing from a prior seed which argued that slavers justified their actions by the Bible because the Bible condoned slavery. This seed accepts that the Bible condones slavery and then tries to equivocate.
Accordingly, it seems both sides of that question are on the table. Again, what I was referring to is moving the topic into other religions / cultures. It does not matter (to me) that Greeks, Egyptians, etc. did not condemn slavery. I agree they did not (why would they?) but that it not very relevant. I am not suggesting you cannot discuss this, but since you were replying to my comment, I am saying that I am not interested in discussing other religions in this seed ergo my lack of response to your post.
And I brought up those other religions to illustrate how Christianity was something totally different from accepted law and morality of the past across all Indo-European cultures.
The only equivocation I see is the attempt to ignore the New Testament and how Christianity separated itself from the Semitic religion of the Old Testament. Since the OP states that the Bible condones slavery (apparently from the previous discussion) then there isn't any need to prove the point. The question is how abolitionists used scripture to argue against slavery?
You are contending that owning (and by extension treating) people as property is immoral. That also prohibits someone from selling themselves as property or selling themselves into servitude to be treated as property. That also questions the morality of guardianship and the morality of adoption. That also tangentially questions the morality of abortion since aborting a fetus treats the fetus as property of the mother. The question posed by the OP is how Biblical scripture can be used to justify that owning people as property is immoral?
If the answer to that question involves law as morality, then we become stuck in the Semitic Old Testament. Anything can be made legal by democratic consensus or undemocratic authority; so replacing the authority of God with the authority of a majority doesn't really change anything. The law is still the law; the law as morality still retains the same flaws found in antiquity. My contention is that Christianity and the Biblical scripture of the New Testament changes the debate by separating morality from the Semitic laws of the Old Testament. The New Testament elevates morality above the law; moral questions must be answered before the law can serve as morality.
That's how abolition was justified by Biblical scripture. Are you attempting to refute that contention?
Indeed! You disagree that owning people as property is immoral???
I made no such point and that is a non sequitur. The specifics of how a person became the property of another is not something I address. I am talking about the morality of one human being owning another as property. To be bought / sold / inherited like a farm animal.
Again, do you not consider the owning of another person as property to be immoral??
No it does not. Keep the goalposts where they currently are. Equating owning a person as property to guardianship and adoption is absurd.
Nerm, get real. You are grasping at straws and I am not going to chase tangents.
No I am not arguing against: 'what is legal is by definition moral'. The law of a culture can make an act such as genital mutilation legal and thus codified moral in that culture. That is the nature of relative morality. And, similarly, in biblical times it was legal to own a person as property so in that culture relative morality codified said ownership as moral. The men of the time knew no better ... they were operating within their culture's mores and values.
No, I stick to the point that I have consistently made. My point is very easy to understand: the Bible never condemns as immoral the owning of human beings as property. Your post explores other areas and I suppose that makes sense because on the point I have made there seems to be no rebuttal. One can declare that the NT establishes the immorality of owning a person as property but simply making the claim and offering vague language by Paul is not persuasive.
Sometimes it is best to simply acknowledge the plain truth.
Yes, it is. The Old Testament does not refute the New Testament; that's the plain truth.
As noted yesterday, when one is presented with several examples of actual scripture and still denies what the scripture states, there really is not much else to say. Some will believe what they wish regardless of anything to the contrary.
Then Tig, would become a believer and a Christian. . . RIGHT?! Right?!! I do not think so!
Well thank you for clearing that one up! /s
Pretty much a non sequitur. Modernizing the Bible to clean up the foundation of Christianity has nothing to do with providing evidence that there is a god.
Answering your question: it still remains true that convincing evidence and logic need to be present for an atheist to become a theist.
( Calm down )
If you do not understand a direct answer then you can specifically show what part confuses you and ask a specific question. Other than that, seems to be your responsibility, not mine.
And the people of the modern world know better which is why slavery in various forms still exist in the world today, even in the United States prison system, some sex clubs, some domestic workers, some domestic spouse, and some low-skill workers. At least, that is what keep cropping up in some news reporting.
I think it is fair to say that a super majority of people living today understand that owning another person as property is immoral.
It is also fair to say that there are people who are owning others as property (rare, but no doubt it still exists). For example: sex trafficking rings.
Now, make your point.
And Jesus said he came not to do away with the law. Therefore, the New Testament does not refute the Old Testament either.
That is correct, Jesus did not do away with the law. Jesus changed the human relationship with God and did away with the need for God's law. The law became the law of humans and not the law of God.
People still try to blame God for the law. But now people have to claim a 'Jesus moment' to justify blaming God. Jesus made people responsible for their own moral choices; claiming 'God made me do it' is no longer a defense. Humanity came of age and now has to stand on its own.
Stop trying to play Pharisee with absolute, unanswerable questions.
If the question is about the institutional chattel slavery as practiced in the Antebellum South, then the answer is 'yes, that was and is absolutely immoral'.
But that isn't the question being asked. Is owning another human being as property immoral? The only answer to that absolute question is a qualified maybe. Even today it is necessary to treat people as property in certain circumstances. And in those circumstances treating people as property has been deemed a moral imperative. We go to great lengths to concoct phony arguments that we don't really own people but the reality is that, at times, it is necessary to treat people as property.
What is that supposed to mean? You provided as a quote my answer to Cal. There was no question in my answer.
Agreed. But you are constraining my posit (and my corresponding questions). My posit is that owning another human being as property is immoral. Simple. Do you disagree?
Correct, so why even bring it up?
There you go. That is the question.
No. The answer is that it is immoral to own another human being as property.
Give me an example where we morally own another person as property (property as in a computer, car, ... that which is bought, sold, passed along as inheritance).
Yeah. Just "modernize" the Bible out of existence and let humanism (man as God) rush in to feel the vacuum. GENIUS!
— NOT!
Could be a contemporary council of Nicea. One that includes modern knowledge (and formal logic). For example, the order of creation could be made sensible.
By the way, there is zero evidence that the various incarnations of the Bible are anything more than words from men. But if God actually exists, He can always step in and inspire away.
Do you not see the value in making it clear that slavery is immoral and that homosexual acts do not deserve the death penalty (among many other things)?
I mean nothing, but nothing, goes un-commented on by you! So, I will be looking forward to a comment on this!
Point delivered. "It is also fair to say. . . ."
Is that a problem? Addressing comments is how one engages in discussion.
People are paying to select a child for adoption; that's a form of retail adoption. The adopted child really does become the property of the adopted parents. We have concocted a legal language to avoid acknowledging that the selected child is property being bought and sold on an auction block. And we make moral arguments that retail adoption is acceptable because a child should be raised in a home rather than in an institution and that someone willing to pay for a child is more likely to better care for the child. In end, the practice of retail adoption isn't any different than a Semite from antiquity buying children in a slave market to become their property.
There are professional legal guardians that can be appointed by a court as custodian for people unable to care for themselves. The custodian has absolute control over all the affairs of the individual; the custodian legally becomes the individual. We have concocted a legal language to avoid acknowledging the individual is property but the court is actually selling the individual and the professional legal guardians are buying the individual. The professional legal guardians do trade these individuals among themselves, too. And we make moral arguments that selling the custodial control over these individuals is acceptable because they are unable to care for themselves. In the end, the practice isn't any different than a Semite from antiquity buying someone selling themselves.
There are many more examples but these two suffice to show that owning and trading people as property is still practiced today. We make up legal language to avoid acknowledging that people are property (equivocation) and we twist morality around so these practices are acceptable (hypocrisy).
You consider these examples of owning another human being as property that is bought, sold, passed as inheritance??
