Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8951 total)
27 online now:
Heathen, Tangle, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (3 members, 24 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,944 Year: 21,980/19,786 Month: 543/1,834 Week: 43/500 Day: 1/42 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Anything Divine in the Bible?
jaywill
Member (Idle past 279 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 346 of 406 (491290)
12-13-2008 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 345 by Granny Magda
12-13-2008 12:53 PM


Re: If God Were Human Would He Want a God Like Him?

Strangely, I don't think too highly of keeping women as sex slaves.

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.

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.

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.

1.) I don't think of this as the typical sex slave.

2.) It was the wife's idea which I don't think is typical of a situation of men owning sex slaves.

3.) You can't blame it on God.

Having said that, I still am not suggesting it was a good situation.

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.

My time is a bit limited right now. I'll get back latter and examine your other comments.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by Granny Magda, posted 12-13-2008 12:53 PM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 348 by DrJones*, posted 12-13-2008 6:45 PM jaywill has not yet responded
 Message 349 by Granny Magda, posted 12-13-2008 10:12 PM jaywill has responded

jaywill
Member (Idle past 279 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 347 of 406 (491297)
12-13-2008 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 345 by Granny Magda
12-13-2008 12:53 PM


Re: If God Were Human Would He Want a God Like Him?
Nor does Paul's grovelling before the slave owner in Philemon impress me.

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.


At no point in the story does Paul condemn slavery. This would seem like an ideal take the opportunity to just that, but no...

I did not set out to prove that Paul condemned slavery. But he certainly nullified it's negative effects.

The dehumanizing of kind of slavery practiced was nullified where the letter of Philemon was taken seriously by Christian slave owners. In fact both in England and the US some slave owners gave it up when their consciences got the best of them. Preaching on Philemon probably played a part in that.

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.


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?

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 ?

The Scripture is economical. And a portion is reserved to indecate how God blessed Hagar, kept her child alive, and even caused her descendents to become 12 princes. This weakens your drive to paint God as the Ultimate Simon Legree.


I'm sure that it is very comforting to think that, but you actually have no idea how they would have managed without religion.

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.


Not all slaves in America were Christian. I'm sure that plenty survived who were not.

I didn't say they were. Of course the prayers of loved ones, such as bereaved mothers, fathers, and siblings are often effective in the blessing of non-believing family members.

It is not necessary that every slave upheld by God directly or inderectly was a Christian.


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.

God allowed multiple wives for a season among the kings of Israel. That He it was His permissive will doesn't mean it was his perfect will.

The nation of Israel wrestled with God wanting to be like the other nations around them. It is clear that though God permitted this and still guided them, He was not always happy with it.

The matter of slavery is not as simple as you would like to make it.

Even in ancient Rome I studied this matter. Slaves in the country had brutal treatment. But slaves in the city could even seek legal recourse against a master. So I would be careful about painting too broad of a stroke on the institution of slavery.

The website I linked to went into a more scholarly review of the nuances of ANE slavery.

Many people who think about slavery in the Bible think of the Exodus when God led the Hebrews out of it. It is interesting that God reminds the Hebrews in their treatment of foreigners to have empathy for them. They are to recall what it was like to be in bondage in Egypt.


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.

I would think that God can be the sustainer and supporter in all kinds of situations. I would not look for difficult situations to be in. But I would expect that God is able to sustain me in difficult trials.

When I was a younger Christian and read the Psalms, I noticed how so many Psalms had to do with people in trouble.

I do not look for terrible situations to be in. But I look to God that IF I have to go through them, He is big enough to support me. This is really a major theme in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Me:
The center of the Bible is that this man Jesus Christ is the only Person 100% pleasing to God.

You:
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?

The OT has everything to do with Christ. But I think one has to have revelation from God to see it.

Of course many prophecies have Christ as their meaning. It is harder for me to imagine that Isaiah 9:6 for example has nothing to do with the Son of God incarnated.

Aside from this we take the New Testament as the oracles of God. We do not regard it as a faulty error prone commentary on the Hebrew Bible. So if the New Testament says that Christ is spoken of in the Old Testament, we take that as authoritative. That's the end of the matter.

Jesus in His resurrection opened the minds of the disciples to see that the Old Testament was talking a lot about Himself/ After His resurrection He said this:

O foolish and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!

Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and enter into His glory?

And beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, He explained to them clearly in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself. (Luke 24:25-27)

"And He said to them, These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all the things written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and Psalms concerning Me must be fulfilled.

Then He opened their mind to understand the Scriptures;

And Jesus said to them, Thus it is WRITTEN, that the Christ would suffer and rise up from the dead on the third day, And that repentance for firgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

You are witnesses of these things." (Luke 24:44-48)

So to Jesus the Old Testament included writings about Him. We need our minds opened to see these things.

Practically, I think this means reading and praying to the Lord Jesus over what we read, seeking spiritual enlightenment.

Prayerful reading of some good Christian commentaries is also helpful.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by Granny Magda, posted 12-13-2008 12:53 PM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 352 by Granny Magda, posted 12-13-2008 11:22 PM jaywill has responded

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2021
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 348 of 406 (491301)
12-13-2008 6:45 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?
It seems that Abraham had never had any sexual relations with her until it was suggested by Sarah his wife.

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.


So if a slave owner fucks his slave with his wife's consent it isn't rape?


soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by jaywill, posted 12-13-2008 4:41 PM jaywill has not yet responded

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2381
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


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 responded

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

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1439 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 350 of 406 (491305)
12-13-2008 10:47 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.

Why is the American southern slave system so evil and the Hebrew slave system not? Talk about relative moralism! I am not the one trying to rationalize an evil system of slavery, even if it is in the Bible and condoned by your god.

Slavery in any form is evil and wrong which is why the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights ratified in 1948 by 48 countries declared this among many of the declared rights for ALL human beings:

Article 4 writes:

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

You give the impression that you are against them but you find them handy if it helps put the New Testament in a pro slavery negative light.

It seems from I Corinthians 7:21 that Paul may have had somewhat an anti-slavery stance (and I respect him for that as I indicated previously in my last post he is the only one to tell masters to be lenient to their slaves) though he does not come right out and condemn it, instead he tells slaves to obey their masters even ones that are cruel to them.

This Paul taught not simply doctrinally. It was his personal experience. He was a dispised Jew under the Roman imperialism. He was a persecuted Christian under the floggin whips of his own countrymen. He was a prisoner in chains in a Roman jail.

Who is disuputing this? What does this have to do with the practice of slavery?

You are twisting the passages to make Paul appear to be condoning slavery. You're no better than the racist slave masters who did the same things.

Here is the definition of condone: "to regard or treat (something bad or blameworthy [i.e. slavery]) as acceptable, forgivable, or harmless".

Did Paul or anyone else in their writings condemn the practice of slavery. If so show me where in the Bible, specific scriptures.
If not and they do not condemn the practice of slavery then they are condoning it. Out the 774,746 words in the Bible, not 1 comes right out and condemns the practice of slavery.

You are a warped individual to equate me to racist slave masters. I am speaking out against slavery against any group of people no matter what period of history it occurs in. How am I related to slave masters. You nut job I am speaking out against it, not for it.

Nice try Advocate of the Devil. But you see my ancestors were slaves in America. And we know that abolition and indeed the whole Civil Rights movement drew strength from the Bible's utterances.

And? There were atheist abolitionists in France that ended the practice of slavery over 70 years before the United States. And many of the abolitionists in the United States were also atheists, agnostics or deists (not just Bible quoting fundamentalists) i.e. Ralph Waldo Emerson, William Lloyd Garrison, Robert Ingersoll and others.

It wasn't Biblical Christianity that ended slavery, it was the institution of individual human rights. Please show me where these human rights are spelled out in the Bible. And please don't quote to me the golden rule, because the golden rule as well as the silver and bronze ones are found in other religions long before Jesus' Sermon on the Mount.

His was the God of people who may be found in all kinds of situations. That is a large God. That is not a petty God. That is an all-inclusive God who can supply people in prisons, in slavery, and in other difficult circumstances within which they discover that Jesus can be contacted for salvation.

Your god at any time in the Bible could have commanded: Thou shalt not make men subject as slaves underneath you (or something of that sort). He never did. Never. If he made the 10 commandements plus 700+ other commandments than why not have 1 that condemned slavery. This would have prevented over 3000+ years of brutal conditions of human slavery?

The morality in the Bible is more relative and subjective than that which that which is imposed by the vast majority of humanity in todays modern society.


