LaPalida

Hey guys, I need a bit of help. I didn't study to become a minister so I can't snap quote the Old Testament. I do know, after reading books like Dan Barker's "Losing Faith in Faith" that there is a fair amount of atrocities in the OT (and I seriously don't want to trudge through it). Can anyone help me and point out the verses where these are encouraged or condoned or at the very least not condemned: 1. slavery, 2. rape, 3. pedophilia (this one I am not sure of myself), 4. abortion, 5. stem cells, 6. cloning (I don't think these are even mentioned), 7. gender inequality, 8. racism, 9. parental or spousal abuse, 10. animal abuse/torture, 11. war, and 12. incest.

TomboyMom

Slavery:

This is the biggie I think:
Leviticus 25:44-46
Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

That is, buying and selling other human beings as property is clearly sanctioned and authorized. There are numerous other OT passages collected here.

Toto

The Skeptics Annotated Bible (dot) com is a place to start when looking for lists of atrocities. (Dont get it confused with the (dot) org.)

There is also Evil Bible which has sections on

Ritual Human Sacrifice
Rape in the Bible
Murder in the Bible
Slavery in the Bible

But I don't think you will find anything on pedophilia, stem cells, cloning, or animal abuse.

pob14

Well, if you asked the animals, I think they'd say all of the burnt offerings and such pretty much qualify as "abuse" . . . .

but really, just pick up the OT and open it at random; you won't be more than a couple of pages away from an atrocity. Personally I think Numbers 31 beats TomboyMom's passage:

Or this lovely sentiment from Psalm 137:
Fun stuff.

LaPalida

Woohoo! Great stuff! Keep 'em coming. It's my ammo

Gamera

The irony of this is that we are using moral systems that result from the rise of Judeo-Christian ethics to condemn the alleged moral failings in the texts that gave rise to Judeo-Christian ethics.

It's not like there was a movement condemning slavery, rape and murder in the Iron Age, and Judaism took the wrong side. There is no condemnation of any such viscious conduct from anyone until Judaism came along and established the moral grounds for doing so.

Gamera

Ephesians 5:25 - Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.

If you can find any similar statement in the ancient world from any source stating that husbands should love their wifes, I'll give you an icecream cone. The notion was totally and completely alient to Greco-Roman culture, not to mention any other culture on the planet, which looked at wives as chattle.

Isaiah 1:17 - learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; defend the fatherless, plead for the widow.

Again, try to find a similar statement like this in anciet world. Ironically, it is these revolutionary (absolutely revolutionary) ethical developments in the Hebrew scriptures that gave rise to the ethical system that you are now using to condemn the very text that gave rise to your ethical system.

Toto

"Judeo-Christian" ethics did not condemn slavery.

Rape and murder have been illegal in practically all societies.

It is possible to have ethics without religion. If you wish to argue this, please start a thread in the proper forum.

aa5874

So, are you claiming that Hindus, followers of Shinto, Buddhism or any other non-christian religion did not condemn slavery, rape or murder until Judaism came along?

Gamera, you need to review your statement.

Not so long ago, Christians were burning people at the stake for unbelief, and followers of God were stoning people to death because they worked on the Sabbath, see the book called Numbers 15:32-36.

LaPalida

Except that you missed the first part of the quote...

5:21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
5:25 - Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.

Doesn't that sound a little misogynistic to you? Why did you skip this little bit? This passage basically says... "love your property"... wow...really how very progressive. This is no different from the Greco-Roman views on women. As for the fact that women should be respected and treated like equal human beings... may I enlighten you with this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_Rights

Which, as well as being relatively very recent developments, most definitely did not germinate with this passage of the Bible.

I concur, this is good advice however it's not revolutionary or new as you claim therefore it's false and ignorant of you to say that it was Judeo-Christian values that brought forth the modern ethics. Justice, opposition to oppression and helping the poor isn't new or particular to Judaism or Christianity. The proof of statements that are revolutionary ethical developments that pre-dated JC:

Confucious 500BCE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucius#Ethics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_o...y#Confucianism

"What one does not wish for oneself, one ought not to do to anyone else; what one recognises as desirable for oneself, one ought to be willing to grant to others."

"Respect yourself and others will respect you."

"When anger arises, think of the consequences"

"Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves."

"Forget injuries, never forget kindnesses."

"To see what is right and not to do is want of courage."

"Have no friends not equal to yourself."

Rabbi Hillel 50 BCE-10 CE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillel_the_Elder

"What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man."

Buddhism 500-400 BCE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Precepts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_o...ocity#Buddhism

I undertake the precept to refrain from taking the life (killing) of living beings.
I undertake the precept to refrain from stealing.
I undertake the precept to refrain from sexual misconduct (adultery, rape, etc).
I undertake the precept to refrain from false speech (lying).
I undertake the precept to refrain from intoxicants which lead to heedlessness.

"Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." (Udana-Varga 5:18)

"Comparing oneself to others in such terms as 'Just as I am so are they, just as they are so am I,' he should neither kill nor cause others to kill." (Sutta Nipata 705)

"In five ways should a clansman minister to his friends and familiars, .... by treating them as he treats himself." (Sigalovada Sutta 31)

"Is there a deed, Rahula, thou dost wish to do? Then bethink thee thus: Is this deed conducive to my own harm, or to others harm, or to that of both? Then is this a bad deed entailing suffering. Such a deed must thou surely not do." (Majjhima Nikaya 1.415)

Hinduism Mahabharata - 6 BCE-1 CE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_o...ocity#Hinduism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niyama

abstinence from injury, harmlessness, the not causing of pain to any living creature in thought, word, or deed at any time. This is the "main" yama. The other nine are there in support of its accomplishment.

truthfulness, word and thought in conformity with the facts.

compassion; conquering callous, cruel and insensitive feelings toward all beings.

giving, without thought of reward;

emorse, being modest and showing shame for misdeeds;

"This is the sum of the Dharma: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you" (Mahabharata 5:15:17)

"One should not behave towards others in a way which is disagreeable to oneself. This is the essence of morality. All other activities are due to selfish desire." - Mahabharata, Anusasana Parva, 18:113:8

Wound not others, do no one injury by thought or deed, utter no word to pain thy fellow creatures. (The Ordinances of Manu)

Ancient Greece and Rome

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_ethics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle#Ethical_writings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Cardinal_Virtues

Too many to list. Look it up if you're interested.

In some Christian traditions, there are four cardinal virtues: prudence, temperance, fortitude (or courage), and justice. These were derived initially from Plato's scheme (see Protagoras 330b, which also includes piety (hosiotes)) and adapted by Saint Ambrose, Augustine of Hippo, and Thomas Aquinas (see Summa Theologica II(I).61)

Ancient Egypt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma%27at
THE 42 DECLARATIONS OF PURITY which I will not list here...

I have not killed, nor bid anyone kill.
I have not committed adultery or rape.
I have not avenged myself nor burned with rage.
I have not assaulted anyone nor caused anyone pain.
I have not stolen from nor disrespect the dead.
I have caused no wrong to be done to any workers or prisoners.
I have not lied, nor spoken falsely to the hurt of another.
I have not taken more than my fair share of food.

Animal Kingdom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_altruism

A potential example of reciprocal altruism is blood-sharing in the vampire bat, in which bats feed regurgitated blood to those who have not collected much blood themselves knowing that they themselves may someday benefit from this same donation; cheaters are remembered by the colony and ousted from this collaboration.

This list is non-exhaustive. Sorry you lose. I will hold you to your word however but instead of a cone I'd like an admission, posted here, from you: that you were wrong to say that current modern ethics (whatever they may be) are derived from and only from JC but are an amalgamation of many different codes of ethics from many different time periods and cultures, that in fact many different cultures/philosophies before and after contained similar moral codes, and that there is nothing revolutionary about what JC said.