By what criteria do you decide that something is a timeless guide to morality, and by what criteria do you decide that something only reflects the morality of the day?


Then by what criteria do you decide that something can be a guide to our present day morality?


There is a difference between choosing to serve someone and being forced to serve someone. I might help my neighbor move his furniture out of my own goodwill. But I am choosing to do this. This is different from being his slave, where I am forced to do this.

Being humble before others does not mean allow yourself to be walked all over, which is what happens to slaves.


Judging by what is stated in the Bible about those times, then the times were barbaric:

People of Judah shout and God helps them kill 500,000 people (2 Chr 13:15)

God slaughters 70 men for looking into the ark (1 Sam 6:19)

God has the earth swallow people (Num 16:20)

God drowns almost everyone on earth (Gen 7:21)

God orders and joins in on the genocide of all of Caanan (book of Joshua)

God threatens people with having to eat their children's flesh (Lev 26:27)

Sons of Levi are blessed for randomly slaughtering cow worshippers (Exo 32:27)

God kills all the Egyptian babies for Pharoah's stubbornness (Exo 11:10)

God kills the meat eaters (Num 11)

God allows people to sacrifice their babies to him to teach them a lesson (Ezek 20:26)

God kills a man for not impregnating his sister-in-law (Gen 38:9-10)

God comes out of the sky to kill David's enemies (2 Sam 22)

God allows babies to be dashed and pregnant women to be ripped open (Hosea 13:16)

God threatens to have wild animals carry away the Israelite's children (Lev 26:22)

God tells people to kill their loved ones if they worship other gods (Deu 13)

Bible says beat your child with a rod (Prov 23:13)

Bible says beating and wounding people is good for them (Prov 20:30)

God promises to punish children for their parent's sin (Exo 20:5)

God terrifies and causes tumors (1 Sam 5)

Jesus doesn't allow a disciple to bury his dead father (Mat 8:21-22)

God rewards Jacob for deceiving his dying father (Gen 27)

Punishment of execution for working on the sabbath (Exo 31:15), cursing parents (Lev 20:9), enticing a friend or family member to worship other Gods (Det 13:6-10), being a witch, medium, or wizard (Ex 22:18, Lev 20:27), engaging in homosexual acts (Lev 20:13), and not being a virgin on one's wedding night (Det 22:20-21)

So these times were barbaric (as is a God who demands infinite punishment for finite sins). They were also primitive due to the lack of scientific knowledge that we have today (perfect example is the belief that the earth is flat or that epilepsy is caused by demons).



[This message has been edited by JamesKrieger (edited June 17, 2001).]

So you consider homosexuality wrong simply because "Leviticus says so." That is a completely irrational way to determine whether something is right or wrong. It is simple bibliolatry...appeal to what you consider to be an authority. The Bible says it's wrong, so it must be wrong. That is no different from the following situation. An 8 year old child of a racist family teases an African-American child at school. The child is taken to the principal and the principal asks him why he was teasing the child. The child says, "I'm better than him because I am white". The principal asks why. The child responds, "Because my daddy said so."

You stated in another post that you do not consider the Bible the inerrant Word of God. So why do you trust this passage in Leviticus? What makes other parts of the Bible errant but this part a sacred true command from God that you should follow?

You had also quoted Paul's condemnation of homosexuality. Paul also instructed women to not speak in Church and be submissive (1 Cor 14:34-35). So is it morally wrong for a woman to speak in Church?

Let's get right to the head honcho. As a Christian, you obviously believe Jesus was the Son of God, so you obviously must hold in high regard anything he supposedly said. "But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adultress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery." (Matt 5:32) So is divorce immoral? If a husband is physically abusing his wife, is it immoral for her to divorce him? If a husband and wife are having marital problems that they are unable to reconcile, is it immoral for them to divorce? According to Jesus, divorcing for any reason other than marital unfaithfulness is adultery and thus immoral. If people actually followed this guide to morality, then this would be a sure recipe for misery for some relationships. Sometimes marriages simply don't work out, and it has nothing to do with unfaithfulness. To not remarry after a divorce simply because Jesus said it was wrong is to deprive someone of their basic right to happiness. Jesus's statement also shows his chauvinism. If a man divorces his wife, it causes the wife to become an adultress, but says nothing about the man. However, it was the man who did the divorcing, not the woman in this situation. So why is the woman considered the adultress?

These passages show the problem when someone tries to appeal to some authority (be it a book, a god, a parent, or whatever else) as a guide to morality. Morality should be based on reason and not because somebody said so.

Why was there no contradiction here?

What is so sensible about this law? And how do you know that God wrote the moral laws but maybe not this one?


[This message has been edited by JamesKrieger (edited June 17, 2001).]

I separate the sin and the sinner. The sin of homosexuality is clearly wrong. I do not judge the person who does it. There is no contradiction.

It really is amazing that xians so casually dismiss the OT. Pick up a bible, find the beginning of the NT, hold the book open and compare the two testaments. I think you'll find the OT is three times the size of the NT, so in effect you are discarding three quarters of the bible.
This clearly proves that we atheists are winning the battle. Only another 25% to go, guys

Take care

Martin

This is arguably a question better suited for Moral Foundations... than Biblical Criticism..., but I'll ask it anyway: Why is homosexuality "clearly wrong"? Or, to put it another way, has it ever occurred to you to wonder why the God of the Bible classifies homosexuality as a sin? 'Cause it isn't at all obvious to me. Repeating my statement from above:

I think it debases the idea of divinity to imagine that God attaches any moral significance to superficialities like anatomy. Because, surely, the only necessary difference between straight sexual relations and gay sexual relations is in the details of the plumbing.