Redefining English words is among the lowest of tactics. You do not get to redefine the word 'property' to include the semantics of 'ward'. Good grief man, I expected much better.
Isn't that the point of the New Testament? God doesn't create new commandments or laws. We have to figure it out for ourselves while we wait for Christ to return.
The fulfillment of the Messiah prophecy was humanity's coming of age. We aren't children needing guidance any longer. We have been taught all we need to know. Just as children grow to become adults and parents themselves, humanity has grown to become creator's, too.
If the adult ignores the lessons learned in childhood, that's not the fault of the parent. Humanity has grown to maturity and can make its own choices. If humanity ignores the lessons from its beginnings, that's not God's fault. The New Testament speaks about judgement. I don't believe humanity will be judged as good and obedient children; I believe humanity will be judged by how lessons learned in childhood were used in maturity.
Humanity doesn't have any excuses any longer; it's all on us now.
Yes because that is what is being done. Treating people as property means people are property.
Isn't that one of the purposes of law? The legal term 'ward' is an equivocation to avoid acknowledging that people are property. Treating people as property means people are property. Don't you agree?
Wards are not bought, sold and passed along as inheritance. Guardianship does not mean ownership. Ward does not mean property.
Find another argument because this one is not only poor, it is offensive.
Let not fiddling around with this game of words:
Well, you are here right now daily. Two basic questions which can be impactful to this discussion. Let's see if you dismiss or fudge your answers.
"Answer away."
There is no evidence that persuades me to believe the supernatural claims of the Bible are true or that a supernatural realm (as perceived by religions) exists.
I am intrigued to see where this goes given you basically asked if I am an agnostic atheist. Will you next ask if I am a member of Newstalkers or if I know how to post a comment?
Distractions aside: Yeah, an 'empty shell' Bible would likely not serve to effectually change or 'course correct' a single or several lives!
Millions of likely believers would find themselves 'popping narcotics,' where spiritual change alone is the answer!
This has nothing to do with my post @10.3.37 so I assume you meant to reply to some other post.
Either that or you presume the modern Bible would be authored by atheists. If so, that is bizarre. Why make such a strange presumption?
We're not going to have or need a modern Bible, Tig. Thanks, but no! And I will tell you why: our current bible has effectual power of the Spirit to change humanity's hearts for the better.
Retail adoption is not about wards. Retail adoption is about a private contractual agreement with a pregnant woman to obtain a newborn child. Often the mother giving up the child receives monetary compensation.
When people are treated as property does that mean they are property? Professional sports utilizes the language of property to describe players. Players are bought, sold. and traded. Players are claimed as property by a sports team and that property can be inherited. And the sports league and team owners place demands on player behavior and demeanor both on and off the playing field. The players are selling themselves by signing contracts. Professional athletes are being treated as property and the language of property is being used to describe professional athletes. Is that immoral?
They players contracts can be traded and negotiated, players themselves cannot be. If signing a contract makes you a slave then every salaried employee and every business signing contracts agreeing to do a certain job or amount of work for a negotiated price are "slaves".
So stop being intentionally obtuse in your defense of biblical slavery. Unless you have evidence of an underground railroad freeing black athletes from their sport contracts, your deflection is nothing but a broken pencil, pointless.
Not going to give this any further time Nerm. It is pointless given your argument is nothing more than redefining words.
That's the question: if people are treated as property does that mean people are property? All sorts of legal equivocation can be utilized to avoid addressing that moral question. The Old Testament utilizes all sorts of legal justifications to avoid directly confronting the moral questions. The answer to moral questions in the Old Testament was emphatically "do not question God or God's law". The law is the law, something allowed by the law isn't wrong, if something isn't wrong then it can't be immoral.
We see the same thing happening today. The law is the law; if something is legal then it isn't wrong. And if something isn't wrong then it can't be immoral.
