Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Anything Divine in the Bible?
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 298 of 406 (491174)
12-12-2008 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 297 by Dawn Bertot
12-12-2008 11:17 AM


Re: If God Were Human Would He Want a God Like Him?
Hi Bertot,
To answer your question directly NO, slavery is not wrong according to the Bibe
That is not an answer to DA's question at all, let alone a direct one.
DA asked if slavery is right or wrong, not what the Bible says about it. We all know that the Bible fails to condemn slavery.
I am more interested in whether you think slavery is right or wrong and, if you say it is wrong, how you got this from the Bible.
For the record, I find it shocking that anyone could equivocate about the immorality of slavery.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-12-2008 11:17 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-12-2008 11:34 AM Granny Magda has replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 310 of 406 (491210)
12-12-2008 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 301 by Dawn Bertot
12-12-2008 11:34 AM


Re: If God Were Human Would He Want a God Like Him?
In fact I did answer his question and it is not a matter of what I think
You most certainly did not. DA asked;
Devil's Advocate writes:
Is slavery wrong?
It's a very simple question. If you are still insistent on dodging this incredibly simple yes/no question, I'll ask you directly;
Do YOU think slavery is wrong?
Can you answer this question without equivocation?
I thought we were discussing what God does as evil or not. Have you been following along?
I have. You claim to have an objective moral system. If this is case, you should have no trouble answering simple moral questions such as the one above.
I personally do not understand all there is in the talking of the life of a child anymore than I agree with slavery, but what does my opinion have to do with an omnipotent God?
More equivocating and dodging of the question. Why can't you just say that you condemn slavery as immoral? What is the problem? It's easy. Look;
I think slavery is wrong.
There, wasn't that easy? Why are you, with your supposedly superior moral system, finding this so hard?
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-12-2008 11:34 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 312 of 406 (491216)
12-12-2008 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 311 by rueh
12-12-2008 3:00 PM


Re: If God Were Human Would He Want a God Like Him?
rueh writes:
Well from someone who has been in the Air Force, I believe that statement is very demeaning.
Agreed. This is the kind of equivocation that I find rather unpleasant. Here is another unpalatable example;
Bertot writes:
I am a slave to my job, literally
Literally?! Somebody call a cop!
This kind of hyperbole is deeply patronising to those who have been and still are being held in actual slavery. There is no comparison. Pretty sick really. I am constantly amazed by the depths to which people will sink in order to defend their precious Bible.
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by rueh, posted 12-12-2008 3:00 PM rueh has not replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 334 of 406 (491253)
12-12-2008 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 319 by jaywill
12-12-2008 4:54 PM


Re: If God Were Human Would He Want a God Like Him?
If God was generally pro-slavery as you want to suggest, why did they find so much biblical ammunition to proclaim abolition?
For the short answer, please refer to my signature.
There are both good messages in the Bible and bad. The material on slavery is amongst the bad stuff. Not just a little bit bad, but utterly abhorrent. Repugnant. Appalling. To paraphrase Tom Paine, it would be easier to think it the word of a demon than that of a loving and benevolent god.
It seems clear to me that with such horrible advice on offer, alongside conflicting good advice (like "love thy neighbour") the Bible is a poor guide to morality. Further, there must be some other moral basis by which we judge which bits of the Bible are good and which are bad.
We do not need to refer to a Bible to know that slavery is wrong. We simply know it. Unfortunately it seems that some people would rather ignore their own moral sense for fear of contradicting their favourite book.
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 319 by jaywill, posted 12-12-2008 4:54 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 335 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-13-2008 2:17 AM Granny Magda has replied
 Message 339 by jaywill, posted 12-13-2008 9:59 AM Granny Magda has replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 341 of 406 (491274)
12-13-2008 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 335 by Dawn Bertot
12-13-2008 2:17 AM


Re: If God Were Human Would He Want a God Like Him?
You fellas really dont get it do you. I cant believe anyone is this stupid.
Again, you start with the insults. Not very Christian of you is it? Grow up Bertot.
How in the world could you make an idiotic statement that there are good and bad measures in the Bible, when you have no standard to measure that statement with. It reminds me of the definition of "nothing". Nothing is what rocks dream about. By what standard are they appalling, abhorent and repugnant?
This has already been explained to you several times and I find the fact that you appear to be unable to comprehend it rather worrying.
