Freethought & Rationalism Archive

TollHouse · 11-24-2005, 05:52 AM

Hello, achristianbeliever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by achristianbeliever

Slavery by itself isn't wrong.

If slavery isn't wrong then why do you need to redefine it in terms of credit card debt?

mickw · 11-24-2005, 06:06 AM

Quote:

WOW! My credit card companies NEVER come to my house and beat me until I'm near to death. Weird eh?

You mustn't have ever dealt with Citibank. . .

SLD · 11-24-2005, 06:33 AM

You gotta love Chrisitan logic. If there's something in the bible that's palpably wrong, redefine it so it isn't! I'm going to redefine Slavery as the sexual union between a man and a woman. Why not? All of a sudden, Slavery is a good thing!

SLD

pharoah · 11-24-2005, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdarus

I don't think it is accurate to say that the Mosaic code "endorses" slavery. It certainly allows it. It fails to even begin to call for abolition of slavery. It certainly reflects the cultural context of the existance of slavery. However, it appears to be an attempt to put some limits on the abuse that was done at the time. It may be possible to see some "endorsement" of the practice in the context of the wars of conquest in reference to the plight of captives. But this can be easily argued to be an allowance as well.

Welcome to IIDB, mdarus! I hope that you enjoy your stay here! :wave:

Let me correct your use of the term "Mosiac code". This was Yahweh's Law, not Mosaic Law. The use of the term "Mosiac code" is a subtle attempt by apologists, including some in the NT, to shift the myriad problems of that code from a supposedly perfect God to the fallible human Moses.

Now, either Yahweh is for slavery, neutral on the manner, or against it. His laws conclusively demonstrate that he wasn't against it. This should be enough for any rational person to conclude that even if he exists he's a moral monster unworthy of worship.

Quote:

I also think it is incorrect to view the Mosaic Code as an ethic or system of morality. It is a part of that in that it is a legal code. A legal code generally limits human societies on the most basic levels. A legal code is not capable of communication how people should behave. It can usually only prescribe appropriate punishments for illegal behavrior. It defines the lower limit of acceptable behavior. An ethic has a higher standard than a legal code. An ethic is much more limiting. The Mosaic Code does seem to make some attempts at defining a positive ethic by giving some positive commands but it is unfair to judge a legal code by its failure to define the complete ethic.

Yahweh's Law was all-encompassing. It was a legal code, ethics system, dietary guide and worship quide. The ethics that it contained were reflective of their times. Yahweh's system of ethics approved of or made allowances for slavery. Ours doesn't. If Yahweh's system of ethics is right, then we are wrong.

Quote:

The most common and reasonable excuse I have heard for the posting of the Ten Commandments is as an illustration for some of the sources for our legal system. The Mosaic Code demonstrates some of the same principles still used to differentiate between premeditation, accidental homicide, etc. At a time when punishment was usually much more severe than the crime, the Mosaic Code was a major step in a good direction.

Huh? Have you actually read this code?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exodus

19:12 And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about, saying, Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it: whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death:
19:13 There shall not an hand touch it, but he shall surely be stoned, or shot through; whether it be beast or man, it shall not live: when the trumpet soundeth long, they shall come up to the mount.

21:15 And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.

21:17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.

22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

31:14 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
31:15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

35:2 Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.
35:3 Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the sabbath day.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leviticus

20:9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.
"For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall surely be put to death." 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
20:11 And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
20:12 And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.
20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
20:14 And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.

Quote:

There are some who may hope posting The Big Ten would inspire ethics. However, those same people at their more sane moments would agree that laws generally fail to commend ethics.

Which Big Ten would that be? The commandments that were given in Exous 20, the ones in Exodus 34, or the ones in Deuteronomy 5? If someone wants to post Yahweh's Law, fine, but don't stop with the 10C, whatever that is. Post all 613 of the comandments, because he certainly didn't differentiate between the 10 and the rest of his code.

mdarus · 11-24-2005, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Let me correct your use of the term "Mosiac code". This was Yahweh's Law, not Mosaic Law. The use of the term "Mosiac code" is a subtle attempt by apologists, including some in the NT, to shift the myriad problems of that code from a supposedly perfect God to the fallible human Moses.

Now, either Yahweh is for slavery, neutral on the manner, or against it. His laws conclusively demonstrate that he wasn't against it. This should be enough for any rational person to conclude that even if he exists he's a moral monster unworthy of worship.

Pharoah, thank you for welcoming me. I consider your thoughtful response to be a kind extension of your welcome (except for the part where you question whether I have read the Old Testament).

I am concerned that insisting that the Penteteuch be considered Yahweh's Law apart from the historical context of the need for a civil code for the Hebrews creates a type of "straw man" approach. You set up expectations that are far beyond the claims of the literature or its best adherants. I can understand your disapointment with this law if these are your expectations.

The ideal of an early codification of an ideal ethic that persists without change does not reflect the documents we call the Bible. Even the various forms of the Decalogue suggest reinterpretation and expansion for a new situation while maintaining the primary core. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus illustrated the inadequacy of the Mosaic Law at almost every point.