So we have prohibited owning people as property, claiming moral justification for writing laws. But it is legal to treat people as property even if owning people is not legal. If treating people as property is legal then it isn't wrong. And if treating people as property isn't wrong then it can't be immoral. That's the same equivocation employed in the Old Testament.
So as long as we use contracts that allow treating people the same as slaves, our morality remains intact? Isn't a contract a form of bondage? An individual is a slave to the contract but that one degree of separation means owning the contract is legal, not wrong, and can't be immoral.
At least the Semites of the Old Testament were honest about slavery.
And that statement is wrong. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it is right, or moral. And conversely, just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's wrong, or immoral.
That ambiguous response doesn't address the question.
Slavery means people were owned as property therefore people could be treated as property. So, if owning people as property is immoral does that mean treating people as property is also immoral?
Yes, I would say treating people as property is immoral. But I disagree that a contract today is a form of bondage, if the person willingly enters into it. We could get into a discussion of contract law for athletes, musicians, etc. but that's dodging the point here. Was an indentured servitude contract immoral back in the day? It would depend on the contract and what rights the person had.
The point I was making was in response to your comment that if something is legal, it can't be wrong or immoral. And that (and its converse) is what I disagree with. Something that is legal CAN be wrong or immoral, and something that is illegal CAN be right or moral.
If contracts are not a form of bondage then how can contracts be enforced? A contract can be used to abrogate rights, such as with non-compete or non-disclosure clauses in employment contracts. A contract can be used to circumvent the courts by requiring arbitration. A person can legally sell their rights and that sale is enforced by a contract. And the contracts can be traded, sold, and inherited.
My comment was that the context of the Old Testament is that if something is legal it isn't wrong and if something isn't wrong it can't be immoral. The Old Testament presents slavery in that context. Slavery was legal so slavery wasn't wrong and if slavery wasn't wrong then slavery wasn't immoral.
My earlier discussion made the point that Christianity separated morality from the law. Proponents of slavery utilized the law to continue slavery; opponents to slavery utilized morality to end slavery. Claiming that the law was immoral is the argument made by abolitionist Christians.
The abolitionist movement that arose in the colonies and in the United States before the American Civil War was not secular. So, the Bible played an important role in justifying abolition.
As it played an important role in justifying slavery. Just look at how people took the story of Ham to claim that black people are inferior. The bible contains lots of contradictions, and thus can be used to justify atrocities and also to justify morality.
Not really. In some cases the bible says slavery is wrong, and in others God commands its followers to enslave people In some cases it says thou shalt not kill, and in others God commands its followers to murder people. The Old Testament is a terrible example when trying to determine what is moral.
And yet, some people think the bible is the literal word of god. So is god just messing with us?
Reminds me of this scene :
Total nonsense. We do not treat people as property today regardless of the sports contract. You are allowed to burn and destroy your own property. You are allowed to damage your own property intentionally. You can give your property away or bequeath it indefinitely to your descendants to own in perpetuity. A sports contract does not in any way give the team a legal right to burn or destroy a player, nor does it give them the right to physically punish them and it certainly isn't something they pass on to their descendants in perpetuity. The bible however, gives rules on how much you're allowed to beat your slave, making it okay as long as they don't die in a day or two after the beating, allowing you to own the slave and any children of the slave and those children's children in perpetuity. There simply is no reasonable comparison between sports contracts and the slavery of the bible no matter how much you wish it to be in order to defend something so horrendous.
The law.
There are legal stipulations to the terms of a contract and can be reviewed or ruled on through legal process. But a contract is also freely entered into by interested parties. Many contracts also include stipulations for exiting or terminating the contract itself. Bondage infers that someone is forced into some kind of service, against their will.
There really is no if about it.
Yes!
Is the person owned as property? Treating someone as property and actually owning someone as property are two different things.
Correct, Nerm.
Hey NT! Remember, if you like this article: Vote it up!
Top left quadrant of this screen! Much appreciated.
Thanks for the reminder!
Resetting to the topical question on owning human beings as property:
Stealing the human property of others
The Bible (NT) is against slave-traders (those who steal slaves) but does not have a rule that states: thou shalt not own thy neighbor as property
This is like laws against being a horse thief in pre-20th century USA. Owning a horse as property was cool, but you could hang if you steal a horse.
Owning a human being as property
Special Kinder Treatment for Hebrew 'servants'
5 “But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ 6 then his master must take him before the judges. [ a ] He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.
Human beings were bought and sold as property. This was all the ancients ever knew and was not at all unusual for them. The idea that they did not find owning a human being as property to be immoral is exactly what one would expect. Thus the fact that the Bible never condemns this ownership as immoral is also what one would expect if it was written merely by ancient men with no divine guidance from an entity that surely would know that owning a human being as property is immoral.
It was child's play for people to justify later slavery by quoting from the Bible. What is difficult (impossible it would seem) is to make an argument that the scripture really does not say what it clearly does and to somehow deny the fact that this commonplace practice is never condemned. Had the practice been condemned, how would later slavers exploit the Bible? Obviously they would have had a tough time if 'God' had declared slavery immoral. But, alas, no such luck.
Well, that clearly appears to be you starting 'from the top' again!
Well, let's get going!!!
Hope you got something new and interesting for us to consider!
Nothing has changed in the Bible since this seed started. The Bible still clearly does not condemn as immoral the owning of a person as property and continues to even make rules for how it is done.
During biblical times people were owned as property. Some were owned in very good conditions and some were owned under brutal conditions. Some were indentured servants (not owned) and others were property that was bought, sold and passed as inheritance.
A biblically-based argument against slavery necessarily ignores the passages in the Bible that clearly support the practice of slavery. It must redirect (cherry-pick, obfuscate) from what the Bible actually says and engage in intellectual magic. One approach is to take the net message of Jesus (love thy neighbor) and spin an argument that owning another person as property goes against Jesus' message.
I suspect that is what religious people did to defy slavery. The Bible, however, was a liability in their efforts. Imagine how much easier it would have been if the Bible did not speak of owning, selling and passing human beings along as inheritance?
Yet God never 'returned' to adjust the record and state: oh, yeah, by the way, owning another human being is immoral.
The Bible stands today, for people reading it today, condoning and never condemning the owning of people as property. One must play games like those you offer to deny what is staring you in the face. Would be much better if 'God' had provided a revised Bible for His now evolved people. People have an amazing capacity to kid themselves - to rationalize even the most absurd notions.
You may not realize this, but everything you wrote there, God being the alpha and omega, a timeless entity, and can be at any point of time one wishes to change anything for a different outcome, we as mere humans would never know anything changed. And how do you know there hasn't been a revised Bible? Everything we learn through the sciences, human behavior, and societal evolution has been recorded ever since as the, basically, new Bible just not added to the Bible itself.
See @13 and @13.1 below. You are tripling down on the same message. What next, quadrupling down?
God, the Bible and Ancient Israel supported slavery. Your task @2.1.10 which for all this grandstanding yesterday and maybe today, was to give a questions, answer, or comment on,
You sidestepped this simple comment repeatedly. Or, is it your agenda of condemning a whole nation, Ancient Israel, which is more important to your repeating narrative? Well, the comment with its simple question returns!
You may continue repeating, and I will continue to ask straight-forward questions about God, the Bible, slavery, and this pretense of some commenters who are hiding in plain sight their open disgust for ancient slave owning nations, including Israel.
For the record, ancient Israel has nothing to apologize to any atheist, lack of belief in God or gods individual, group, or groups. At least, the writers had the honor to 'report' factually what they did and how in books which withstand the millenniums. And, look at the worldwide impact of open and transparent honest portrayals of their lives and experiences!
Ancient Israel, without a doubt, changed the course of world history for the better!
