budgie

Thank you very much IQ01. The following statement from that article was illuminating.

"It is true that one will not find in the Scriptures a call to actively abolish slavery."

Thus, even experts (I assume biblical experts) agree that God does not, in any way shape or form, condemn slavery.

Thank you Angrilori (sp?) for your information and constant adherence to the facts and not irrelevent points.

2. Is slavery 'good' for society at the present time? Or, do the majority of the world's people think that slavery is not good for society? (Where in the world is slavery practiced right now? You may be shocked at the answer to this question.)

3. Have human beings found a higher moral ground than God regarding the slavery issue? And what does this imply about god?

Yes, I have read all of the posts up to this one. I just wanted to reiterate and reinforce what has been typed.

Thanks again, y'all

-jim

Shameless Hussy

On the off-chance that this thread hasn't gone too far off the rails for redemption (voluntary slaves, etc. - good golly)... I'd like to address the OP:

That's unfortunate. Is it possible that you phrased your questions in such a way that they could have been misconstrued as simple trolling/baiting? Or is it possible that the "Christians" on that forum don't know enough about the history of their own faith to be secure with these types of questions? Either way, one would think you were owed a dialogue, not an auto-delete. If they find this to be an unpleasant challenge, then surely the fault lies in their own religious instruction...

Those would be the insecure ones I mentioned above. The honest ones (IMX) are quite open about the parts they don't understand, or the parts they must grapple with. They also tend not to be the ones trying to save my soul - they're busy removing the logs in their own eyes, rather than focusing on the speck in mine. So once the element of a spiritual "sales pitch" is removed, I think it's much easier to have these conversations.

Anyway, the quotes you referenced are pretty common points of contention when arguing the concept of a "loving" and "just" God. A bit surprising that they'd throw an entire group of Christians off-balance. I think your references fall into two categories:

A) worldly consequences in direct nature and proportion to worldly actions (e.g. the babies being smashed - the OT concept of "eye for an eye"); and

B) God's instructions on how to be a better tribe within the general culture, and so eventually cause the culture to advance (e.g. treatment of slaves - whatever is the norm, try to honour your place with God by doing better).

I think this makes more sense if one reads the Bible as a guidebook in the shape of collected lessons, not as a literal operating manual. The former way of reading allows one to use the teachings, as well as your brain. The latter reading allows one to, well, find justification for slaves and smashed babies...

That's the most sensible view I can come up with, anyway.

BlakeEM

I read though the rules of the forum first and I was sure not to seem like I was attacking them or anything. On the forum they seemed to not want any types of discussions about challenging or “dissing� god or anything that goes against their religion or Jesus etc... Most of the stuff in the forum wasn’t really any of the types of questions most atheists seem ask. There wasn’t much challenging gods existence type of things posted there (was mostly low key stuff, like what does this mean, what do you think about this... etc).

I basically said that

Here are some passages from the bible I found that to me sound questionable for various reasons, could someone please explain them to me.

I then listed each quote and gave a small description of what I think it means.

That was pretty much it. There was a LOT of quoted passages in the post. I had to shrink it some to fit in a single post and no go over the character limit hehe.

I posted it, after 5 mins it was gone and it said I couldn’t access the forum. I had to sign out then I was able to see the forum and it wasn’t there anymore.



Personally I can’t see how anyone can rationally believe that this book is the be all know all book and that it’s the word of some perfect all powerful being who loves us. I mean seriously, it’s an insult to intelligences. Christians get pissed from a nipple on live TV, yet the thing they get their values from had babies getting beat against rocks and mass rape/murder. When stuff like this is in the bible that they still believe so strongly it goes beyond common sense and beyond simply believing in the supernatural and god. I don’t know if it’s a little harsh but I feel most people’s minds are severely warped, or they are just too scared to question.

Angrillori

This is tangiental, but why can god's morality be dismissed by saying "Oh, that was just an OT concept?"

Last I checked, they include the OT in that book they call "The Bible" and god is said to have inspired that just as much as the NT. "An Eye for an Eye" is supposedly inspired by God. Therefore, even if you try to dust "smashing babies heads" under the carpet by saying "Oh, that's just Eye for an Eye," you've still got to justify why god allegedly inspired "an eye for an eye."

Moreover, since the "an eye for an eye" was supposed to be repurcussions like for like, you'd still be at a loss to explain extermination programs ordered by god. Last I checked, the Israelites were never wiped off the face of the earth...

Except, the only slaves that God ordered be treated better were Israelite slaves. For slaves from other countries, there was no quarter.

But then, what's the point? We have countless books that are "collections of lessons" from Aesop Fables to African Anansi tales. Stories with lessons predate the bible, certainly, and many even leave out the baggage of considering slavery and violence "moral" things.

Heck, I might as well venerate the Berenstein Bears since they certainly offer "stories with lessons," or just about any 80's sitcom had "lessons" amongst the stories.

But hey, let me just point out: if no one took the bible literally, if everyone just took the good parts and tossed the bad parts, I think that christianity wouldn't be such a bad thing. If we based our morality on morality, and not the superstitions of 2000 year old goatherders, this world might be a better place.

Shameless Hussy

Yeah, that sounds unfortunate. For THEM, I mean. It's probably no skin off your nose that you went away unedified, but it seems like they lost a good chance to offer insight. Assuming they had any to offer...