I judge things to be bad if they cause harm to others without any commensurate benefit. I use the simple principle of "Do unto others...". No ultimate standard is required.
The fact that books like Leviticus are so out of touch with the modern moral Zeitgeist (including that of most Christians and Jews) amply demonstrates that your morals are every bit as relative as everyone else's.
That you need to ask why slavery is abhorrent at all speaks volumes of the lack of value in your approach to morality.
It never fails to amaze me how each time I hear these types of arguments advanced from a perspective of relative subjectivity and basically nothing how ignorant they are and how obviously evasive one is when they continue to suppport a hopeless, ignorant, idiotic position, Thomas Paine notwithstanding.
Any chance you might parse that mess into some kind of sense for me?
What amazes me is that you have still not said whether or not you think slavery is wrong! Come on Bertot, it's not a hard question!
Do you think slavery is wrong?
If you can't answer such a simple moral question (doubtless for fear of the implications your answer might have for Bible-based morality) what possible value could your moral system have?
Devil's Advocate has done a superb job trying to pin you down to an answer on this and all you can do is splutter, equivocate, change the subject and, in this last post, ignore the question as if it was never asked. So much for your superior morals.
Then by all means please set it out for us all to see. And after you do I will set back and show contradiction after contradiction after contradiction
The delusion here is the idea that any moral system can ever be entirely free of contradiction. I doubt that it could. Yours has certainly been found wanting in this respect.I would rather acknowledge contradictions and deal with them than pretend that they don't exist as you are doing.
Yet you sit here and claim that everyone elses is cruel, evil, bad, inconsistent and immoral.
Please show everyone where I claimed this. In fact, I claimed no such thing. You are reading whatever you want to hear into other people's words.
How stupid must one be to see that if you admit morality is subjective, you have no leg to stand on, muchless a platform?
Read that sentence back to yourself Bertot. You just called yourself stupid. Not that I'm disagreeing with you. It's just that you really must try harder if you want to debate with the grown-ups.
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 335 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-13-2008 2:17 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 345 of 406 (491279)
12-13-2008 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 339 by jaywill
12-13-2008 9:59 AM


Re: If God Were Human Would He Want a God Like Him?
Hi Jaywill,
What do you think of how God treated the female slave of Abraham, Hagar ?
You mean this Hagar?
quote:
Gen.16:3 And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.
Strangely, I don't think too highly of keeping women as sex slaves. I'm funny like that. If that took place in the modern EU or USA, Sarah and Abraham would be spending the rest of their miserable lives in jail and rightly so.
Nor does Paul's grovelling before the slave owner in Philemon impress me. At no point in the story does Paul condemn slavery. This would seem like an ideal take the opportunity to just that, but no...
Was that demonic and horrendous treatment of the matter of slavery ?
Yes. Let us be clear. there is only one moral course of action regarding a slave; SET THE POOR BASTARD FREE! No conditions, no requests, just set him free. Anything short of that is morally repugnant. Simple. Remind me, which one of us is the moral relativist again?
I don't think so. My ancestors were American slaves. There songs were filled with comforting and supporting passages from the Bible to those oppressed and in bondage. I don't think they could have survived without the Bible.
I'm sure that it is very comforting to think that, but you actually have no idea how they would have managed without religion. Not all slaves in America were Christian. I'm sure that plenty survived who were not.
Slavery was a social fact in the ancient times. And God worked with Israel in a progressive way. He did not ignore some of the customs of war and social order of the surrounding nations.
Are you suggesting that his hands were tied or something? God was free to condemn slavery. He did not. Or ore accurately, the Bible authors saw no need to condemn slavery, because they supported it.
If I had to have been a slave, I would have prefered to be one under the Hebrews who were seeking to live under the Mosiac law.
So if you were a slave and you were beaten with a rod, as you lay dying, you would be thinking "Fair enough really. Mustn't grumble."? You don't mention what you would prefer it to either.
Just because you can think of greater evils it does not magically transform Biblical evil into something acceptable. There could be worse slave owners than the ancient Hebrews, but that does not make their attitudes any less dreadful.
The center of the Bible is that this man Jesus Christ is the only Person 100% pleasing to God.
Only from a particular Christian interpretation. The OT has nothing to do with Christ. I have already said that the Bible has its good bits and John is clearly one of them. But we weren't talking about John, were we?
I would put it in terms of transformation into the image of Christ by the Holy Spirit.
Fair enough. I prefer to say,
Mutate and Survive!
Edited by Granny Magda, : Fixed dBcodes.

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by jaywill, posted 12-13-2008 9:59 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 346 by jaywill, posted 12-13-2008 4:41 PM Granny Magda has replied
 Message 347 by jaywill, posted 12-13-2008 5:35 PM Granny Magda has replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 349 of 406 (491304)
12-13-2008 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 346 by jaywill
12-13-2008 4:41 PM


Re: If God Were Human Would He Want a God Like Him?
I do not think of Hagar in that sense. It seems that Abraham had never had any sexual relations with her until it was suggested by Sarah his wife.
Oh well, that makes it OK then. Because of course, it is Sarah who decides who Hagar should have sex with, not, say... Hagar herself. It says that Hagar despised Sarah after this. I don't blame her.
That Sarah is accessory to the crime makes it worse, not better.
Do they tell this one in Sunday School? Probably not eh?
I don't think southern slave owners waited around for their wife's approval let alone suggestion, before they went to bed with their slave women.
Not relevant. White slave owning couples who could not produce children did not want black babies. It is a different situation. I'm sure you realise though, that rape was a standard part of the slave trade. Most female slaves were immediately raped in the hope of producing saleable children. I would be surprised if no slave owner's wife were aware of the practise.
The suggestion was that since Abraham and Sarah could not produce a child perhaps God would fulfill the promise of a son through Abraham having a child with Sarah's slave Hagar.
I understand the set up. Are you suggesting that a desire to have children justifies rape?
Rape incidentally, is another area where Biblical morals are lacking.
1.) I don't think of this as the typical sex slave.
What else does one call a slave who is impregnated at her master's convenience? Exact terminology is unimportant however. The facts of the account are that Abraham held Hagar as a slave. Then, as if mere slavery were not diabolical enough, he has sex with her. Hagar is apparently not consulted on matter. I call that rape.
2.) It was the wife's idea which I don't think is typical of a situation of men owning sex slaves.
Atypical I agree. That does nothing to justify it.
In a modern setting, this sorry tale is clearly full of immorality, yet God makes Abraham a Father of nations. God doesn't seem to mind that his chosen is a slave owning rapist. Which brings us to...
3.) You can't blame it on God.
I thought that the Bible was the divinely inspired word of God? He seems content though to hold up a slave owning rapist as a role model.
Of course if the Bible is the work of men, then God is off the hook. Neatly, that also explains the disconnect between Biblical morals and out own; it is simply a product of the changing moral Zeitgeist across the centuries and the cultures. When Leviticus or Philemon was written, slavery was seen as acceptable. Now we understand that it is evil. There is no contradiction because the moral values involved simply changed (for the better).
There is however a contradiction in saying that the Bible account is inspired by an omnibenevolent deity when it condones slavery. There is a contradiction in claiming that you derive your morals from the Bible when your morality differs from its dubious morality. There is a contradiction in claiming any absolute moral system can be derived from the Bible when the opinions of modern Christians and the Biblical authors are so clearly at odds.
Just for the record, I am not interested in blaming anything on God. I don't hold grudges against fictional characters.
Having said that, I still am not suggesting it was a good situation.
You have a gift for understatement. The only example I can think of to top that is when my nan described the Iraq war as "A rum old do.".
After Abraham produced a son through Hagar, God didn't speak to him for another 13 years. I take this as a sign of Divine disapproval rather than approval.
And yet he still chooses Abe as his patriarch. He's clearly not that bothered.
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by jaywill, posted 12-13-2008 4:41 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 355 by jaywill, posted 12-14-2008 5:05 PM Granny Magda has replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 352 of 406 (491307)
12-13-2008 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 347 by jaywill
12-13-2008 5:35 PM


More on Slavery...
I have never heard anyone suggest that Paul was "groveling" before Philemon.
You have a strange perspective. The one in command of the situation appears to be Paul and not Philemon.
My perspective is that of someone who believes slavery to morally repugnant. From that perspective it is easy to see that Paul is appallingly uncritical of slavery.
I did not set out to prove that Paul condemned slavery. But he certainly nullified it's negative effects.
In one instance! How much more would it have nullified the negative effects of slavery had he said "Slavery is wrong. Not just a bit wrong, but very, very wrong. Don't keep slaves. God doesn't like it."?
He does not see fit to take this opportunity. I find that appalling and pathetic. At the time it was written of course, it probably seemed inoffensive because slavery was commonplace. All it proves is that the moral Zeitgeist has shifted over time and that those who claim to draw their morality from the divine can come to some astoundingly disparate conclusions.
The dehumanizing of kind of slavery practiced was nullified where the letter of Philemon was taken seriously by Christian slave owners.
And slavery was promoted when people took Leviticus seriously, as well as the many other references that have already been pointed out by Devil's Advocate.
As I say, the Bible contains good and bad, with so many contradictions that it can be made to support or oppose many different positions.
There was such a thing as X - slave owners. We should not assume that none of them decided that they could not continue it in good conscience.
If "they" decided against slavery, it was due to their own consciences. You cannot give the bible credit for their conversion since it provides contradictory messages on slavery and is (on balance) in favour. They must have had some extra-biblical means of telling good biblical advice from bad biblical advice, whence extra-biblical morality.
The point here is that though Sarah turned Hagar loose without much provision God, my dear, God provided for her.
Hey, that's not fair. We're trying to make God look like the Big Slave Owner in the Sky here, right ?
He provided for her so well that she was a slave who was raped by her owner. Nice job. I hope he never decides to provide for me.
Nonetheless, this is not about me trying to make God look bad. The Bible accomplishes that perfectly satisfactorily.
The point that I am making is that;
a) The Bible's promotion of slavery is incompatible with it being the divine word of an omnibenevolent deity.
b) The fact that the Bible promotes slavery whilst modern Christians abhor it refutes suggestions that Christian morality is based on the Bible.
jaywill writes:
My ancestors were American slaves. {snip} I don't think they could have survived without the Bible.
Granny writes:
you actually have no idea how they would have managed without religion.
jaywill writes:
Yes I do. It is my father's area of expertise. He has an honorary doctorate in the field of the history of Black people in the US and Carribean.
Your appeal to paternal authority is irrelevant. You do not know that your ancestors would not have survived without religion, for the very simple reason that you are not able to go back in time, take away their religious beliefs and rerun the last two centuries.
You have no way of proving that they would not have survived without religion. That some slaves survived without religion does prove that it was, in theory, possible.
The matter of slavery is not as simple as you would like to make it.
No, it is very simple. Slavery is completely and utterly wrong. It is always wrong. There are no extenuating circumstances under which it is less wrong. You and I both know this to be true.
The only reason that you seek to create a gray area around this is because you are unwilling to admit that the bible is just wrong about slavery. Your reticance may be explained by the fact that such an admission undermines any claim of biblical authority or Bible-based morality.
Granny writes:
So if you were a slave and you were beaten with a rod, as you lay dying, you would be thinking "Fair enough really. Mustn't grumble."?
jaywill writes:
I would think that God can be the sustainer and supporter in all kinds of situations.
You did not answer my question. I would suggest that you would not be content to be kept as a slave and beaten with a rod. I would further suggest that when your molester went unpunished, the fact that Exodus mandates his getting off scot free would be of little comfort to you. I would say that your sense of moral outrage in such a circumstance would be far from biblical.
So to Jesus the Old Testament included writings about Him. We need our minds opened to see these things.
You're in danger of opening it a little too far in my opinion. Remember, if you open your mind too much, your brain will fall out.
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 347 by jaywill, posted 12-13-2008 5:35 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 369 by jaywill, posted 12-16-2008 10:25 AM Granny Magda has not replied
 Message 374 by jaywill, posted 12-16-2008 12:07 PM Granny Magda has not replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 353 of 406 (491308)
12-13-2008 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 343 by jaywill
12-13-2008 12:36 PM


Re: Abolitionists Use of the Bible
What you are doing is exactly what the slave masters of American South did - selectively quote passages to uphold their evil system.
DevilsAdvocate has already responded to this and whilst he is perfectly able to speak for himself, I would like to make one point.
DA is most certainly not doing what the Southern slavers did.
DA is selectively quoting Bible passages that condone slavery to prove his selected point; that the Bible condones slavery. That point supports his more general argument that modern notions of universal human rights are not based on the Bible.
What he is emphatically not doing is selectively quoting passages and then using them, as the slavery lobby once did, to make an argument from scriptural authority.
The slavers quoted passages and used them to say "Look! Slavery is condoned in the Bible. That makes it OK!". This is the polar opposite of what DA has been doing.
Given your own disinclination to denounce the Hebrew slave system, comparing DA to slavers seems a bit rich.
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by jaywill, posted 12-13-2008 12:36 PM jaywill has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 354 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-14-2008 9:01 AM Granny Magda has not replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 357 of 406 (491364)
12-14-2008 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 355 by jaywill
12-14-2008 5:05 PM


Re: If God Were Human Would He Want a God Like Him?
you should have noticed that I followed that sentence with one which said I did not think it was an ideal situation.
Your gift for understatement is showing itself again. "Not ideal"? Are you kidding? The story describes what would now be considered a grotesque criminal act and you call it "not ideal". Do you not see how patronising and insulting this is to all those who have been forced to endure the indignity of slavery?
Somehow I don't think you care about any of that but are rather intrigued by what scandelous information you can derive from the story.
Let us be quite clear. you brought up the Abraham/Hagar story, not me. In Message 339, you said;
jaywill writes:
What do you think of how God treated the female slave of Abraham, Hagar ? Abraham's wife wanted to throw her out of the camp with her son Ishmael.
Did you notice how God made provision for her? Was that horrendous?
You asked and I answered. If you are going to start casting accusations of unfair play simply because my answers do not appeal to you, I suggest that you stop asking me questions.
The Bible records many things which could be considered scandelous. I try to discern the difference between what the Bible teaches and what the Bible records as having happened.
I don't think it is teaching that everything that happened is what ought to have happened.
So when the text portrays God as bestowing special favour upon genocidal murderers and rapists, is there any moral message or is it simply reportage?
If the former, it is an exceedingly poor way of conveying an anti-genocide, anti-rape message.
If the latter, why even bring it into the conversation?
I am not interested in teaching anything scandelous from Genesis simply for scandel's sake.
As a matter of fact, not am I. Any cursory inspection of Genesis will throw up objectionable material, I don't need to expend any effort in that direction.
You asked me what I thought of Gen 16 ad Philemon. I answered. Just because you do not like my answers does not mean that I am seeking scandal for its own sake.
You picked out two scandalous stories, seemingly with in the belief that they were somehow morally uplifting. Don't blame me if I fail to be as impressed with them as you are.
Granny writes:
Not relevant. White slave owning couples who could not produce children did not want black babies.
jaywill writes:
That's naive. I don't think the lusty master was looking that far down the road. All of which tends to make the Hagar affair less like the typical sex slave.
You miss the point. That it is atypical is immaterial. If someone is kept as a slave and forced to have sex with owner, it is reasonable to describe their situation as sexual slavery. What other term would you prefer for a slave who is occasionally fucked by her master?
You made the comparison to American slavery. The slave trade explicitly did "think that far down the road", as did Abraham and Sarah. Black women were routinely raped and part of the purpose of this (apart from control and general cruelty) was so that they would bear children. Slaves with some white ancestry were held at a greater value, due to their supposed greater intelligence and suitability as "house Negroes". The deliberate impregnation of women for this purpose was a standard part of the trade.
Abraham differs from this set-up only in that he was interested in keeping the child as his own rather than selling it. As a point out though, the comparison does not apply here, since white slave owners were generally not interested in bringing up black babies as their own.
And again, it was not a good situation for Hagar, in case you think I am trying to portay it as so.
Unbelievable. "Not a good situation". Shocking understatement once again. If you think these stories are "not good", why did you bring them up at all? What point are you trying to make if not that the Bible has some good bits about slavery?
I was not there. And that much information is not given to us. So I have no comment on to what degree Hagar was forced or not forced.
And you accuse me of naivety. SHE WAS A SLAVE! Do you really imagine that Hagar would have been consulted? How quaint. Do you honestly think that if hagar had said "No thanks" Sarah would have replied "OK, sorry to have bothered you!"? What nonsense. You seem to have failed to understand the fundamentals of slavery. The slave has no say. they are property. They do not get to make their own decisions. What meaningful consent do you think she could have given anyway? Even if she had mouthed the word "yes", SHE WAS UNDER DURESS! Any slave is in a permanent state of duress.
There can be no meaningful consent in such a circumstance and I find it disgusting that you could suggest so.
As I said before. There is a difference between what the Bible teaches and what the Bible records as having happened.
So you agree with me that the story sets a poor moral precedent? Why did you bring it up then?
You have no example of a teaching commanding the forcing of a woman to have sexual intercourse. Produce one if you know of one. And I expect it to be a divine command and I expect it to be unambigous.
DA has already quoted it to you, but here it is again;
quote:
Deut.22:28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
22:29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
What do you think is going to happen to the poor rape victim once she is married off to her attacker?
Will you denounce this piece of excremental garbage as the filth it is? Or are you going to engage in more pathetic equivocation and excuse making for fear that any criticism be levelled at your precious Bible?
Even if it was a forceful rape, you could only say this was a sin commited by Abraham.
As opposed to a non-forceful rape?! What are you talking about? That sentence is disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourself jaywill. All rape involves force and fucking a slave can only ever count as rape. You need to stop being glib about this subject.
Yes it is a sin committed by Abraham. So why bring it up? You first asked me about Gen 16. When I say that I find it abhorrent you seem upset.
So why did you bring it up?
If you are expecting that the Bible should not have recorded any bad sexual behavior, this might be an indication of your own naivete.
Ridiculous. I expect no such thing. what I expect (and here, it seems, I am being naive) is for Christians to honestly acknowledge that such incidents represent a terrible moral precedent. I expect Christians to acknowledge that rules endorsing slavery or requiring rape victims to marry their tormentors are sick and wrong. I expect this because Christians invariably claim to have morals.
Instead I have seen, here in this thread, not only a marked reluctance to admit that these stories and laws are repugnant, but much enthusiasm for actually defending the indefensible. I am shocked and appalled that anyone who claims to be moral, however imperfectly, can behave this way.
Since I have never and still have no intention of justifying Abraham's act, I have no need to comment.
Comment on this; why bring it up if you thought it immoral?
If you are expecting that the Bible should be free from recording any immorality, I don't know what kind of book you think it is.
A book leading us to live the highest standard of morality and be free from sin, might be expected to expose those sins, Don't you think?
Does the text explicitly describe Abraham and Sarah's actions as wrong? No. There is nothing to stop it from doing so. It does not call them wrong because when it was written, it was not considered immoral to rape ones slaves. Now it is. Simple.
you are the one who has misapprehended what the Bible really is. you appear to be labouring under the delusion that it is a factual historical account. This reading, apart from being obviously wrong, is doing a great disservice to an important work of literature. It's a pity that you have no desire to approach the text on its own terms.
I wonder what it is that you are looking for when you read your Bible? Are you hunting for scandels.
You might find your appetite better served with the National Enquiry if you just want scandelous stories to read.
You are taking the piss. YOU asked me what I thought of Gen 16 and Philemon. I told you. You didn't like my answers. Now you are accusing me of some form of quote mining.
If you don't want me to call your Bible stories repugnant, why do you bring up repugnant stories?
If you are going to sulk when I answer your questions, why ask me?
The idea is not that Abraham, Moses, David, etc were that good in themeselves. It was what God's salvation was able to do with typical sinners, that is the point.
That you are content for genocidal monsters and rapists being held up as role models is simply awful. You are also viewing the OT through your Jesus-tinted sunglasses again. The stories of Moses and Abraham are not about NT style redemption, that is a Christian invention and it is wholly bogus.
I think your what you seem eager to derive from the Bible tells us more about you actually.
You are the one who chose to hold up a story of slavery and rape with the words;
jaywill writes:
Did you notice how God made provision for her? Was that horrendous?
You are the one defending the story. I am simply calling a spade a spade. Don't blame me if the best examples of good treatment of slaves within the Bible are still disgraceful. They're your examples.
The assumption here is that it has to be one or the other.
But we believers in the Word of God see a cooperation of man and God.
Yes, I know all that. I never suggested any such assumption. I said;
Granny writes:
I thought that the Bible was the divinely inspired word of God?
I did not suggest that it floated down on wings. you are attempting to put words in my mouth.
If the scripture was written in co-operation with God, one has to wonder why he didn't take a little more editorial control when his human co-writers decided to lay down evil rules such as Deut.22:28-29.
I would ask you that if God were to become a human being, then which human being in human history do you think He would most likely have acted like?
Judging from the Bible? I dunno. Pol Pot?
At any rate if your morality surpasses that of Jesus, I wonder why you impact on human history seems so woefully short of His.
Do you measure morality by worldwide impact? Of course not, don't be absurd. And I never claimed to be more moral than Jesus, so I have n idea what you are waffling about.
The Bible itself was used to put that kind of sensativity into people's consciences.
That people use the Bible as a source of moral lessons does not prove that it is the source of morality.
Actually, from Genesis chapter one that Man was made in the image of God and according to His likeness, is a condemnaton on racism and dehumanizing racist slavery.
It is certainly antithetical to slavery. As I have said about a dozen times now, I do not dispute that the Bible contains good bits. It is simply one of many contradictions. What it clearly does not constitute is an explicit condemnation of slavery. No such explicit condemnation exists in the Bible.
So to a great degree you would have to acknowledge Christian theology as a tool to discourage racist slavery throughout the Western world.
Yes of course. That is so obvious as to be hardly worth mentioning. As is the corollary; it was used to promote slavery as well. Which rather proves my point that morality is not Bible-based. What's more, you have no idea which interpretation is correct. You do not know the mind of God. You are not the author of Genesis. For all you know, God might be super keen on slavery, whereas all that love your neighbour stuff is a human invention.
I think we are both agreed on which interpretation we would prefer, but that does not make it correct.
And I would resist as bias any attempt to portray slavery as the Bible's pet idea.
As I have already explained, that is not what I am doing. I am talking about slavery because it is contrary to Bertot's claim about absolute morality and your claim of Biblical divinity (so long as God is considered benevolent. An evil God could endorse slavery).
Had God condoned it to the degree that you wish to portray than He surely could have permitted it to continue to this day and even strenghtened it.
IT DOES CONTINUE TO THIS FUCKING DAY JAYWILL. Or did you imagine that the photographs DA provided were taken in the Nineteenth century?
Of course the corollary holds once again; if God disapproves of slavery as much as you seem to think, why has he not stopped it? The normal answer would be based on free will and such, but your comment above discounts that.
As it stands, it appears that the Divine Hand was not on the side of those who wished to continue it.
Do you live in an alternate reality where slavery no longer exists or something? Take a look at this jaywill;
quote:
Slavery is officially banned internationally by all countries, yet despite this there are more slaves , in the world today than ever before. In the four hundred years of the legal slave trade around 13 million people were shipped from Africa. Today there are an estimated 27 million slaves - people paid no money, locked away and controlled by violence.
Source
Hooray! Nice one Divine Hand! Good job!
You need to think and do some research before making claims.
All that I wrote about abiding in Christ and having Christ abide in us, seems to have gone right over your head. You mentioned not a word about it.
That is because I do not consider it relevant or interesting. I am not interested in your imaginary friend fantasies. This is also a bit rich when you write such verbose posts and pack them with irrelevant material whilst simultaneously ignoring much of what I say.
You will find no quotation of me refering to the absulute moral system.
Fair do's, you did not. I mention this because my main motivation in joining this thread was to counter Bertot's specious argument about absolute morals. Your first reply to me was to a message to Bertot where I was opposing this argument. If it is not an opinion you share, then I am glad that we are in agreement about something.
You kind of dense.
Yeah, if you're going to call someone stupid, it's always best to do it with a grammatically incorrect sentence. It's "You are kind of dense. If you're going to insult me, at least get it right jaywill.
Face facts; the god in your little story book makes genocidal murderers and rapists into heroes and role models. If that is divinity, it is the divinity of a god of evil and you are welcome to it.
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 355 by jaywill, posted 12-14-2008 5:05 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 365 by jaywill, posted 12-15-2008 11:43 PM Granny Magda has replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 368 of 406 (491438)
12-16-2008 2:35 AM
Reply to: Message 365 by jaywill
12-15-2008 11:43 PM


Re: If God Were Human Would He Want a God Like Him?
Are you going to bother to respond to Message 352 jaywill? I would particularly like an answer to one question that you have twice ignored; If you were a slave whose master had beaten him with a rod, would you, as you lay dying think it fair treatment? Would you take comfort in knowing that that Exodus mandated that your tormentor go unpunished?
I will get onto your miserable woman-hating apologetic for rape, kidnapping, war crimes and slavery when I have time, which for today, I do not.
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by jaywill, posted 12-15-2008 11:43 PM jaywill has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024