There are some atheists on NT, not all, who are not open and transparent to admit to a philosophical-naturalist worldview (no acceptance of anything supernatural) even though it drips from their keyboard in nearly every circumstance!
That could be a new question for you:
Who is more open and transparent about its conduct Ancient Israel or some NewsTalkers atheists lack of believers (not all)?
This is interesting.
I wholly support this way of thinking. I have suggested this quite a few times. Place the Bible on the shelf as quaint writings from and for ancient times. Instead learn from what we can observe and have learned after the times when the Bible went stagnant.
Write a post that does not go personal and one that addresses what I wrote rather than toss all sorts of crap into the mix (smoke screen).
See @12.1.4.
Do you see Christians owning slaves today? Evolved. Of course, you would 'blanket' attribute the evolution to the enlightenment: Got proof?
Just for the record, you have no reason to suspect that slavery (worldwide) could not become vogue again. None.
Let me clear the air:
It's only "personal" when it asks some atheists, lack of believers in God, gods, not all, to come out in the open and be transparent, no? Atheism, materialism, naturalism, humanism, secularism, scientism, and a cloud of other 'isms' are not "personal." They are worldviews held by hyphenated atheists.
An example of an entirely irrelevant question.
No Cal, it is personal when you speak about the person rather than the topic. It is personal when you label another individual with stereotypical labels. To not understand the difference between a personal comment and a topical comment is, frankly, not believable. Thus my conclusion is that it is intentional.
But that might be all that can be mustered when trying to defend the indefensible without a real argument. Look at how much pointless meta crap is in this seed as a result of not sticking with the topic (smoke screens, diversions, endless questions on that which is already and repeatedly answered, etc.) and going personal on challengers.
One man's judgement. I will not dignify it further. Insults and adhominem attacks are not arguments.
Please see question @2.1.10.
Exactly. Now put that into effect.
And yet you take insult when asked specific questions about your worldview?
It would be what one would expect if one was not looking for God to "speed up," that is, condense all of time and wisdom down into a single B.C. era. After all, normal growth and development comes as part of an enduring process. God, Alpha and Omega is not in a rush to hasten our conclusion.
Consider Jesus, who was/is the embodiment of God in the flesh, spoke for three years answering questions about the 'human condition.' Yet when asked about what would a sign of the end, he spoke of wars and other rumored wars. Jesus did not counsel his followers not to end all wars. That was not the mission de jure . Apparently, slavery like war like death, like disease, like all manners of ill-at-ease circumstances and conditions has a place in this world's scheme .
Buenos noches!
That is, Jesus did not direct his followers to encourage the end of all wars involving believers. It was not the mission de jure for his ministry to break new ground on the rights and wrongs of hellish and gore-ish human conflicts and wars.
Seems you think all atheists are bad while so called small c christians are all good
Hi Tessylo, if this is to me;
Nope. I do not think all of anything or anyone is all any one thing. I am too old and experienced to make that kind of mistake about human nature. (Smile.)
Let me put it this way, I am putting and will continue to put atheists and their (hyphenated) worldviews under the same close scrutiny some of these folks (not all) plan for the Faithful. If these folks wish open transparency and honest answers, then be open, honest, and transparent too!
Yes. Hard to miss. Clearly impossible to deny.
Conclusion: Do not presume the Bible is the word of a perfect God who is the arbiter of objective morality. Instead presume (not much of a presumption even) that it is the product of ancient men speaking for God and, in so doing, reflecting their own mores and values (their own ancient relative morality).
The Bible makes perfect sense if one takes it as human beings writing a book (over thousands of years based heavily on oral tradition and modified by an unknowable number of authors and edits). Applying divinity to the Bible is how this all unravels into a mess of contradiction.
The Bible does condone slavery without a doubt. And it is time for people to stop dancing around and apologizing for what is clearly written down in the pages of the book. Now then, if Ancient Israel should apologize to the world for slavery, when will Americans apologize for exploding weapons of mass destruction over Japan x 2? And for authorizing the aborting of fetuses and partial birth babies?
Let humanity start apologizing to God for all its transgressions!
Moreover, anti-supernaturalism is a hallmark of philosophical-naturalism.
Indeed it does.
I fully agree.
Who said they owe anyone an apology? They were products of their time. Plus, they did not invent slavery - the practice had been in place worldwide well before any of the biblical authors were born. I certainly do not blame the ancients for being products of their time. Do you?
What a piece of work. Anyway. Time for a break. Back later.
By the way, it can be a point of interest and/or prejudice to comment x number of times and withhold from the article the "pleasure" of a "LIKE"! Just saying.
Afterall, a mutual somebody we know instituted the 'step; and needs to set a positive example! See.
Pardon?
Do Americans claim that they were only following their Gods commands when they dropped those bombs? And if so, what conclusions can we draw about a God who would authorize something like that?
"And for authorizing the aborting of fetuses and partial birth babies?"
Somewhere between 25-40% of all fertilized eggs end in miscarriage, unforeseen complications arise near the end of pregnancy that put the woman's life at risk or cause the fetus to die in the womb. If the God of the bible is so all-powerful as it claims and could prevent those things if it wished but doesn't, isn't that the same as authorizing it?
"Let humanity start apologizing to God for all its transgressions!"
I think you have that backwards. If there is such a God out there, not making itself known in a more consistent way to all humans and allowing such physical and emotional pain and distress for perhaps millions of years of our ancestors existence seems like a pretty shitty thing to do to your own creations. It makes no sense unless God is a member of Starfleet and is bound by the prime directive.
In your rush you missed my point. There will be no apologies for acts done under the authority of law. For where there is law there is approval and acceptance.
As to your statements accusing God; easy solution. Build your own planet from scratch and invite people to inhabit it. It will be a study in character-building, I'd imagine. Complex issues are by definition harder.
Most of the evidence indicates we already did.
We who?
We as in we humans. While the planet was already here, we do inhabit it and did build on it from the ground up over the millenia.
The 'moral' of @15.1.5 is character building will come through building your own planet from scratch.
Complex issues are by definition harder.
Why would I vote up an article that is outright dishonest, and has easily been proven so?
Note how I said the planet was already here. But DP (I assume) was referencing humanity. If I am wrong on that, he can certainly correct me. What's so complex that you cannot seem to understand that?
Dear katrix, you miss the point. You are not voting a like for me or the content of the article. A like expresses an interest value for yourself and to others.
For example, I came face to face with this 'dilemma,' when replying several times on an article I certainly did not agree. HOWEVER, the question which stared me squarely in the face was how much I felt that article need commenting on by me. Clearly, my interest was drawn to it, even though I cared not for the 'company.' This is the TRUE value of giving a like to these articles.
BTW, thank you! For giving me a chance to put that in words. I had to think it 'out-loud,' so to speak.
Tig: Another possible suggestion on this area. As an accomplished programmer, evidenced by the considerable enhancements you have made to this place, and I mean that from the heart, you can code our "Like" function to automatically generate a (count) when/if individual "x" comments "x" numbers of times on "x" article. Count_total to be determined by you and Perrie.
Mad respect on your coding to date!
That's not how I use the like button. I have no problem with voting up an article I disagree with, but cannot vote up one which is deliberately dishonest.
Well, I am 'damaged' now. Crushed even. How will I ever move on from this one? /s
Perhaps your likes are too emotionally expensive?
You would be correct.
No, in order to get the right proportion of character building; build your own planet from scratch. That is the point I made.
You had a point? Well, building a planet from scratch will require leaps in technology and engineering.
Well, get a coat, gloves, hard hat, and "some leaps" and get started! That's all.
Good night, America!
I am closing this article as the load time is making it very hard to moderate. Please reopen a part 2.