TERCEL -
“First a little thought exercise. What would have happened if Paul had written large complaints against slavery?
Would the Roman society have:
a) Not cared?
b) Told Paul he was doing a good job?
c) Got annoyed and removed Christianity from the face of the earth?
The Roman treatment of the slave rebellions merely demonstrates that danger Paul would have faced in writing against slavery.
To remove slavery from the Roman empire would have been nigh impossible, as the system was part of the very basis of society throughout the empire.
So instead of wasting dangerous words against the concept of slavery, Paul did the only logical thing possible: He told slaves to be obedient and love their masters and the masters to treat the slaves well. Is this ILLOGICAL or IMMORAL or unworthy of being in the Bible? Anyone who thinks so is living in a different universe to me. “
Ooohhhh ….. I can hardly control my laughter!!!! Wasn’t Paul doing GOD’S work? How could the infallible word of the Christ god be affected by Roman rule? Are you telling us that Paul did not come out against slavery although it’s obvious that the omnipotent, benevolent, loving god would be AGAINST IT– therefore altering the word of god because the Roman Empire was stronger then the Judeo-Christian god and would have snuffed out Christianity?? Deary – I am CERTAINLY glad I am not trapped in YOUR mental universe! But … THANK YOU so much for putting in your OWN words what atheists have said ALL along – that the bible was constructed by men – not god(s) for the purpose of men – flawed by the inherently IMPERFECT human nature of the writer, swayed by the political and social climates of the time and therefore bastardized by the human contingent, completely devoid of the TRUE WORD OF GOD! Now – isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black?


Brighid

These arguments are absolutely ludicrous. Many concepts of Paul's theology put him at odds with Roman society such as the rejection of animal sacrifice. The Romans were calling Christians atheists (a big no no!) for goodness sakes! The Romans were already calling them anti-social, so did Tercel really think that argument would fly in here?

And Tercel argument about Paul wouldn't be so off the wall were we dealing with just an ordinary text here. But we're not. Tercel thinks it is inspired by the Holy Spirit--who can see the future and see that slavery would continue until 1865. So, yes, Paul should have had different things to say about slavery besides an unequivocal approval of the institution.

Tercel should go to a Classics professor and tell him that. As turtonm has pointed out briefly, slavery was harsh in both societies. Life for house slaves in the South was better than field workers as well. The same was true in Roman society.

Particularly insidious is the comment that Tercel makes about how it would be impossible to remove slavery because the Roman empire's economy depended on it. Shockingly (but not surprisingly), this is the same argument the slave holding south made when ever someone opposed slavery. BTW, the Southern Baptist Convention split BECAUSE of the issue of slavery (guess which side they were on!). And we know what side Tercel would be on were it not politically convenient to be opposed to slavery. Christians have no real morals--only self-righteousness.

But there is another dimension to this issue. Those that read my essay probably know that I didn't really get into the issue of whether or not slavery was condemned or condoned by the Bible (I could have, but I felt it wasn't too necessary). What I focused on was the double standard that Christians use to interpret the two issues. Those that interpret the Bible in a way favorable to LGBT folk have always said that there was no such thing as a homosexual in Greco-Roman society and quite frankly, Paul's discussions about same-sex contact are referring to a different issue, not "homsexuality" as we know of it in the 21st century. And this is actually true. Paul condemns same-sex activity, but his idea of same-sex activity and what it was a result of is radically different than what we think of as same-sex activity. But fundamentalists and right-wingers scream that you can't do that!

But when Paul says clearly, "slaves in all things submit to those who are your earthly masters..." they say that slaves were different in the ancient world, and that slavery was a different concept. Of course, only they can explain things away with making historical differentiations. This double standard is bigotry plain and simple and why many LGBT folks don't have any patience with them. I'm somewhat of an exception, and I bother to engage them in debate.

The other thing I focused on in the essay was not whether slavery was moral or immoral in Paul's eyes, but whether or not it was moral to resist a master. The answer from Paul and the forgers who claim to be Paul and Peter is a resounding no. Slaves, even under harsh conditions, are not permitted to run away, or in any way resist their master. I pointed out that fundamentalists go bonkers when evolution or homosexuality is taught in school, but don't act with outrage when Harriet Tubman is glorified in the classroom. Indeed, according to Tercel and many other Christians' logic, Tubman is a sinner, and she was unrepentant as far as the historical records show. What an evil apostate!



[This message has been edited by Le pede (edited June 18, 2001).]

A tidbit I wrote on creednet forums:
(warning: twisted psuedo-fundy argument ahead)
In other words: hatred of homosexuals is ok because homosexuals aren't human. I was trying to explain this is a forum that had someone who was all good in raising their children. Except that darn christian morality "made" them tell their kids tha homosexuals are dripping with sin. The Q was "That doesn't make me A hate monger, does it?"

Brighid:
Sorry to spoil your celebration, but I'm not a Bible innerrentist.

This isn't atheists that I'm admitting are right here. I'm a Christian and this is simply what I believe. Many Christians share my beliefs and many don't. Some believe the Bible is absolutely correct and is the inerrant word of God, I do not. It has nothing to do whatsoever with what atheists have been saying all along.

This is what I believe and it has indeed been the belief of a substansive number of Christians throughout the ages. It is not some GREAT TRUTH that the ENLIGHTENED ATHEISTS have given to us, but rather something that most Christians have understood from the beginning.

This is the only part I take exception to. It is impossible to prove this. And more importantly I do not believe it is true.

Well, then – answer me this question – Can the Christ god err? Does he lack perfection or is god/Christ a perfect being, without sin that guided, through the aide of the Holy Spirit all the writers of the bible? Please clarify your flavor of Christian belief and please provide the denomination you belong to so we may debate this from the “proper” Christian perspective. I think this is going to be a whole lot of fun!

Brighid