Let me jump to the big issue. We now consider personal freedom as a primary ethical principle. Slavery (in all its faces) becomes to us a primary evil. We judge other cultures by this criteria. We tend to forget that the abolition of slavery is a very modern idea. Somehow previous cultures valued other primary ethical principles above this one. I think we live in a great day and would never want to turn the clock back on this one. But is it possible for us to understand how other priorities could possibly have been more important than this one in the past? I find it hard to comprehend. I can't imagine how degrading people to the position of property could ever be justified. My post-modern Western mind is not adequate.

post tenebras lux · 11-25-2005, 02:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdarus

Pharoah, thank you for welcoming me. I consider your thoughtful response to be a kind extension of your welcome (except for the part where you question whether I have read the Old Testament).

I am concerned that insisting that the Penteteuch be considered Yahweh's Law apart from the historical context of the need for a civil code for the Hebrews creates a type of "straw man" approach. You set up expectations that are far beyond the claims of the literature or its best adherants. I can understand your disapointment with this law if these are your expectations.

The ideal of an early codification of an ideal ethic that persists without change does not reflect the documents we call the Bible. Even the various forms of the Decalogue suggest reinterpretation and expansion for a new situation while maintaining the primary core. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus illustrated the inadequacy of the Mosaic Law at almost every point.

Let me jump to the big issue. We now consider personal freedom as a primary ethical principle. Slavery (in all its faces) becomes to us a primary evil. We judge other cultures by this criteria. We tend to forget that the abolition of slavery is a very modern idea. Somehow previous cultures valued other primary ethical principles above this one. I think we live in a great day and would never want to turn the clock back on this one. But is it possible for us to understand how other priorities could possibly have been more important than this one in the past? I find it hard to comprehend. I can't imagine how degrading people to the position of property could ever be justified. My post-modern Western mind is not adequate.

Hi mdarus, and welcome to IIDB.

Given that you seem to think that there really is a god: are you trying to say that you don't think the OT is divinely inspired, or are you trying to say that god had changed between the OT times and the NT times (and that he could, therefore, have changed yet again between the NT and now)?

Is your god currently in favour or opposed to slavery?
Was your god during the time of Jesus in favour or opposed to slavery?
And, was your god during the time of Moses/Joshua in favour or opposed to slavery?

Luxie :wave:

mdarus · 11-25-2005, 05:53 PM

He was always opposed to slavery. More importantly, he has a long history in favor of freedom. This position does not require denial of the inspiration of the Old Testament or that God has changed his mind about the morality of slavery. It is great that the law is catching up with the ethic of freedom and respect for people. There is still more to be done.

Clivedurdle · 11-26-2005, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdarus

He was always opposed to slavery. More importantly, he has a long history in favor of freedom. This position does not require denial of the inspiration of the Old Testament or that God has changed his mind about the morality of slavery. It is great that the law is catching up with the ethic of freedom and respect for people. There is still more to be done.

Then God is guilty of the sins of ommission and commission because it is not completely clear what his views are.

mdarus · 11-27-2005, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Faith in the Christ that died and raised it's as simple as can be. But before his existence no one believed in him: he did not exist yet. And forget the Jews, take care of the Chinese for example.

I understand your accusation about sins of ommission but I do not understand why you conclude a sin of commission.

The accusation that God is guilty of an act of ommission by neglecting to outlaw slavery is a serious one and pervasive. It is linked to The Problem of Evil. On the face, it is difficult to comprehend how God can allow the things that happen when he has the power to stop them. However, this issue is resolved if the alternative is considered.

Let's assume that was God was responsible to stop every evil that was about to happen because he could and because he was loving, he was intent on preventing all pain. God would be very busy indeed. But to do so would require pretty severe limitations on the actions that his creation could do. The resulting world would be the rule of a meddling despot. There would be no crime because anyone with criminal intent would be frozen in their tracks. There would be no tension in the romance dance about whether young lovers were in love or not. God would not let a heart be broken. We would have a very populous world since God would never want us to experience grief. Everyone would be making billions in the stock market because God would never want us to be in want or be disappointed. Both sports teams would win (or tie) every time.

I think I would rather live in a world where slavery is possible.

Clivedurdle · 11-28-2005, 12:01 AM

Quote:

God would be very busy indeed

Welcome!

Sparrows, hairs on heads....

You have given a description - romantic love etc - of how the world is. God had nothing to do with it. Evolution, human culture and actions did.

I thought your God was omnipotent - it is no problem looking after everything. Oh, and what was the point of the garden of eden - are you saying they had to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge?

Why bother with all this trying to put God into the picture?

And sins of commission are a possible result of not acting when you had the power. Heard of an avalanche?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-24-2005, 06:33 AM	#23
SLD Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Birmingham, Alabama Posts: 4,109	You gotta love Chrisitan logic. If there's something in the bible that's palpably wrong, redefine it so it isn't! I'm going to redefine Slavery as the sexual union between a man and a woman. Why not? All of a sudden, Slavery is a good thing! SLD

11-25-2005, 05:53 PM	#27
mdarus Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Arizona Posts: 196	He was always opposed to slavery. More importantly, he has a long history in favor of freedom. This position does not require denial of the inspiration of the Old Testament or that God has changed his mind about the morality of slavery. It is great that the law is catching up with the ethic of freedom and respect for people. There is still more to be done.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.