wandering peacefully
Which way to the woods?
Yes, it is my subjective view that stoning people to death is sick. So what? Are you suggesting it is not sick/bad/immoral/disgusting/inhumane?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Cherry Picking... especially interested in theist views
- Thread starter Dan Mellis
- Start date
iam1me
Active Member
My position is that while slavery is certainly not ideal (freedom and equality are unquestionably the ideals), it is also not inherently immoral. There are ways about which we might allow people to enter a slavery/servant position which are morally permissible, and there are manners of treating slaves/servants which are morally permissible. These ideas maybe contrary to the common positions of our present society - but that doesn't make them wrong. The scriptures didn't consider slaves to be sub-human things to be used, abused, and tossed out when they can no longer work. Rather, the scriptures constantly remind the Israelites that they were once slaves in Egypt - and to this day the Jewish people celebrate Passover. This offers a unique perspective on slavery that is fundamentally different from so many other cultures. And this is why while the scriptures permit slavery, they simultaneously talk of the rights of slaves, speaking of the responsibilities a masters has to a slave (or he must let them go free of charge), etc. The scriptures even talk of spoiling a slave from a young age, such that they become a son.
The cruelty and evil of American Slavery are what I am speaking of.
You might dislike the idea that the OT Law permitted slaves to be beaten - for it violates our modern sensibilities. However, physical beatings need not be considered cruel. They CAN be of course, but in modern society where the idea of even spanking a child is viewed as child abuse - we have been oversensitized to the idea that any physical discipline = abuse. The OT Law established boundaries for what was permissible. Violating these boundaries would result in those slaves being freed, or even the Master facing vengeance for his crimes if he went far enough.
You can blindly assert that something is a moral failing - but that is not an argument. That is merely you disagreeing. Anyone will admit that on a number of matters the scriptures conflict with the morals of society. You can't conclude, therefore, that the scriptures are immoral. One or both could be wrong - and they only way to establish it one way or the other is to put forth appropriate arguments on each side and evaluate the merits of each position accordingly.
Yes they permitted the buying and selling of slaves - but the scriptures set forth ways that were permissible for people to enter into slavery and ways which were not permissible. You can say you dislike it - but that isn't an argument that it is immoral.
I'd argue that the slavery permitted by the scriptures was far from being the cruelest form of slavery, but rather a very enlightened and even loving form of slavery. You are getting caught up in the classification of chattel slavery and completely ignoring the civil rights provided by the OT Law and the view that these people are as family.
Many American slavers were "Christians" - but they violated everything the scriptures taught on the matter - from how they acquired slaves by kidnapping them, to how they mercilessly beat them and killed them, to how they broke up families, to how they justified all of this through hate and racism, etc. When people call themselves "Christian," but act in every manner contrary to Christianity, these people are not representative of what Christianity teaches.
They are both forms of slavery. There are many variations of slavery - some of which are permissible and others which are not. The fact that you think indentured servitude is OK is evidence of that fact. Realizing that such acceptable practices are also slavery forces you to open your eyes on the matter. You need to look past the term and look at what makes one form OK and another form NOT. Put forth arguments accordingly. Simply stating that you regard something as immoral doens't make it so.
As noted previously, the scriptures are simultaneously idealistic and realistic - a point of contention for people who don't seek to understand what is being said. Obeying earthly authorities is realistic - we all have authorities over us that we must obey in this world. In so far as what is commanded of us by these authorities is morally permissible, we should follow what they say. However, spiritually, in Christ, we are equals:
Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
RESOLUTION
Active Member
What scriptures? You know the scriptures yet you are not homophobic?
Do you know those scriptures were for Gods people the Jews a nation who at that time would consider it nothing to sacrifice a child to a pagan god.
Your post is incorrect that in American and Mexico there are atheists too who believe homosexuality is wrong. But that is the same throughout the world by atheist and believer.
Are you saying we should ignore the fact that atheists are probably the worst homophobics in that they attack and hurt those who are homosexual. It is one thing to say and believe something
is wrong and another to harm someone for that belief. Most attacks on homosexuals are not by people of faith but atheists.
I have made my opinion very clear. NO individual person should be hurt or attacked for their sexuality, race or beliefs.
My post was clear that nature for procreation purposes do not allow two men or two women to procreate naturally. Man and woman is the way of nature., Using that terminology you use then you
would open the door for beastality and peadophilia being normal by nature. Your reasoning is not logical. You cannot make something 'normal' by nature because humans do it.
The biggest test of proof is that you yourself are not homosexual but if an act of nature you can become homosexual. The truth is you do not choose to be homosexual and nature cannot force
you to be homosexual. So by nature it is not right for you or 'normal' for you.
I was speaking about slavery in ancient Israel.
That was my point. It's an ancient ethic inferior to modern ethics by the standard of reciprocity and the Golden Rule, and that is evidence that either these ideas come from primitive men or a god whose ethics doesn't keep up with modern man's
I don't have a choice but to consider beatings cruel. I cringe at the thought of somebody doing that to somebody else. Apparently, not everybody does.
No, it's not. It's a subjective judgment. If you find the ethics of slavery acceptable, then you have made a different subjective judgment.
My argument was that there is no reason to believe that ancient Hebrew slavery couldn't be as vicious and cruel as it was anywhere else. Your counter-argument was that scriptures prevented it. I told you that I didn't find that credible. Scripture could no more prevent people from owning slaves then as it did in the American South, same Old Testament, Christianity tempered by a New Testament featuring a gentle deity (or deity's agent on earth).
Since you don't seem to have a problem with beatings per se, how do you feel about torture and inquisitions to ensure orthodoxy? Immoral, or moral under certain circumstances? Is there a little wiggle room there as you imply there is with slavery? Are some forms of inquisitions less sadistic, and therefore not immoral to you?
I didn't say otherwise. I said the original source of their homophobia is the dominant religion. One may choose to be an atheist after having grown up in a Christian home that was homophobic, and retain his parents' bigotry if not their religion.
That's not my experience. Most atheists I know are secular humanists, and are not homophobic. Homophobia is coming from the pulpits. God will destroy homosexuals for being immoral and worthy of eternal torture. That is the root source of all similar feelings in America and Mexico.
But what interest is that of the individuals engaging in sex? Most of the time, it's sex without procreation, not procreation that is on their minds. I had a vasectomy as a younger man to ensure that sex didn't lead to procreation. The only purpose or value of sex to me was for bonding and pleasure.
I am not interested in what others are implying are nature's values, purpose, or intent, since I don't acknowledge that such things exist. As far as we can tell, nature is unconscious, and therefore can make no plans and has no intentions.
Nature can and does bequeath some individuals with homosexual proclivities. Christianity creates a kind ordeal for the lives of such people. It throws down this gauntlet : Express yourself like heterosexuals are free to do and risk the wrath of god's people, or hide who you are, perhaps loathing oneself or one's life.
As I indicated to the gentleman above, the ethics of secular humanism is based on the principle of reciprocity - what some call the Golden Rule. I imagine being born into a world where my sexual preference was declared to be an abomination in the eyes of a good god. Would I like that? If not, I know to reject treating others that way. It's that simple.
iam1me
Active Member
Asserting that "modern ethics" are superior does not make them so and is not an argument.
Physical discipline is as old as time, and at times necessary. Some people take it too far - or administer physical punishment for no good reason, in which case it crosses over into abuse. Maybe you were never spanked as a child. I was - and even got some funny stories out of it.
Case and point: when I was still a young child (1st grade or so), I was told to do some chore that I'd been procrastinating on or I'd be spanked. So unafraid was I of being spanked - because it was never abuse - that I tried to barter. I asked if I just took the spanking would I still be required to do the chore? My parents broke out laughing.
I recognized that abuse is a real problem that must be addressed, but it is simply fallacious to equate any physical discipline with abuse.
If ethics are nothing more to you than subjective judgements, if you subscribe to the idea that all morals are simply relative, then you have no basis for deriding other's morals. You can merely disagree without any objective justification for your disagreement.
I was never arguing that individuals couldn't go above and beyond what the scriptures allowed - that's what is known as sin. If people sin contrary to what is commanded in the scriptures - that is on them - and there are consequences given in the scriptures for such cases.
The inquisitions were contrary to the teachings of Christ at a fundamental level. Christ explicitly forbade such things - it isn't our job to go about finding and punishing those who don't truly believe or who hold unorthodox views.
Torture is undesirable as a rule, but there maybe extreme circumstances where it is permissible. I'm sure we could dream up some scenarios if you are really interested. For instance: a man is known to have kidnapped your daughter. You caught the man but all efforts to locate the daughter have turned up dead ends, and there is a very real fear that she will die if not found soon. The man refuses to tell you where he has hidden her, and taunts you: "tick-tock!" Is it ok to beat this person, torture him even, to attempt to acquire information on her whereabouts before time is up? I think so.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Which is rather ridiculous, since homosexuality is literally about males who only want to have sex with other males.
So that seems like a completely arbitrary and irrelevant statement to make.
Homosexuality occurs at an 11% frequency throught the mammal kingdom.
Sounds pretty natural to me.
They were not supposed to enjoy sex?
Then why were they given sexual organs capable of orgasm?
Makes zero sense again.
And it's impossible to do that, if you enjoy having sex?
Being happy, enjoying yourself and enjoying physical contact with your other half, is a "sin"?
What kind of bizar beliefs do you people have....
I enjoy sex with my other half. We use contraceptives as well, so it's really just about the sex and the intimacy. I'm not suffering. Apparantly, I'm an evil sinner because I enjoy physical contact with the person that I love and spend / share my life with?
Loving someone and expressing that love in intimate love-making, is evil?
So please tell me how it is apparantly "immoral" for me to engage in intimate love-making with the person I'm spending my life with?
Yes, you've said that already. We already know what the bible says.
Please explain it now. What is so immoral about intimate love-making for the sake of intimate love-making instead of procreation?
You have yet to explain what exactly is so "immoral" about intimate love-making.
All you've done is just assert it "cause the bible says it, so that settles it".
sooda
Veteran Member
Defiling the Temple was definitely an abomination of desolation.. so consider Antiochus IV, Titus and Vespasian and Nero.
My guess is that the temple is a place of peacemaking and sharing. All who enter are equals, but if that practice is replaced showing partiality and asserting dominance then it undoes the entire concept. Temple becomes like pagan temples, hence it is called abomination.
Yes, you said that already. I am not making a moral argument. I am making a moral judgment, my morals. I place the Golden Rule at the apex of my hierarchy of values. I cannot and do not argue that you should do the same. If such ideas don't drive your moral compass, then they don't, and nobody will change that.
What I have argued is that the Bible condones slavery, and that even if it had forbid it, your claim that slavery wasn't the same in the past is unsupported, and not credible. You simply assert that, and I have no reason to believe it.
I would also now claim that taking one's ethics from the Bible has a deleterious effect on moral thought. For example, it might make one think that slavery, beatings, and torture aren't necessarily immoral. But that claim is also rooted in the assumption that the highest good is that arrangement which most promotes the pursuit of happiness by the greatest number, utilitarian ethics. If that's not your highest value, then you will come to different conclusion, ones which don't respect the Golden Rule.
You're doing it again. First, you tried to transform slavery into a helpful, voluntary financial arrangement (indentured servitude), and now beatings that can kill a man as long as he dies over three or more days with spankings.
But I understand why you feel the need to do this. Your job as you see it is to defend the Bible, which claims that its gods ethical commands represent ethical perfection, from critics who say otherwise by any means necessary..
I was referring to beatings. You seem to have no problem with that.
I am free to criticize and condemn anybody's morals. The basis for so doing is rational ethics applied to the Golden Rule. If that's not your process for determining right and wrong, I wouldn't be interested in what you decided upon. If it's not your method of deciding the moral status of a given act, your ideas won't speak to me at all except to reinforce in me why I don't respect biblical ethics, and why I consider it detrimental to people.
Christians are continually chanting "love one another," as if that is their credo, even while defending beatings, slavery and torture. Secular humanists understand why that is unkind and unloving, and therefore immoral.
Except that I wasn't referring to extreme circumstances. I was discussing slavery in ancient Israel, which was undoubtedly an everyday practice. Slavery is a form of torture. And theft.
I notice that you don't mind giving your moral judgment in the form of declarative statements of fact. Nor does your Bible.
RESOLUTION
Active Member
Dan Mellis
Thorsredballs
I'd accept that as a valid point, back in the day when life was unstable and it was necessary to proliferate the human race by any means possible. But if a christian were to make it, I'd simply say "then why didn't god inspire them to specify 'its bad to be gay unless you also make sure you produce kids' or 'its not evil to be gay, it's just not ideal at the minute. Can you wait a millenium or so?"
I know you're not defending that position so its not an argument against you per se
amorphous_constellation
Well-Known Member
I watched shapiro make an explanation of it that at least gives some clarity and name some caveats which may be appreciated to some degree. (though I'm not a fan of his) Namely, that such verses in the covenant aren't externalized, therefore outside of it we are the free architects of whatever law or moral system we choose. As to people who are naturally homosexual within his religious community, shapiro drew the distinction between acting out those feelings and just having them, the former he says is the sin and the latter is not. How such a person should deal with that I have no comment on, I don't know.
One might ask how such verses are read in christianity. I think that probably, a lot of times they seem to read such verses in a favorable view as it relates to sin. Though I may wrong, I can't recall one instance where any of the gospels or epistles deal with topic. Contrariwise, and I mean this without an iota of sardonic inflection, but with whatever objective focus of the intellect I can muster, I think that christian history seems much tilted toward gender exclusive amiability. The concept of brotherhood so often seems described as having the widest berth of affection, tied into even mortality, that I am unsure if such feelings are to be perceived as registering as within assigned bound.
One might ask how such verses are read in christianity. I think that probably, a lot of times they seem to read such verses in a favorable view as it relates to sin. Though I may wrong, I can't recall one instance where any of the gospels or epistles deal with topic. Contrariwise, and I mean this without an iota of sardonic inflection, but with whatever objective focus of the intellect I can muster, I think that christian history seems much tilted toward gender exclusive amiability. The concept of brotherhood so often seems described as having the widest berth of affection, tied into even mortality, that I am unsure if such feelings are to be perceived as registering as within assigned bound.
Dan Mellis
Thorsredballs
Thanks for the reply
The first point is essentially "love the sinner, hate the sin" argument. If I was to say "I don't hate that you're a baseball player, I just hate that you play baseball" you might be able to see the problem with this argument. Is someone gay if they aren't "gay"? Secuality is inexorable from a person's identity, so theres a reasonable argument to me made that hating homosexual acts is to hate the expression of that persons identity. Therefore, it's homophobia.
Secondly, I'm afraid that I don't put much stock into christian historians. The main reason is that they set out with something to prove, and this automatically makes their work subject to their bias. However, in this case, I think a layperson in biblical studies can see through the conclusion that the bible is tilted towards gender exlusive amiability. For example, how much is a slave worth? How about a woman slave? Should women obey their husbands? In the story (which even some christian historians have concluded is likely false) about jesus asking the person without sin to start stoning the adultress caught in the act, where was the adulterer? The woman is the only recipient of the any sort of reported punishment.
Clearly the Bible is fiction, so objecting to its descriptions about the nature of God is a waste of time. It is better to demonstrate that Christian claims are false.
I never hear atheists discuss other conceptions of God besides the Christian view, for example, philosophically based views.
Dan Mellis
Thorsredballs
I agree it's probably fiction (I don't like to make claims I can't 100% prove to be true), but arguing about its morality and the morality of montheistic religion is never a waste of time; these groups can, and do, attempt to legislate their religious values which are based upon the heinous teachings of rambling, violent, intolerant misogynists. I don't try to prove that their claims are false, as that's not my job. Its on them to claim why their claims are truth; I'll just point out why their arguments are fallacious, immoral an/or nonsensical.
I'd love to talk about a philisophical position on god! Do you mean a Deistic veiw as in "there is probably a god but it doesnt care or even necessarily know about us" sort of thing? That way, we can get away from the monstrosity that is christianity/islam/judaism.
Personally, although this view is ostensibly less hostile than monotheistic views, I still remain unconvinced. Let me explain why.
The origin of the universe is something we will probably never understand, certainly not in our lifetimes. There are a plethora of possible explainations - and none have much more evidence that any other. I don't necessarily see that any "creator" or other supernatural, conscious being had to have kicked it all off. In fact, although its one possible cause, I think its probably more true to say that as humans, it's impossible for us to truly comprehend the concept of "what came before". I'm happy to accept that whatever came before defies my capability to understand it (if 'it' even happened).
That being said, I think theres a solid philisophical argument for something always existing. I'd be willing to concede that point. Then it just boils down to our own definitions of "god" and our reasoning for that position.
I'd argue that whatever came before was natural as far as the bounds of that reality allowed, and that if something exists that can consciously create something in this universe then it must adhere to the laws of this universe; rendering it natural as opposed to supernatural.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
There are 507 OT laws which (if kept) made a safe, strong, cohesed, healthy, very successful nation of people.
You have focused upon one, so let's look at your one.
The best way to build a large strong people quickly as possible was for men and women to bond together and have children......... and more children.
These relationships needed to be closed, or sickness could be transmitted through the people very quickly, leading to weakness and mass illnesses.
Men needed to bond with women for this to work, in closed couples. So Men sleeping with men didn't make the people stronger, and had a high risk of transmission of sickness.
Let me give you one more of the 507. All roofs had to be fitted with parapets. Try and figure how that saved lives and helped security and safety.
You see? Every law counted back then, not just your choice.
Do we need to keep your choice of law today?
No! We got too many children!
No! We have better medicine.
None of the 507 were about morals, that's a junk idea, they were about success as a nation.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Do you think the bible is all fiction?
How we know an interpretation is correct:
the message has to be consistent with other message. Like your quoted verse about homosexual acts - a similar message is given in the New Testament (that sexual act is a sin).
What does the New Testament say about homosexuality?
A correct interpretation does not get into conflict with other verses in the Bible.
A Bible-study is a must, since it usually explains more than just what we read as a verse.
There are sentences that are true or partially true. The OT from David on has some historical truth. The book of Acts has some truth. And here and there.
Yes, this should be opposed vigorously.