Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Arrowman · 08-06-2002, 08:01 PM

The following article appeared in today's Sydney Morning Herald:

<a href="http://smh.com.au/articles/2002/08/06/1028157932938.html" target="_blank">"Consuming Our Unborn Is Indefensible"</a>

Quote:

The Bible's claim that God values the unborn, the fatherless and weak, and people in general, is a primal and fundamental fact. Even if subsequently secularised, this biblical claim has given the West its basis upon which to care for the sick, stop the slave trader, protect the elderly and weak, and respect the dead.

My response, submitted just now, is below. It's brief, and skirts some issues, but (a) it's within their word limit so I can hope for unedited publication and (b) I have a simple point to make and didn't want to obscure it by touching on too many others.

My letter to the SMH

Quote:

Andrew Cameron's article "Consuming Our Unborn is Indefensible" (SMH, 7/8/2) will strike a chord with people, Christian and non-Christian alike, who struggle with the ethics of stem cell research and associated wider issues. He goes astray, however, in his assertion that "the Bible's claim that God values ... people in general" is a "fundamental fact" (as opposed to a widely held belief) that has been "subsequently secularised".

The implicit claim, that people are incapable of moral and ethically sound treatment of their fellow human beings without an externally imposed moral code, is offensive to those who believe in the implicit "goodness" of human beings. Social behaviour and care for each other, for example as evidenced in ritual burial, is shown in the fossil record to be among the earliest signs of intelligence and complex thought - well prior to Biblical times.

If we can give credit to human endeavour in past (and expected) advances in medical treatment, perhaps we can also give credit to innate human morality. Mr Cameron may wish to consider the possibility that the Judeao-Christian moral code is a human invention, attributed to a God - that it has been "subsequently religionised".

[ August 06, 2002: Message edited by: Arrowman ]</p>

Doubting Didymus · 08-06-2002, 09:34 PM

Very interesting. I wonder how this man gets his strange impression that the bible has given the west its basis to oppose slavery? Leviticus actually tells you HOW to trade in slaves, practically a step by step beginners guide to slavery.

He is selectively 'mining' the bible for quotes that support his position, and then claiming that he is representing the biblical stance. My question is: Why should I respect your religion in any way, Mr Andrew Cameron? If an old book full to bursting with god - sanctioned atrocity and slaughter is your primary source?

scumble · 08-07-2002, 01:34 AM

He doesn't offer any quotes from the Bible in support of his position.

There are no quotes you could claim are against slavery in the the Bible, are there?

excreationist · 08-07-2002, 02:38 AM

Look <a href="http://members.ozemail.com.au/~wenke/" target="_blank">here</a> for an in-depth look at all of the relevant verses - it is a <a href="http://www.baptistboard.com/" target="_blank">Baptist Board</a> thread that I started about slavery and the Bible. It seems that none of their best posters could find anything substantial to say against my points.

In my opening posts I said things like this:

Quote:

-------------------------------
Paul also told Christians that in Christ:
"there is neither slave nor free" (Gal 3:28)
-------------------------------
That isn't the whole verse. The whole verse is:
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

So are you saying that Paul literally meant that all people should be treated as equals, at all times?
If so, they what do you make of 1 Timothy 2:11-15?

-------------------------------
"Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you-- although if you can gain your freedom, do so....
-------------------------------
Here's the NIV text-note:
"If a Christian slave has an opportunity to get his freedom, he should take advantage of it. In the Roman Empire slaves were sometimes freed by Roman patricians. There is nothing wrong with seeking to improve your condition, but be content with every stage."
That would mean to try and buy your freedom or win the favour of others so that they can free you. Paul never advocates that slaves should break the law to get their freedom. The only laws he breaks are related to spreading the Gospel.

-------------------------------
...For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men." (1 Cor 7:20-23)
-------------------------------
The NLT clarifies the last verse a bit:
1 Cor 7:23 - "...Don't be enslaved by the world" [Greek: don't become slaves of people]
Here's the NIV text-note:
"Christians in all stations of life should realize that their ultimate allegiance is not to men but to Christ, who bought them with his blood (6:20; 1 Pe 1:18-19)."

You know, it's about being for God vs. being for the world... do you honestly think that Paul is commanding people not to become literal everyday slaves? And who would decide to become a slave anyway? (They would only do it if they were forced to, to repay their debts, etc)

-------------------------------
"We were all baptized by one Spirit into one body-- whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free-- and we were all given the one Spirit to drink." (1 Cor 12:13)
-------------------------------
Yes, Christians are part of one big family. It doesn't mean that all act as equals in society. If they did, why didn't Paul suggest that people free their slaves. 1 Cor 7:23 only says not to become a slave - it doesn't say not to buy and use slaves.

I also talk about how God orders racist slavery in the Bible - in fact, I talk about every important slavery-related verse in the Bible, including those in Genesis 9 where Noah's curse of Ham's son, Canaan, leads to the Israelites being ordered to take slaves of Canaan's descendents during the Exodus. I also talk about the large number of New Testament verses related to slavery.

tommyc · 08-07-2002, 03:43 AM

Part of one of Clint Kritzer's posts on Ex's Baptist board thread:

Quote:

I will point out the short book of Philemon, a book so small that the Bibles ruffle FURIOUSLY when our members are told to reference it in our church

That paints a frightening picture in my head. I can imagine the priest (or whatever you call him) calling out for the book of Philemon, and all the heads of the congregation going down, hands flicking feverishly through the pages, as if possessed, eyes wild, forehead sweating, tongue protruding frmo the side of the mouth in intense concentration. Almost like some biblical race, who can find the chapter first will receive divine blessing. And a burst of relief and a hallelujah when they find it.

It makes me feel sick that people can be that obsessed.

Sorry, off topic.

[ August 07, 2002: Message edited by: tommyc ]</p>

The Other Michael · 08-07-2002, 06:03 AM

tommyc,

when I was in Sunday School (Baptist) in my early teens they announced they'd be having "sword drill" in the afternoon. I went with the expectation of being taught fencing. Instead, the participants would stand their, Bibles at the ready position, and the leader would bark out a chapter/verse. Whoever found it quickest in their Bible won that round.

Pretty weird.

cheers,
Michael

Arrowman · 08-07-2002, 04:13 PM

Well, I didn't get published - today, anyway - but there were several very good letters from other authors here:
<a href="http://www.smh.com.au/letters/2002/08/07/" target="_blank">http://www.smh.com.au/letters/2002/08/07/</a>

I believe Cameron's tactic was to use an issue (stem cell research) which may be causing many people some ethical difficulties, as a sort of "Trojan Horse" to carry the message "see? the Bible, which so many of you have forgotten, is the answer to human ethics after all".

Because of that, I was hoping that the subsequent debate would be as much about that latter point, as about stem cell research in particular. Fortunately, the first of today's letters, at least, is on just that topic. So I'm happy to step back.

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

08-06-2002, 09:34 PM	#2
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	Very interesting. I wonder how this man gets his strange impression that the bible has given the west its basis to oppose slavery? Leviticus actually tells you HOW to trade in slaves, practically a step by step beginners guide to slavery. He is selectively 'mining' the bible for quotes that support his position, and then claiming that he is representing the biblical stance. My question is: Why should I respect your religion in any way, Mr Andrew Cameron? If an old book full to bursting with god - sanctioned atrocity and slaughter is your primary source?

08-07-2002, 01:34 AM	#3
scumble Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: UK Posts: 279	He doesn't offer any quotes from the Bible in support of his position. There are no quotes you could claim are against slavery in the the Bible, are there?

08-07-2002, 06:03 AM	#6
The Other Michael Honorary Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: In the fog of San Francisco Posts: 12,631	tommyc, when I was in Sunday School (Baptist) in my early teens they announced they'd be having "sword drill" in the afternoon. I went with the expectation of being taught fencing. Instead, the participants would stand their, Bibles at the ready position, and the leader would bark out a chapter/verse. Whoever found it quickest in their Bible won that round. Pretty weird. cheers, Michael

08-07-2002, 04:13 PM	#7
Arrowman Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Adelaide, South Australia Posts: 1,358	Well, I didn't get published - today, anyway - but there were several very good letters from other authors here: <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/letters/2002/08/07/" target="_blank">http://www.smh.com.au/letters/2002/08/07/</a> I believe Cameron's tactic was to use an issue (stem cell research) which may be causing many people some ethical difficulties, as a sort of "Trojan Horse" to carry the message "see? the Bible, which so many of you have forgotten, is the answer to human ethics after all". Because of that, I was hoping that the subsequent debate would be as much about that latter point, as about stem cell research in particular. Fortunately, the first of today's letters, at least, is on just that topic. So I'm happy to step back.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.