I can't see the bible as literal truth, if that's what you mean, and I sure can't see that it's the work of God and not man. It's man writing about his God, which is different. That's why I think that for the purposes of discussion, it's easier for me to treat it as a book of lessons, or potential lessons, though often shrouded in some arcane concepts. Not to mention translation troubles. I don't have to believe in it to see some stuff worth thinking about. Same goes for Horton Hears A Who. Don't need to BELIEVE that book is true in order to find some value in it. But then, if I had a bunch of questions about Horton, I wouldn't expect to get slammed for asking.

That's a whole other thread.

Yes, but don't let that blind you to the fact that for all the warped ones, there ARE many rational believers out there, who are able to read things in context and with a big grain of Godly salt. I hope you will find some of those types to answer your questions, not to change your beliefs, but so you can perhaps fathom theirs.

Angrillori

Huzzah hussy.

There are good blokes and bad blokes out there, for any given group.

In fact, I'd wager there are more folks out there with an outlook like yours (Hey, get what lessons you can, and use it to make yourself better!) than the opposite. And thank goodness for it!

Heck, more christians believe in evolution than deny it! (I just wish the silly ones weren't so loud and vocal!)

Shameless Hussy

Jeez louise, am I ever goofing off today...

*blink* I wouldn't think it COULD be dismissed. The covenant of the OT is still in effect for the Jews (yes?) and the new covenant of the NT for the christians doesn't change the facts of the OT. It's still all there. If they try to dismiss it, it's because they either don't know their own religion, or don't want to face the hard parts. I once heard a Baptist chick say "I don't read the OT, it's for the Jews." Apparently, she was surprised that her preacher's sermon that week had been about a story in the OT. Rude awakening! But I digress...

One thing: I'M not going to justify anything. It's not mine to justify. I'm only speaking from my (debatable) understanding of the topic, not any belief. And here it is: the concept of eye for an eye (which, like thou shalt not kill, is heavily misinterpreted, AFAIK), as well as the other rules and laws, were God's instructions to His people on how they were to conduct themselves in the world in which they found themselves. It was not instruction on how to play God, or bring Him to everyone else. It was not their mission to overthrow or revolutionize the cultures in which they lived and operated, such as get rid of social systems like slavery. They were not asked to change the world. It was their mission to live their path as God's chosen ones no matter the external circumstances. Sounds simple, but it's meant to be a deceptively difficult challenge.

God ordered the Israelites to have standards in slave-ownership, yes. Are you wondering why He didn't tell everyone else to do the same?

Yes, I just used the example of Horton Hears A Who in my reply to...? The original poster. So *I* would say, "who says there's got to be a point?" Take your lessons where you find them. A rational theist would have to give a more complicated answer to your question, but it might include the view that the message of the Bible is literal and unchanging, but the Bible stories themselves do not have to be so. For instance, the thing with slavery. If you asked a rabbi "what's up with all the slavery instructions, you guys??" he'd likely remind you that the MESSAGE, which is the important part, is that while they were living under a time and place in which slavery was permitted, those who followed God had to function to a higher standard. Repeat that progressively higher standard over time, keep re-setting the bar, and that is how social change takes place. So we've changed to the point where slavery is no longer permitted, but the message remains valid - whatever is permitted, God's people must do better. The slavery rules are now a historical reminder of a lesson that is still in effect. (Does that make sense or does it sound like I'm b.s.ing you? It's hard for me to effectively summarize this. But I'm trying.)

Okay with me.

Or how about if no one took the bible literally, but kept ALL its parts and tried to find a constructive, inclusive message from the whole, without wearing blinders or cutting out the "bad" stuff? Could work. God gave us a lemon, we might as well pulp it for lemonade...

Angrillori

And, I guess, the fact that his instructions included:
"Take slaves from other countries."
"Will them to your children"
"Treat them ruthlessly (his word, not mine) unless they are Israelites."
"If you beat them so badly they can't even get up for a few days, then, no bad."

Is what we're taking offense at. God's "moral" guides for his people were decidely immoral. There needent be a command to overturn social conventions of the day, but there sure could have been prohibitions on the behaviour of his chosen people. Heck, he told them what they couldn't eat, what they couldn't wear, how they couldn't associate with women while menstruating, etc. yet within all these guidelines he never once said: "Don't take slaves?"

Well...it could be said that the systematic ordered genocide of the Canaanite tribes could be considered an "overthrow of the cultures in which they lived and operated....

So, god's path didn't include eating shrimp, but did include owning and beating slaves?

There's no need to order the overthrow of slavery as an institution, I'd settle for it to be one of the laws at least for god's chosen. But, apparently owning another human being isn't as immoral as eating shrimp. Go figure.


No, I'm wondering why those standards only applied to slaves who were Israelites. You'll notice no standards for non-Hebrew slaves....interesting eh?

Only with regards to Hebrew slaves though! Slaves from other countries....yup, that's right, fair game!

So does that mean the MESSAGE is that it's okay to enslave, beat, etc. people, as long as they're from a different country?

Fair enough.

After that line, I think you're tops in my book!
In fact, that's the best thing I've heard all day. (Except for when my wife told me she loves me. But that's hard to top.)

inquisitive01

Jim, are you sure about that? Aren't you forgetting to "reiterate and reinforce" something? Did you not see the parts about those slaves who willingly became slaves out of desperation (poverty, great debt, etc.)? OR, are you just perhaps ignoring it and reading only what you choose to read? Also, if you study Angrillori's posts, you will see an apparent "bone-to-pick" presence (who Angrillori has a "bone to pick" with one can only guess).

Btw, it's i-n-q-u-i-s-i-t-i-v-e-0-1. :bulb:

Gullwind

Hmmm.

I must have missed the explanation that justifies slavery simply because some people found themselves in a position where it was their best alternative.

Did anyone else see it? :huh: