|
On September 13 2013 20:18 Birdie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 15:54 Tobberoth wrote:On September 13 2013 15:35 Hryul wrote:On September 13 2013 08:30 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 08:08 Hryul wrote:
I feared this would happen. This blog went its way for ~5 pages but now the non-christians have found it and the discussion runs its predictable course. (until the mods step in, i fear)
I'm a bit sad about this because I rarely see real Christians discuss theological questions and this was a new experience for me. I was hoping that people would leave them alone b/c OP clearly didn't want to discuss with non-christians but here we go. He said non-christians could participate if they were "open-minded." I don't see how I'm not being open-minded. I'm genuinely, 100% interested in knowing how christians decide what to follow out of the bible, and what not to follow (and the rationale behind it). I thought that is what this discussion was about. Is it going to make a believer out of me? No. But it might help me understand contemporary christianity more. Fair enough. I must also admit this didn't turn into an "the bible is self contradictory" shitfest as I expected it. I was rather pessimistic b/c I perceived some of the initial posts as rather aggressive. I guess I'm back to lurking now. It's not surprising that some posts are aggressive when some of the opinions shown here are quite disturbing, specifically IronManSCs views on sexuality, not exactly the kind of views I've come to expect from the generally intelligent community of TL.net. What you're suggesting is that having a contrary view on something that is the status quo here is immediately "stupid" as opposed to "intelligent". Just because something is politically correct NOW does not make it true. It was not many years ago when it was completely acceptable in educated Western society to consider homosexuality to be a terrible disgusting thing, and it could easily go back to that in a few more years. Intelligence does not and never does prove rightness. Yourself being intelligent, and IronMan being intelligent, does not make either of you right. Rather, it means that there's a higher chance of each of you having the mental faculties and logical capabilities to make more informed opinions on different subjects. Of course, then you'll start to think that you're better informed, or have better mental faculties, or better logical capabilities. The problem with that kind of thinking is that it hinders learning. How can we ever grow if we already know best? Only humility can allow change in the thinking of a person. The TL census shows that most of the people here are young Western men who have often completed a university degree of some sort. Experience teaches me (yeah logical fallacy but you probably agree) that young men who have had some education are usually extremely arrogant, and extremely willing to inform other people about how wrong they are  But yet, young men with a small amount of knowledge are usually much more "wrong" than old men and women with larger amounts of knowledge. Better to assume that you don't have it all right yet when entering into a discussion than to enter in with the first opinion that you have already got it worked out, and anyone disagreeing with you is wrong.
That's actually not what I said, though I can see why you interpreted like that. I said that his view is something I don't expect from intelligent people. Not that you're stupid for having the opinion, but that it's clearly not the norm in this community, which is a community I've found to be intelligent. It's less about age and the fact that we are westerners, but more a comparison to all other online communities I've been a part of. People on TL are generally far more level-headed and open-minded.
As for your comment on young men with a small amount of knowledge... I don't agree with you and I don't really see your point. Young men with a university degree probably sit quite fine in the knowledge department, though they might well lack in experience compared to older people. I thought your point was that who is "wrong" is subjective in this case, but you apparently turn around in this comment saying that who's wrong = who's younger.
There's also a lot of studies supporting the negative correlation between IQ and religiosity, if you want to go on that track.
|
On September 13 2013 21:00 Birdie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 20:51 Velr wrote:
To quote John Steward:
"What is it with you christians and beastiality?"
Or to make it plain simple:
Homosexuality leads to same sex intercourse between two agreeing adults. There is just nothing, on any level, wrong here.
Beastiality and Paedophilia exploits one of the two partners. I should not have to tell you why this is a problem.
Yes, it's that easy and it blows my mind why this stupid argument is not just dieing off. It does not even matter if it's a choice, be it homosexuality or paedophilia, (it isn't) or not... Adultery doesn't exploit either partner, but Christians consider it to be wrong too. Exploitation doesn't determine the immorality of a certain act or thought.
One could argue that adultery emotionally exploits the third member - the "real" partner of the person who is cheating.
|
On September 13 2013 21:07 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 20:18 Birdie wrote:On September 13 2013 15:54 Tobberoth wrote:On September 13 2013 15:35 Hryul wrote:On September 13 2013 08:30 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 08:08 Hryul wrote:
I feared this would happen. This blog went its way for ~5 pages but now the non-christians have found it and the discussion runs its predictable course. (until the mods step in, i fear)
I'm a bit sad about this because I rarely see real Christians discuss theological questions and this was a new experience for me. I was hoping that people would leave them alone b/c OP clearly didn't want to discuss with non-christians but here we go. He said non-christians could participate if they were "open-minded." I don't see how I'm not being open-minded. I'm genuinely, 100% interested in knowing how christians decide what to follow out of the bible, and what not to follow (and the rationale behind it). I thought that is what this discussion was about. Is it going to make a believer out of me? No. But it might help me understand contemporary christianity more. Fair enough. I must also admit this didn't turn into an "the bible is self contradictory" shitfest as I expected it. I was rather pessimistic b/c I perceived some of the initial posts as rather aggressive. I guess I'm back to lurking now. It's not surprising that some posts are aggressive when some of the opinions shown here are quite disturbing, specifically IronManSCs views on sexuality, not exactly the kind of views I've come to expect from the generally intelligent community of TL.net. What you're suggesting is that having a contrary view on something that is the status quo here is immediately "stupid" as opposed to "intelligent". Just because something is politically correct NOW does not make it true. It was not many years ago when it was completely acceptable in educated Western society to consider homosexuality to be a terrible disgusting thing, and it could easily go back to that in a few more years. Intelligence does not and never does prove rightness. Yourself being intelligent, and IronMan being intelligent, does not make either of you right. Rather, it means that there's a higher chance of each of you having the mental faculties and logical capabilities to make more informed opinions on different subjects. Of course, then you'll start to think that you're better informed, or have better mental faculties, or better logical capabilities. The problem with that kind of thinking is that it hinders learning. How can we ever grow if we already know best? Only humility can allow change in the thinking of a person. The TL census shows that most of the people here are young Western men who have often completed a university degree of some sort. Experience teaches me (yeah logical fallacy but you probably agree) that young men who have had some education are usually extremely arrogant, and extremely willing to inform other people about how wrong they are But yet, young men with a small amount of knowledge are usually much more "wrong" than old men and women with larger amounts of knowledge. Better to assume that you don't have it all right yet when entering into a discussion than to enter in with the first opinion that you have already got it worked out, and anyone disagreeing with you is wrong. That's actually not what I said, though I can see why you interpreted like that. I said that his view is something I don't expect from intelligent people. Not that you're stupid for having the opinion, but that it's clearly not the norm in this community, which is a community I've found to be intelligent. It's less about age and the fact that we are westerners, but more a comparison to all other online communities I've been a part of. People on TL are generally far more level-headed and open-minded. As for your comment on young men with a small amount of knowledge... I don't agree with you and I don't really see your point. Young men with a university degree probably sit quite fine in the knowledge department, though they might well lack in experience compared to older people. I thought your point was that who is "wrong" is subjective in this case, but you apparently turn around in this comment saying that who's wrong = who's younger. There's also a lot of studies supporting the negative correlation between IQ and religiosity, if you want to go on that track.
Not necessarily that "who's wrong = who's younger", but more that if you're young, you should be more inclined to feel less confident about whether you've got it all together. Having said that, to be fair many older men are also very much not "got it all together", so perhaps everyone at every age should be humble Perhaps instead of knowledge I should say wisdom (the two are not the same).
To be honest, there's enough close-mindedness and non-level-headedness on TL that it's really a sad reflection on the state of our society that TL should be considered pretty good among online communities  sure, it's better than a lot of other sites out there, but it could be so much better!
On September 13 2013 21:09 -NegativeZero- wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 21:00 Birdie wrote:On September 13 2013 20:51 Velr wrote:
To quote John Steward:
"What is it with you christians and beastiality?"
Or to make it plain simple:
Homosexuality leads to same sex intercourse between two agreeing adults. There is just nothing, on any level, wrong here.
Beastiality and Paedophilia exploits one of the two partners. I should not have to tell you why this is a problem.
Yes, it's that easy and it blows my mind why this stupid argument is not just dieing off. It does not even matter if it's a choice, be it homosexuality or paedophilia, (it isn't) or not... Adultery doesn't exploit either partner, but Christians consider it to be wrong too. Exploitation doesn't determine the immorality of a certain act or thought. One could argue that adultery emotionally exploits the third member - the "real" partner of the person who is cheating.
Yeah I guess so. I'm inclined to argue even further and say that all forms of sexual immorality exploit everyone involved!
|
On September 13 2013 21:00 Birdie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 20:51 Velr wrote:
To quote John Steward:
"What is it with you christians and beastiality?"
Or to make it plain simple:
Homosexuality leads to same sex intercourse between two agreeing adults. There is just nothing, on any level, wrong here.
Beastiality and Paedophilia exploits one of the two partners. I should not have to tell you why this is a problem.
Yes, it's that easy and it blows my mind why this stupid argument is not just dieing off. It does not even matter if it's a choice, be it homosexuality or paedophilia, (it isn't) or not... Adultery doesn't exploit either partner, but Christians consider it to be wrong too. Exploitation doesn't determine the immorality of a certain act or thought.
Morality is in the eye of the beholder. I think paedophilia is immoral because it's terrible to children, and as a decent human being, I want to protect someone who is innocent. Christians think homosexuality is immoral because God apparently said that it's wrong, there's really no justification beyond that.
One could say "Everyone used to agree homosexuality was immoral, now people find it OK. Same thing could happen with paedophilia.", but this is the kind of offensive comparision we talked about earlier. The reasoning behind why either act is immoral is completely different. For a christian to stop viewing homosexuality as immoral, all they have to do is realize that morality isn't decided by an old book and just think about the situation rationally. For people in general to stop viewing paedophilia as immoral, they have to stop being decent human beings and ignore the fact that it's terrible to children.
Saying that acceptance and tolerance of homosexuals is just as much a whim of culture as acceptance of paedophiles is in my opinion offensive.
|
On September 13 2013 21:20 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 21:00 Birdie wrote:On September 13 2013 20:51 Velr wrote:
To quote John Steward:
"What is it with you christians and beastiality?"
Or to make it plain simple:
Homosexuality leads to same sex intercourse between two agreeing adults. There is just nothing, on any level, wrong here.
Beastiality and Paedophilia exploits one of the two partners. I should not have to tell you why this is a problem.
Yes, it's that easy and it blows my mind why this stupid argument is not just dieing off. It does not even matter if it's a choice, be it homosexuality or paedophilia, (it isn't) or not... Adultery doesn't exploit either partner, but Christians consider it to be wrong too. Exploitation doesn't determine the immorality of a certain act or thought. Morality is in the eye of the beholder. I think paedophilia is immoral because it's terrible to children, and as a decent human being, I want to protect someone who is innocent. Christians think homosexuality is immoral because God apparently said that it's wrong, there's really no justification beyond that. One could say "Everyone used to agree homosexuality was immoral, now people find it OK. Same thing could happen with paedophilia.", but this is the kind of offensive comparision we talked about earlier. The reasoning behind why either act is immoral is completely different. For a christian to stop viewing homosexuality as immoral, all they have to do is realize that morality isn't decided by an old book and just think about the situation rationally. For people in general to stop viewing paedophilia as immoral, they have to stop being decent human beings and ignore the fact that it's terrible to children. Saying that acceptance and tolerance of homosexuals is just as much a whim of culture as acceptance of paedophiles is in my opinion offensive.
But as you said, morality is in the eye of the beholder. And then you go on to say that morality ISN'T decided by an old book, and give some reasons for why the different sexualities are immoral. I say that morality is decided by the Bible, and it says that any kind of aberrant sexuality is sin, so the comparison and the reasoning why each act is immoral is the same from my point of view, hence why the comparison can be made in the first place. Sure, I'd probably agree that paedophilia is worse than homosexuality, but they fit in the same box of aberrant sexuality. And because we're coming from completely different paths for our morality, I don't think either of us is going to convince the other of any rightness of position. Perhaps better to leave the discussion at that 
|
On September 13 2013 21:50 Birdie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 21:20 Tobberoth wrote:On September 13 2013 21:00 Birdie wrote:On September 13 2013 20:51 Velr wrote:
To quote John Steward:
"What is it with you christians and beastiality?"
Or to make it plain simple:
Homosexuality leads to same sex intercourse between two agreeing adults. There is just nothing, on any level, wrong here.
Beastiality and Paedophilia exploits one of the two partners. I should not have to tell you why this is a problem.
Yes, it's that easy and it blows my mind why this stupid argument is not just dieing off. It does not even matter if it's a choice, be it homosexuality or paedophilia, (it isn't) or not... Adultery doesn't exploit either partner, but Christians consider it to be wrong too. Exploitation doesn't determine the immorality of a certain act or thought. Morality is in the eye of the beholder. I think paedophilia is immoral because it's terrible to children, and as a decent human being, I want to protect someone who is innocent. Christians think homosexuality is immoral because God apparently said that it's wrong, there's really no justification beyond that. One could say "Everyone used to agree homosexuality was immoral, now people find it OK. Same thing could happen with paedophilia.", but this is the kind of offensive comparision we talked about earlier. The reasoning behind why either act is immoral is completely different. For a christian to stop viewing homosexuality as immoral, all they have to do is realize that morality isn't decided by an old book and just think about the situation rationally. For people in general to stop viewing paedophilia as immoral, they have to stop being decent human beings and ignore the fact that it's terrible to children. Saying that acceptance and tolerance of homosexuals is just as much a whim of culture as acceptance of paedophiles is in my opinion offensive. But as you said, morality is in the eye of the beholder. And then you go on to say that morality ISN'T decided by an old book, and give some reasons for why the different sexualities are immoral. I say that morality is decided by the Bible, and it says that any kind of aberrant sexuality is sin, so the comparison and the reasoning why each act is immoral is the same from my point of view, hence why the comparison can be made in the first place. Sure, I'd probably agree that paedophilia is worse than homosexuality, but they fit in the same box of aberrant sexuality. And because we're coming from completely different paths for our morality, I don't think either of us is going to convince the other of any rightness of position. Perhaps better to leave the discussion at that
It's in the eye of the beholder, but you can still discuss it rationally, which ties back to the discussion on intelligence. Finding homosexuality immoral because of the bible is just irrational. Saying that the two concepts (homosexuality and paedophilia) are comparable, is downright stupid and offensive. It would be like me saying "It's OK to murder jews indiscriminately because I read it in this weird book I found" and expecting you to simply agree to disagree because "we're coming from completely different paths for out morality".
|
Hmm, torn when I read stuff like this. Confabulatory statements about something so easy, if something so transparent becomes real, imagine all the other stuff that slips by our bs detector.
Oh well, gl hf.
|
On September 13 2013 15:54 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 15:35 Hryul wrote:On September 13 2013 08:30 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 08:08 Hryul wrote:
I feared this would happen. This blog went its way for ~5 pages but now the non-christians have found it and the discussion runs its predictable course. (until the mods step in, i fear)
I'm a bit sad about this because I rarely see real Christians discuss theological questions and this was a new experience for me. I was hoping that people would leave them alone b/c OP clearly didn't want to discuss with non-christians but here we go. He said non-christians could participate if they were "open-minded." I don't see how I'm not being open-minded. I'm genuinely, 100% interested in knowing how christians decide what to follow out of the bible, and what not to follow (and the rationale behind it). I thought that is what this discussion was about. Is it going to make a believer out of me? No. But it might help me understand contemporary christianity more. Fair enough. I must also admit this didn't turn into an "the bible is self contradictory" shitfest as I expected it. I was rather pessimistic b/c I perceived some of the initial posts as rather aggressive. I guess I'm back to lurking now. It's not surprising that some posts are aggressive when some of the opinions shown here are quite disturbing, specifically IronManSCs views on sexuality, not exactly the kind of views I've come to expect from the generally intelligent community of TL.net.
The thing is: You can't win on the Internet. Especially not "against" a guy who writes a blog how to strenghten your faith. All this aggressive talk will most likely just confirm his bias that non-believers are not open minded. I know you have good intentions but I question it will bring the results you expect.
Just look at the last pages: Your moral comes from the point that "wrong" comes from hurting people and everything else isn't wrong. Their moral come from a scripture that is (at least) inspired by the all-knowing and all-caring truthful god who has nothing but their best in mind. I don't think it will help to call that a "dusty old book". And I don't think you will come to an agreement when your foundations of morality are that different.
|
On September 13 2013 13:16 Birdie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 13:07 Awesomedrifter wrote:EDIT: I'm at work currently so I can't talk much but I wanted to ask, where in the Bible does it say "slavery is fine?" After god gives the 10 commandments he goes into greater detail about the law and says slaves should be sold for 30 silver pieces and that owners can beat their slaves as long as the slave can walk after a few days... That doesn't imply approval of slavery, but rather gives laws for what happens if you do in fact have slaves. Most of the laws are about what to do when people do bad stuff. So slavery is not a good thing in general, but if it does happen that you have slaves, here's what the law says about them.
I get they didn't have machines and needed slaves. The issue is that he approves of violent beatings on the slaves
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 )
If he didn't approve of slavery wouldn't he say "You still gotta treat your slaves nicely"?
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21: 7-11)
He even approves of selling your own daughters as sex slaves.
Are we reading the same book even? Its fine if you wanna live forever and love god, I think thats great. But do realize that your "Lord and Savior" isn't as nice as your church makes him out to be.
|
On September 13 2013 20:18 Birdie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 17:53 ChristianS wrote:
The obvious response then is to say, well if it's wrong, what is the harm that it is doing? Surely if something is wrong it must be hurting someone, or denying the world some good that it would otherwise have. It isn't just wrong arbitrarily. This is the point where I can't really be the one to defend the Christian position since I, like you, think it isn't hurting anyone and therefore isn't wrong. The harm principle is pretty flawed, because it relies on a given definition of "harm". I think it's harmful for children to not be smacked when they do something wrong, other people think it's harmful for children to be smacked when they do something wrong. We both think the same thing is or isn't harmful, so we can each claim harm principle when talking to each other on the issue. A personal suggestion from myself to you is that you work out a better moral guideline than "harmful = bad, not harmful = ok". I say this without knowing if your beliefs about morality extend deeper than that, apologies if I'm making too many assumptions.
Well no, I don't generally base my moral beliefs on the harm principle, but I do believe that morality is based on concrete impacts on the world. That is, murder is not wrong just because, it's wrong because it does real and significant damage to the world. Usually the harm principle fails when something is immoral not because it does a concrete harm, but because it denies the world a concrete benefit. For instance, it's wrong for a really smart kid to drop out of high school and do nothing with his life, not because he's harming the world, but because he could do so much good for himself and others, and he's not doing it.
The failure of the principle you're talking about isn't really a failure. You say corporal punishment is good, someone else says it's bad; right now, there's no path forward. The harm principle forces you both to elaborate the concrete effects of corporal punishment and discuss whether they're good or bad. So then he can't just say "I think it's harmful to smack kids" and you can't just say "I think it's not harmful to smack kids." He has to say "I think it's harmful because it has these psychological effects which are demonstrated by these studies." And you have to say... well, I don't know what your side of that argument is. By what little I know of the psychological studies on corporal punishment, I'm fairly certain it is, in fact, harmful.
But the point is, homosexuality can't just be wrong because. Morality has real and lasting effects on people's happiness and well-being – and if you define it in such a way so that it doesn't, then I don't see why I should care about morality.
|
I was raised religious and I've been to many different kinds of churches and schools + Show Spoiler +Christian church/school, baptist church/awana camp/sunday school, mormon church/sunday school, catholic church/school, and other offshoots churches of these
I am atheist now and I place my faith into humanity, myself, and science. And I don't mean science as a religion. I mean I believe that the scientific method, when used correctly, only can reveal truths and is constantly trying to disprove itself in the face of ultimate truths. I understand science may not or can not prove everything (and like all things, even religions, there is corruption within), but as a general rule it has served me much better than any religion ever has and the corruption is revealed and checked/balanced out most of the time.
Anyway, I am a good person and I don't need confirmation from a religion or something to help me do that or tell me what to do.
|
On September 13 2013 23:38 Awesomedrifter wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 13:16 Birdie wrote:On September 13 2013 13:07 Awesomedrifter wrote:EDIT: I'm at work currently so I can't talk much but I wanted to ask, where in the Bible does it say "slavery is fine?" After god gives the 10 commandments he goes into greater detail about the law and says slaves should be sold for 30 silver pieces and that owners can beat their slaves as long as the slave can walk after a few days... That doesn't imply approval of slavery, but rather gives laws for what happens if you do in fact have slaves. Most of the laws are about what to do when people do bad stuff. So slavery is not a good thing in general, but if it does happen that you have slaves, here's what the law says about them. I get they didn't have machines and needed slaves. The issue is that he approves of violent beatings on the slaves When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 ) If he didn't approve of slavery wouldn't he say "You still gotta treat your slaves nicely"?
I'd like to direct your attention to a different part of the same chapter of Exodus for just a moment. It's Exodus 21:12 "Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death." Also, I much prefer the translation of 21:20-21 that says "When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged" because I think the wording helps make what about to say more clear. (I'm using the ESV or English Standard Version. It tends to be more literal in it's translation than most others)
In with these laws given by God, there is the idea of "The Avenger". This is someone whose family member has been killed by another and it was that family member's duty to make sure that justice was done for the crime. He could choose to show mercy if he wished, but it was his right as the avenger to take the life of the murderer. I think THIS is what is going on with the slaves, NOT that it is saying it is ok to kill your slaves. "He shall be avenged". The slave is a person, just like the free-man in verse 12, and the same rules apply. I think that's the point of the verse more than anything else.
Now, if you are objecting to the use of the word "When" and not "If", remember that these are people who have just come out of slavery themselves. They KNEW what it was like living under the lash and they know what can possibly happen. Even if it's an accident, God knows that it will happen and he is not going to pretend otherwise. I think the fact that he demands the same punishment for killing a slave as any other man shows that God is not ok with it, though.
|
On September 14 2013 04:49 Janaan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 23:38 Awesomedrifter wrote:On September 13 2013 13:16 Birdie wrote:On September 13 2013 13:07 Awesomedrifter wrote:EDIT: I'm at work currently so I can't talk much but I wanted to ask, where in the Bible does it say "slavery is fine?" After god gives the 10 commandments he goes into greater detail about the law and says slaves should be sold for 30 silver pieces and that owners can beat their slaves as long as the slave can walk after a few days... That doesn't imply approval of slavery, but rather gives laws for what happens if you do in fact have slaves. Most of the laws are about what to do when people do bad stuff. So slavery is not a good thing in general, but if it does happen that you have slaves, here's what the law says about them. I get they didn't have machines and needed slaves. The issue is that he approves of violent beatings on the slaves When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 ) If he didn't approve of slavery wouldn't he say "You still gotta treat your slaves nicely"? I'd like to direct your attention to a different part of the same chapter of Exodus for just a moment. It's Exodus 21:12 "Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death." Also, I much prefer the translation of 21:20-21 that says "When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged" because I think the wording helps make what about to say more clear. (I'm using the ESV or English Standard Version. It tends to be more literal in it's translation than most others) In with these laws given by God, there is the idea of "The Avenger". This is someone whose family member has been killed by another and it was that family member's duty to make sure that justice was done for the crime. He could choose to show mercy if he wished, but it was his right as the avenger to take the life of the murderer. I think THIS is what is going on with the slaves, NOT that it is saying it is ok to kill your slaves. "He shall be avenged". The slave is a person, just like the free-man in verse 12, and the same rules apply. I think that's the point of the verse more than anything else. Now, if you are objecting to the use of the word "When" and not "If", remember that these are people who have just come out of slavery themselves. They KNEW what it was like living under the lash and they know what can possibly happen. Even if it's an accident, God knows that it will happen and he is not going to pretend otherwise. I think the fact that he demands the same punishment for killing a slave as any other man shows that God is not ok with it, though.
No it doesn't. You're basing a lot on the fact that the Bible considers slaves to be people, but throughout history slaves were nearly always considered to be people. In fact, American slavery in the South is way more brutal than slavery almost ever was. God clearly has the option to say that slavery is not ideal, if he wants to, and he does not. For instance, if the slave is beaten to within an inch of his life, but survives for a day or two, there is no punishment. The fact that the Old Testament considers them people makes it worse, in a way, since it still allows them to be subjected to such awful treatment.
|
On September 13 2013 23:38 Awesomedrifter wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 13:16 Birdie wrote:On September 13 2013 13:07 Awesomedrifter wrote:EDIT: I'm at work currently so I can't talk much but I wanted to ask, where in the Bible does it say "slavery is fine?" After god gives the 10 commandments he goes into greater detail about the law and says slaves should be sold for 30 silver pieces and that owners can beat their slaves as long as the slave can walk after a few days... That doesn't imply approval of slavery, but rather gives laws for what happens if you do in fact have slaves. Most of the laws are about what to do when people do bad stuff. So slavery is not a good thing in general, but if it does happen that you have slaves, here's what the law says about them. I get they didn't have machines and needed slaves. The issue is that he approves of violent beatings on the slaves When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 ) If he didn't approve of slavery wouldn't he say "You still gotta treat your slaves nicely"?
Have you ever tried to get someone to work who doesn't get paid by you? There's not much else you could do to get a slave to work if they didn't want to besides beating them. I'd say that the law you pointed out essentially is "you gotta treat your slaves nicely". Anywhere else, you could just kill your slave if they weren't doing what you wanted.
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21: 7-11)
He even approves of selling your own daughters as sex slaves.
Are we reading the same book even? Its fine if you wanna live forever and love god, I think thats great. But do realize that your "Lord and Savior" isn't as nice as your church makes him out to be.
Uhhhh I'd say it's pretty clear that the woman is being sold as a wife, not as a sex slave. And again the laws given are if things go wrong, nowhere is tacit approval of slavery, men leaving their wives, and so on. These are cases of what to do when things go wrong, not what to do as the standard way of life. The law is saying that he has to treat her as his wife even if he isn't happy with her until and if her father buys her back.
|
On September 14 2013 07:04 Birdie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 23:38 Awesomedrifter wrote:On September 13 2013 13:16 Birdie wrote:On September 13 2013 13:07 Awesomedrifter wrote:EDIT: I'm at work currently so I can't talk much but I wanted to ask, where in the Bible does it say "slavery is fine?" After god gives the 10 commandments he goes into greater detail about the law and says slaves should be sold for 30 silver pieces and that owners can beat their slaves as long as the slave can walk after a few days... That doesn't imply approval of slavery, but rather gives laws for what happens if you do in fact have slaves. Most of the laws are about what to do when people do bad stuff. So slavery is not a good thing in general, but if it does happen that you have slaves, here's what the law says about them. I get they didn't have machines and needed slaves. The issue is that he approves of violent beatings on the slaves When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 ) If he didn't approve of slavery wouldn't he say "You still gotta treat your slaves nicely"? Have you ever tried to get someone to work who doesn't get paid by you? There's not much else you could do to get a slave to work if they didn't want to besides beating them. I'd say that the law you pointed out essentially is "you gotta treat your slaves nicely". Anywhere else, you could just kill your slave if they weren't doing what you wanted. Show nested quote +
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21: 7-11)
He even approves of selling your own daughters as sex slaves.
Are we reading the same book even? Its fine if you wanna live forever and love god, I think thats great. But do realize that your "Lord and Savior" isn't as nice as your church makes him out to be.
Uhhhh I'd say it's pretty clear that the woman is being sold as a wife, not as a sex slave. And again the laws given are if things go wrong, nowhere is tacit approval of slavery, men leaving their wives, and so on. These are cases of what to do when things go wrong, not what to do as the standard way of life. The law is saying that he has to treat her as his wife even if he isn't happy with her until and if her father buys her back.
No, most ancient societies had restrictions on killing slaves, because they were generally considered people. Hammurabi's code, for instance, had similar rules where slaves were protected by the law, but less so. This is probably a significant influence on the Old Testament, in fact, since Hammurabi's Code probably came first, and the two are so similar; except it's less troubling that Hammurabi's code protected different citizens differently, since nobody today thinks it was divinely inspired.
In the case of a man selling his daughter as a slave, it's pretty clear that she's not being sold as a wife. It even makes clear that if her owner then takes her as a wife, or gives her as a wife to his son, she becomes a free woman. But until that point, she's a slave girl. The only part that isn't addressed is whether or not a slave girl is allowed to be used as a sex slave; on the one hand, I'd be prepared to give the benefit of the doubt and say she isn't, but on the other hand, concubines were definitely part of the culture then. If you or I were to travel back in time and be given the chance to set codes of conduct for the Israelite population, I don't see how anything other than a flat condemnation of this practice would be morally acceptable; that this condemnation is absent from the codes set forth in the Old Testament is surely at least troubling.
|
On September 13 2013 14:32 mizU wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 13:57 Jaaaaasper wrote:On September 13 2013 09:07 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 08:59 Birdie wrote:On September 13 2013 08:57 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 08:31 IronManSC wrote:
Whether or not someone believes in God, everyone has an inward interest in him in some form or another. That's why questions of curiosity and debates pop up. Some of us Christians have been trying to point to the core of true faith, the true Christianity. That is Jesus Christ. Instead of talking about science, philosophical stuff, and why the Old Testament is even there, why don't you just ask Jesus if he's real? If you really ask him in your heart, he will come to you. You got to go to the source of it all. I think this where a lot of the frustration comes from when non-believers try to discuss religion. I'm genuinely interested in understanding modern biblical interpretation, and the reasons behind it. I know it will vary from person to person, and that is fine. I just want to try to understand why some people choose some things out of the bible, while some choose others. In response I get something completely illogical and unrelated. I feel like this is what happens when you start asking too many questions at a church. They say "stop caring about those questions; you're focusing on the wrong thing, just turn to Jesus." Asking myself who Jesus is doesn't do anything to answer my question. To me, Jesus is a Jew that lived from roughly 0-30ish AD, was baptized by John, and was crucified. That's who Jesus is to me, because that is all we can accurately historically prove about him. He falls under the category, for me, as "another prophet guy" from that time period, who, as someone who studies that time period (but not Christianity specifically), was basically a dime a dozen. You couldn't swing a cat without hitting some radical prophet back then. His is one of the cults that made it. That's who he is to me. I know that isn't who he is to you, and that's fine. However, in no way does asking myself "who is Jesus Christ" do I get closer to answering my question, which is: how do contemporary (modern) christians choose what they believe out of the bible, and what they don't. Wondering about Jesus does nothing for that, because to me he is that I guy I stated above. I'm not perhaps a good example of a modern contemporary Christian, but I choose to believe all of the Bible as the infallible inspired word of God Ok, so you try to do all the things the bible says? Like even the really hard/weird stuff like not mixing threads of different fabric, keeping women obedient, and not working at Sunday? If you don't do those things, how do you justify not doing them, if everything in the bible is the infallible word of god? How do you personally create a hierarchy of "stuff you really should (shouldn't) do, and stuff you should try to do, but it's ok if I can't keep up with that." Boy you're feeling euphoric aren't you. Part of the point of faith is trusting that good will both forgive and understand you worshiping him how you feel is correct, and adapting to the times. Also your generalizing Christians pretty heavily there Mizu. Lets not tar all Christians with the same brush, because thats something that shitty Christians do that so offends me and most likely you as well. All the Christians I know believe homosexuality is a choice. Do you believe otherwise?
I've actually met a surpising number who assume that god makes all things, so if he made men who love other men, who are they to judge. Christians like that are why I defend the faith at times.
|
^you can add to your arsenal the fact that sodom and gomorrah is not a story about homosexuality it's about how you shouldn't fucking rape your guests
|
I feel bad for Ironman, good try buddy.
|
Amen brother! It's great to see another Christian here on TL. I went through some serious periods of doubt during my life but after I came across this Christian writer called Lee Strobel who actually went an interviewed hundreds of Christian scientists explaining why evolution is wrong and how Jesse really did walk this Earth, it really strengthened and confirmed my faith.
I challenge anyone who is a non-believer to read a Lee Strobel book - any of them - and still tell me they don't at least accept that there is a possibility that God is real.
I really hope that your blog helps those who do not believe into giving their hearts to God. I wish you all the best brother.
|
On September 15 2013 13:16 Gofarman wrote:
I feel bad for Ironman, good try buddy.
What do you feel bad about? I didn't give up or anything but im not trying to win the argument either. I've been out all weekend for a wedding I'm involved in (it's today actually), and I've chosen not to get involved in any recent discussions cuz it wasn't going to lead anywhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