For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by jaywill, posted 12-13-2008 12:36 PM jaywill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 362 by jaywill, posted 12-15-2008 9:18 PM DevilsAdvocate has responded

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1439 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 351 of 406 (491306)
12-13-2008 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 344 by jaywill
12-13-2008 12:48 PM


Re: If God Were Human Would He Want a God Like Him?
And you. What are you going to do. Look at your children. When it comes to the Bible you want to take them first to the book of Joshua and make sure they get a good healthy dispising attitude about God. Then when they come to the other 65 books of the Bible they'll have a good skeptical filter.

Actually my wife is a Christian and my daughter goes to Church with her (I also go to church with them as a dutiful father should, but do not fully participate in everything they do). I do not tell my daughter anything about my doubts since she is only 4. When she is of age and asks me what I think of religion I will tell her. It is her choice to choose what she wants to believe. Skeptism about all beliefs is a great filter to have. I rather her be skeptical and a critical thinker than to have her thinking done by someone else.

Maybe you'll teach them that all they have to know about Jesus is found in the account of the conquest of Canaan.

No I will not teach her anything about Jesus. Hopefully she learns to study things on her own and discover what she feels is true or not.

Are you going to teach your kids to hate Jesus?

Who said I hate Jesus? I think Jesus had a lot of good things to say. I just don't think he was divine (if he existed at all).

You going to start them on Leviticus?

If I am going to start her on anything when she learns how to read, it would be history from every perspective from Livy to Edward Gibbon and everything inbetween (including the Bible).

You're the Sicko dad.

LOL. I will wait until my daughter turns 17 and tells me that. :P


For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 344 by jaywill, posted 12-13-2008 12:48 PM jaywill has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 358 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-15-2008 10:05 AM DevilsAdvocate has responded

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2381
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


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 responded

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

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2381
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


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 yet responded

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

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1439 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 354 of 406 (491318)
12-14-2008 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 353 by Granny Magda
12-13-2008 11:54 PM


Re: Abolitionists Use of the Bible
Thanks for the defense GM.


For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 353 by Granny Magda, posted 12-13-2008 11:54 PM Granny Magda has not yet responded

jaywill
Member (Idle past 279 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 355 of 406 (491354)
12-14-2008 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 349 by Granny Magda
12-13-2008 10:12 PM


Re: If God Were Human Would He Want a God Like Him?
Oh well, that makes it OK then.

You can jump to the opposite extreme if you like. But you should have noticed that I followed that sentence with one which said I did not think it was an ideal situation.


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.

I don't blame her either.

My guess is that from the day Ishmael was born Hagar firmly planted in her son's mind that he was the son of a prophet.

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.

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.


That Sarah is accessory to the crime makes it worse, not better.

Do they tell this one in Sunday School? Probably not eh?

Usually, the lesson I would emphasize to young people conserning the the Isaac / Ishmael matter is how man messes things up when unbelief comes in. You see it was Abraham's and Sarah's doubts about God's promise which tempted them to "help" God.

I am not interested in teaching anything scandelous from Genesis simply for scandel's sake.


me:

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.

granny:
Not relevant. White slave owning couples who could not produce children did not want black babies.

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.

And again, it was not a good situation for Hagar, in case you think I am trying to portay it as so.


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.

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.

There are other accounts in the Bible where those matters are detailed. In this particular instance, we are not given that much information.


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.

As I said before. There is a difference between what the Bible teaches and what the Bible records as having happened.

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.

What the Scriptures records as having happened is not the Scripure teaching what necessarily OUGHT to have happened.


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.

Even if it was a forceful rape, you could only say this was a sin commited by Abraham.

What else is new? The patriarchs were human and some of them blew it. David stole a man's wife and conspired to have him murdered.

If you are expecting that the Bible should not have recorded any bad sexual behavior, this might be an indication of your own naivete.


Atypical I agree. That does nothing to justify it.

Since I have never and still have no intention of justifying Abraham's act, I have no need to comment.


In a modern setting, this sorry tale is clearly full of immorality,

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?

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.


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...

That is a hugely incorrect assumption. Yes Abraham was the father of nations. But Abraham is also a recipient of God's act of Justification from sin and redemption. Apart from these no one can be used by God.

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.

Their failures are quite well outlined in the Bible. This is another reason why I regard the book as divinely inspired rather than simple Jewish national propoganda.

The inclusion of potentially embarressing information about the national heros like Abraham, Jacob, David, and Moses suggests candor. I consider the failures recorded about the patriarchs when they well could have been concealed, as further evidence of God trying to communicate with us.

me:

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.

No. I think that this is not a reflection on the inspiration of the Bible.

"As face answers to face in water so the mind of a man reflects the man."

I think your what you seem eager to derive from the Bible tells us more about you actually.


Of course if the Bible is the work of men, then God is off the hook.

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. Just as Jesus was God and man blended and united, we see the production of the Bible as a coordinated work between God and humanity.

Yes, Peter has his flavor, John has his style, Luke has his tendencies, etc. etc. still there is the work of the Holy Spirit moving through the various liturary forms and styles of mortals.

We see a coordination and cooperation of the divine with the human to produce such a wonderful book as the Bible.

Your assumption that either came floating down from the sky with wings or was written by mortal and fallible men is false. God moved through imperfect human beings to produce such a revelation.


Neatly, that also explains the disconnect between Biblical morals and out own;

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?

My vote is for Jesus of Nazareth. I think that Jesus Christ is in a class all His own. The second most likely person to have been God become a man, is not even close. And there have been some other good people.

At any rate if your morality surpasses that of Jesus, I wonder why you impact on human history seems so woefully short of His.


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).

The Bible itself was used to put that kind of sensativity into people's consciences.

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.

This is why the American slaver had to utilize a belief that blacks were less than human, which was of course unbiblical. They said that blacks did not have souls which was of course not biblical because all men had souls.

So to a great degree you would have to acknowledge Christian theology as a tool to discourage racist slavery throughout the Western world.

I like to have the historical objectivity to see both how the Bible was used by both sides. And I would resist as bias any attempt to portray slavery as the Bible's pet idea.


There is however a contradiction in saying that the Bible account is inspired by an omnibenevolent deity when it condones slavery.

There were many poor white young men maimed and killed on the battlefields of the Civil War who would tell you that they found out that the Deity apparently did not condone slavery. They found out the hard way.

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.

As it stands, it appears that the Divine Hand was not on the side of those who wished to continue it.


There is a contradiction in claiming that you derive your morals from the Bible when your morality differs from its dubious morality.

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.

I think that you do not talk about it because it is alien from your experience. Well for many of us on this side of the New Testament it is the path to the highest level of morality on the earth.

That is to realize that we all have sinned, slave and slave owner alike, we all are in need of the redemptive death of Christ to forgive us. We all are slaves of the sinful nature, Even the ones of us who think being able to point out the wrongs of others, somehow, makes us better than they, when it doesn't.

Our part is to believe into Christ and live in union with Him. You don't talk about this at all. Maybe you have no experience and have no idea what I am talking about.

But this is the focus of the New Testament - receiving the Person of Christ as the indwelling Lord and Savior. Living in union with Him leads to the highest standard of morality a man can attain.


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.

Perhaps you are refering to someone else. You will find no quotation of me refering to the absulute moral system. I may have refered to the Law of Moses. But we are not commanded to live by the law of Moses. That law was chiefly given to expose man's inability to live up to the standard of God.

Today, our call is the new covenant. That is to enter into a living Lord and Savior who becomes our righteousness. We abide in Him and He abides in us.

The high standard of the law was meant to expose our sinful natures. I is a silly misunderstanding of you or anyone else to thing that today God's plan is that we go out and grit our teeth to live the Livitical laws and ordinances.

You will probably say nothing about living in Christ and Christ living in us.


Just for the record, I am not interested in blaming anything on God. I don't hold grudges against fictional characters.

Good for you Granny! You tell em!


And yet he still chooses Abe as his patriarch. He's clearly not that bothered.

You kind of dense. Abraham needed salvation just like the rest of us. There is only one man on this earth that was totally righteous and pleasing to the Father. That was the Son Jesus Christ.

All the rest of us, including Abraham, are in need of salvation.

Your kind of ignorance reminds me of the Moslem who cannot believe that any prophet of God could possibly sin. They also vigorously object to the idea of a prophet or patriarch being less than an angelic being.

No, Granny, the Bible is about people like you and I. That is people who have faith and are recipients of Redemption, Justification, Reconciliation, Regeneration, Sanctification, Transformation, Resurrection, Glorification, and full Salvation from the grace of God.

The partiarchs were also sinners who needed to be saved by Grace.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 349 by Granny Magda, posted 12-13-2008 10:12 PM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 356 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-14-2008 8:16 PM jaywill has not yet responded
 Message 357 by Granny Magda, posted 12-14-2008 10:53 PM jaywill has responded

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1439 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 356 of 406 (491358)
12-14-2008 8:16 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?
As I said before. There is a difference between what the Bible teaches and what the Bible records as having happened.

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.

What the Scriptures records as having happened is not the Scripure teaching what necessarily OUGHT to have happened.

Here are several commandments by your god:

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 writes:

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

What kind of lunatic would make their daughter marry her rapist for money!

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.

You were saying? This is a commandment from your god. Evidently it is ok to sell your daughter as a sex slave!

Numbers 31:7-18 writes:

Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.

Why do the young women have to be virgins do you think?
And why are they the only ones to be saved? Obviously it is to rape and have sex with.

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.

WHERE? Where does the Bible condemn slavery and racism? WHERE?

This is why the American slaver had to utilize a belief that blacks were less than human, which was of course unbiblical.

They said that blacks did not have souls which was of course not biblical because all men had souls.

So to a great degree you would have to acknowledge Christian theology as a tool to discourage racist slavery throughout the Western world.

No, under Christian rule for over 1800 years slavery in different forms was rampant whether by the Spanish Conquistadors enslaving American Natives to the African slave trade under the rule of Christian nations such as Great Britain and the United States.

I like to have the historical objectivity to see both how the Bible was used by both sides. And I would resist as bias any attempt to portray slavery as the Bible's pet idea.

You are right. Slavery was not invented by the authors of the Bible, however neither did they condemn it and in fact due to their condoning it, slavery was perpetuaded for centuries after.

Your kind of ignorance reminds me of the Moslem who cannot believe that any prophet of God could possibly sin. They also vigorously object to the idea of a prophet or patriarch being less than an angelic being.

This rings true for your justification for all kinds of attrocities in the Bible condoned or commanded by your god.

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.


For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 355 by jaywill, posted 12-14-2008 5:05 PM jaywill has not yet responded

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2381
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


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 responded

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

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 358 of 406 (491385)
12-15-2008 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 351 by DevilsAdvocate
12-13-2008 11:03 PM


Re: If God Were Human Would He Want a God Like Him?
D A writes:
When she is of age and asks me what I think of religion I will tell her. It is her choice to choose what she wants to believe. Skeptism about all beliefs is a great filter to have. I rather her be skeptical and a critical thinker than to have her thinking done by someone else.

Will you also tell her your position on abortion and killing and eating of other species?. Or will you gloss over this and pretend the glaring contradiction does not exist. Will you tell her that you have no way to justify any of your actions, no way to describe them as moral or immoral? When you are telling her your opinion on the Bible, will you tell her that you dont really have a platform and that is just your opinion verses someone elses. I wish I could be a fly on the wall for that father daughter, discussion. But if I were a fly on the wall, you would probably smash it or spray it in the face with insecticide, correct?

When she asks you why abortion is ok and why its a crime to break or eat an eagles egg, will yu tell her how immoral or subjective human behavior is, or will you gloss over it as you have in this discussion?

When she asks you the question of why it is ok for humans to treat animals in a way that humans do not treat eachother, what will be your response, more relative nonsense. When you are explaining the Bible to her and your positions on it, will you explain why it is evil for humans to treat eachother poorly and that your reasons are simply that you are human and it appears to be evil based on your intelligence and emotions but disregardt the same behavior any where else? Will you explain to her that because you are more intelligent than other species, your actions are justified, for reasons of survival or simple causation?

When she asks you why you have to go away to another country will you tell her that there were some fellas that were drafted (slavery} against thier will, forced to fight and die against thier will, or go to prison, then proceed to explain this as an indentured servitude, verses simply forced servitude or slavery, or will you gloss over this while you are explaing your contempt for the scriptrues.

When she says, wait a minute daddy, your against the Bible because it condones slavery, but your in an organization (the military) that also condones slavery, when they feel it is necessary, what will be your response.

Or will you be man enough to say to her sweetie, I suppose I have no way to justify my contempt for the God of the Bible or my actions.

But then I could go on and on and on about your morality, correct?

I rather her be skeptical and a critical thinker than to have her thinking done by someone else.

What you mean here is simply more relative nonsense against more subjectivism.

D Bertot

Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 351 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-13-2008 11:03 PM DevilsAdvocate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 359 by Huntard, posted 12-15-2008 10:44 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded
 Message 360 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-15-2008 12:07 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Huntard
Member (Idle past 633 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 359 of 406 (491387)
12-15-2008 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 358 by Dawn Bertot
12-15-2008 10:05 AM


Re: If God Were Human Would He Want a God Like Him?
Bertot, I realize your questions were adressed to DA, I'd still like to give you my input.

I will say in advance I have no children, but this is what I would do if I did have them and they were of the right age and/or experience to understand the concepts.

Bertot writes:

Will you also tell her your position on abortion and killing and eating of other species?.


I'm not sure how these two are related, but if my children would ask me for them, sure, I would give them my oppinions on the matter.

Or will you gloss over this and pretend the glaring contradiction does not exist.

What glaring contradiction?

Will you tell her that you have no way to justify any of your actions, no way to describe them as moral or immoral?

But I DO have ways to do this, they're called my standards. I do not expect my children (if I ever have them) to share the same standards as me though.

When you are telling her your opinion on the Bible, will you tell her that you dont really have a platform and that is just your opinion verses someone elses.

Of course, and I will leth them decide which one they like better.

I wish I could be a fly on the wall for that father daughter, discussion.

Why? I don't see how this discussion would be very exciting, nor interesting to hear, to an outsider.

But if I were a fly on the wall, you would probably smash it or spray it in the face with insecticide, correct?

Not necesarily, unless it "bugged" me. (yes, intended)

When she asks you why abortion is ok and why its a crime to break or eat an eagles egg, will yu tell her how immoral or subjective human behavior is, or will you gloss over it as you have in this discussion?

Once again, I fail to see how these two things are related. Which is what I'd tell them. As for why some think an eagle's eggs should not be taken for food, is because we have many alternatives to it from non threatened species. And why some people think abortion is ok is because they think people should have a choice wheter or not to have a baby, given certain circumstances.

When she asks you the question of why it is ok for humans to treat animals in a way that humans do not treat eachother, what will be your response

That animals aren't humans.

more relative nonsense.

Perhaps. I don;t see what the problem is though.

When you are explaining the Bible to her and your positions on it, will you explain why it is evil for humans to treat eachother poorly and that your reasons are simply that you are human and it appears to be evil based on your intelligence and emotions but disregardt the same behavior any where else?

I'm sure what you're trying to say here. I will explain why I think it is bad for other people to treat people poorly. Whether my children agree or not is when I can see how I raised them.

Will you explain to her that because you are more intelligent than other species, your actions are justified, for reasons of survival or simple causation?

Basically, yes.

I'll leave the military questions out, since I've never been in the military.

Or will you be man enough to say to her sweetie, I suppose I have no way to justify my contempt for the God of the Bible or my actions.

Sure I do. They're called my standards.

But then I could go on and on and on about your morality, correct?

I'm sure you could.


I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 358 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-15-2008 10:05 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1439 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 360 of 406 (491391)
12-15-2008 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 358 by Dawn Bertot
12-15-2008 10:05 AM


Re: If God Were Human Would He Want a God Like Him?
Bertot writes:

Myself writes:

When she is of age and asks me what I think of religion I will tell her. It is her choice to choose what she wants to believe. Skeptism about all beliefs is a great filter to have. I rather her be skeptical and a critical thinker than to have her thinking done by someone else.

Will you also tell her your position on abortion and killing and eating of other species?

Thanks for pigeon holing me and skewing this way off topic Bertot the Great.

Actually I am pro-life though I do support adequate medical care for women who have to have abortions for criminal or emergency reasons i.e. life of mother at risk, rape, incest, etc. I don't think abortion should be used as a means for birth control.

As far as killing and eating other species. Our human bodies have evolved for us to be omnivores (eat plant and animal matter), thus I don't think it to be immoral to eat meat. I do disagree with some of the deplorable commercial ways that we do this in which we probably cause these animals more pain than probably needed. However I don't think it is morally wrong to eat other animals. Are animals morally wrong for eating other animals?

I will leave it up to her whether she wants to eat meat, be a vedgetarian or vegan. To me it makes no difference. Her choice will not affect our relationship in any degree.

Or will you gloss over this and pretend the glaring contradiction does not exist.

What contradictions?

Will you tell her that you have no way to justify any of your actions, no way to describe them as moral or immoral?

Who said I would do this? I just disagree where this morality is coming from. I say us humans create and have created our own moral systems just like we have created our own judicial systems based on these moral codes of ethics.

When you are telling her your opinion on the Bible, will you tell her that you dont really have a platform and that is just your opinion verses someone elses.

Who say's I don't have a platform? My platform is I think the Bible is man made not created by some pretend supreme being in the sky.

I wish I could be a fly on the wall for that father daughter, discussion. But if I were a fly on the wall, you would probably smash it or spray it in the face with insecticide, correct?

Yep if it was annoying me! LOL, you are a hoot Bertot!

When she asks you why abortion is ok and why its a crime to break or eat an eagles egg, will yu tell her how immoral or subjective human behavior is, or will you gloss over it as you have in this discussion?

I don't eat eagles eggs. Do they taste good? I am thinking it is illegal since many eagles are endangered species though.

You do realize that most of the chicken eggs we eat are unfertilized eggs (no baby chicks) right? Even if you get fertilized eggs from a farm refigeration stops embryo development. Is their something supposed to be immoral about eating eggs? You know what the chickens normally do with eggs that never get fertilized? They eat them!

When she asks you the question of why it is ok for humans to treat animals in a way that humans do not treat eachother, what will be your response, more relative nonsense.

Actually I am saddened on how many animals are inhumanely treated. How would you respond?

When you are explaining the Bible to her and your positions on it, will you explain why it is evil for humans to treat eachother poorly and that your reasons are simply that you are human and it appears to be evil based on your intelligence and emotions but disregardt the same behavior any where else?

Actually I have already told her it was bad (4 year olds don't understand the word evil) for other human beings to treat each other poorly. However, my example speaks louder than words. She really picks up on how I actually treat other people. This is why I try to take her with me when I do things like serve soup at a homeless shelter, give her old toys and clothes to children in need, sponsor a starving child, etc.

Will you explain to her that because you are more intelligent than other species, your actions are justified, for reasons of survival or simple causation?

In one degree or another yes. This is not something you teach your kid in one sitting. I am still learning even at the ripe old age of 35.

When she asks you why you have to go away to another country will you tell her that there were some fellas that were drafted (slavery} against thier will, forced to fight and die against thier will, or go to prison, then proceed to explain this as an indentured servitude, verses simply forced servitude or slavery, or will you gloss over this while you are explaing your contempt for the scriptrues.

Here is what I will and have taught her. I was never drafted. I volunteered to fight for my country because I believe in its ideals of freedom for all human beings. From human experience, I don't necessarily believe that trying to fight evil acts by peaceful means always works (though sometimes it does i.e. Ghandi's liberation of India). However sometimes it takes a moral backbone to stand up and protect those who can't protect themselves. That is why I fight for my country.

BTW I do not have contempt for the Bible. It is just a book. I have contempt for people like you who twist it any way you wish to protect your own idealized view of the world and want to push it off on everyone else. If she asks when she is older (I will only explain if she asks me), I will tell her that I treat the Bible as any other historical-fiction book.

When she says, wait a minute daddy, your against the Bible because it condones slavery, but your in an organization (the military) that also condones slavery, when they feel it is necessary, what will be your response.

Bertot, you have basically INSULTED the entire United States military institution by saying that it condones slavery as the draft. You have personally insulted millions of soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who were drafted and served in WWI, WWII, the Korean, and the Vietnam Wars.

I have NEVER, EVER heard anyone seriously (jokingly maybe) equate the military as slavery except by those who have never served and persistently scorn or deride it. I now seriously doubt you were in the military if you think that the military was nothing more than slavery.

Or will you be man enough to say to her sweetie, I suppose I have no way to justify my contempt for the God of the Bible or my actions.

Bertot, your religiousity is showing through. And you wonder why people are not attracted to your faith. Your self-righteous, bigoted, holier-than-thou attitude does nothing to back up your unsubstantiated fairy-tale beliefs.

What you mean here is simply more relative nonsense against more subjectivism.

Go have fun living your Christian pipe-dream.

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.


For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 358 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-15-2008 10:05 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 361 by bluescat48, posted 12-15-2008 8:00 PM DevilsAdvocate has not yet responded
 Message 367 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-16-2008 2:08 AM DevilsAdvocate has responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019