Happy Atheist Forum

Community => Life As An Atheist => Topic started by: AnimatedDirt on March 13, 2012, 08:55:28 PM

Title: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: AnimatedDirt on March 13, 2012, 08:55:28 PM
The reply is amusing to me.

"Slaves, Obey Your Masters" Billboard (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/13/atheist-slavery-billboard-pennsylvania-raises-tempers_n_1342268.html?ref=religion)

The billboard is posted in a racially diverse area...using a racially specific image...but yet:

Quote
I want to say that I'm truly sorry that many people have misunderstood this billboard. It was never our intention to use race as our message itself.

Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Tank on March 13, 2012, 09:08:42 PM
It's an interesting article and the poster was rather insensitive. The slaves in the bible era in the context of biblical history would not have been Africans but other Semitic people?
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: AnimatedDirt on March 13, 2012, 09:24:30 PM
It's an interesting article and the poster was rather insensitive. The slaves in the bible era in the context of biblical history would not have been Africans but other Semitic people?

Semitic includes many peoples, but it mainly is thought to be "Jewish".  Suffice to say "slaves" included non-Jews.
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Guardian85 on March 13, 2012, 09:29:44 PM
While there may be issues relataed to the delivery of the message, can anyone deny the veracity it's intended meaning?
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Tank on March 13, 2012, 09:32:19 PM
It's an interesting article and the poster was rather insensitive. The slaves in the bible era in the context of biblical history would not have been Africans but other Semitic people?

Semitic includes many peoples, but it mainly is thought to be "Jewish".  Suffice to say "slaves" included non-Jews.
But Semetic does not include Negroid does it? Arabs are Semitic are they not? Which group do you think is most likely to be in the preponderance of slaves around the time the relevant parts of the bible were written?
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: AnimatedDirt on March 13, 2012, 09:33:37 PM
While there may be issues relataed to the delivery of the message, can anyone deny the veracity it's intended meaning?

Just because the Bible "condones slavery", doesn't mean anyone is putting it back on the ballot for another round.  
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: AnimatedDirt on March 13, 2012, 09:34:47 PM
But Semetic does not include Negroid does it? Arabs are Semitic are they not? Which group do you think is most likely to be in the preponderance of slaves around the time the relevant parts of the bible were written?

I don't know.  What I do know is that it wasn't race specific.
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Tank on March 13, 2012, 09:37:19 PM
While there may be issues relataed to the delivery of the message, can anyone deny the veracity it's intended meaning?
I think it's the delivery that is the problem. That causes the underlying message (biblical morality is now obsolete) to be missed.
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Asmodean on March 14, 2012, 12:09:16 AM
Well, the thing being a big poster, one would think people would be rather thick-skinned about it. Still, seeing how some people overreact to the slightest miscommuniation, I agree that the way of delivery of the message is unwise.
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Sandra Craft on March 14, 2012, 01:22:14 AM
Well, the thing being a big poster, one would think people would be rather thick-skinned about it. Still, seeing how some people overreact to the slightest miscommuniation, I agree that the way of delivery of the message is unwise.

Yeah, but I had to be told what the problem was -- my immediate interpretation was "bible is not a good book, much less the good book".  Race relations is such a field of eggshells in America that it's best to leave anything even remotely touching it completely alone, even when it's on point.
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Guardian85 on March 14, 2012, 08:13:35 AM
While there may be issues relataed to the delivery of the message, can anyone deny the veracity it's intended meaning?

Just because the Bible "condones slavery", doesn't mean anyone is putting it back on the ballot for another round.  

The message was one of disgust that the government would celebrate a book with that kind of filthy idea in it, not that they would "put it on the ballot".

Not right away, anyway... (insert conspiratorial smiley)
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Too Few Lions on March 14, 2012, 10:58:44 AM
The poster's also factually inaccurate. The quote's from Colossians, written sometime in the first or second century CE, not the Bronze Age. It was written by a citizen of the Roman Empire, so the slaves in question could be from anywhere in Europe, northern Africa or the Middle East.

I think it's a little unfair to say that the Bible condones slavery based on one small quote. Plus it was an everyday thing back then, however unpleasant a concept it might seem to us today. I guess it does show that a 2000 year old book shouldn't be the cornerstone of any modern progressive society, but anyone with half a brain should be able to see that (even if many can't!)
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Sweetdeath on March 14, 2012, 11:52:21 AM
Isn't the message of this billboard just saying "Don't use a 2000 year old book to guide your modern day life" ? I mean, that's what I took from it at least.

If most religious people actually read through the entirely of the bible, they'd probably get it can't possibly apply to the year 2012. I actually like this billboard, because it does display the message " LIVE LIFE IN THE MODERN TIME" ... at least that's what I think it is intending to say.
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: The Magic Pudding on March 14, 2012, 01:20:16 PM
It is a weird looking slave picture, I wouldn't put my slaves in such a thing, could take an eye out.
The language of the bible always seemed master and servant to me and I've never enjoyed being subservient for long.
Divine right of kings. Oh lord forgive me! Lord lord do what you will and I'll not dare to look at you askew.
I've heard Americans bow to no one, I suppose that's true but there's a snigger to be had for those who hear it with a particular nuance.  "We Are American, We Bow To No One" is an excellent title, has anyone used it yet?
The oldest building in my town is a church built about 1825 by men in chains, they were white though.
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Sandra Craft on March 14, 2012, 02:45:56 PM
I think it's a little unfair to say that the Bible condones slavery based on one small quote. Plus it was an everyday thing back then, however unpleasant a concept it might seem to us today.

That's very true, and because of that there's a lot more in the bible than just that one quote that supports or implies support for slavery.  Like most literature, the bible is very much a book of its time.

Quote
I guess it does show that a 2000 year old book shouldn't be the cornerstone of any modern progressive society, but anyone with half a brain should be able to see that (even if many can't!)

Which is what I thought the message was, but my guess is that the image used was so gut-wrenching, esp. for blacks, that the message was completely lost in the reaction to the image.  I think the billboard was intended to have a gut punch effect, they just underestimated the strength of that particular punch.
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Truthseeker on March 14, 2012, 04:44:11 PM
My tenrure in Christianity was replete with a twisting of the immoral passages reflected in the Bible.  Anything that seemed nefarious in the slightest was inevitably articulated as reasonable or innocuous.  In this instance "slaves" were supposedly "maidservants".  Well then why use the term "slaves" then??  I mean we are talking about an infallible book that was written by a supreme being.  Why not make the reference as "maidservants" to prevent confusion.

And, yes, for you Christians out there, it is translated as "slave" from the original Hebrew.   
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Amicale on March 14, 2012, 05:38:44 PM
Isn't the message of this billboard just saying "Don't use a 2000 year old book to guide your modern day life" ? I mean, that's what I took from it at least.

If most religious people actually read through the entirely of the bible, they'd probably get it can't possibly apply to the year 2012. I actually like this billboard, because it does display the message " LIVE LIFE IN THE MODERN TIME" ... at least that's what I think it is intending to say.

Or at the very least, it's suggesting that we need to think critically about how we live our lives, with the implication being that most of what society believed and lived by back then isn't what we believe and live by now. Slavery in the bible was more or less a form of indentured servitude. When you couldn't pay off a debt, or when you were a prisoner of war, you would become a slave and through the work you did you could often purchase your freedom again -- but even so, it doesn't make it right, and it doesn't make it a system we'd ever want to adopt today.

We shouldn't probably throw the baby out with the bathwater, though. I mean, it doesn't necessarily follow that just because an idea is 2,000 years old, it's wrong objectively and should be dismissed. For instance, if this earth survives its idiotic human population another 2,000 years without going 'foom' in nuclear blasts... chances are, the idea of evolution will still be around. I'm sure the science will be developed in astounding ways, and humanity will know more than we could ever hope to know now (and will have gotten rid of a lot of our current ideas), but the basic idea of evolution will probably still exist unless the scientific community at that time utterly disproves it. Unlikely, but possible.

So by the same token, there may be some 'nice bits' or 'morally neutral' bits in the Bible that are more or less still in existence today. It may be appropriate to acknowledge those... but there's an awful lot that we can reject as no longer being relevant to us now. Like slavery, for instance. I'd like to think that in 2,000 years, we as a species have developed further emotionally and morally than the people who lived back then. When I look around the world though, I do see that that progress, that development, doesn't depend on time. It depends on education. The more educated we are, the less we need the destructive old memes society used to live by -- the very ones that some cultures today do unfortunately still live by.
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: AnimatedDirt on March 14, 2012, 07:05:00 PM
And, yes, for you Christians out there, it is translated as "slave" from the original Hebrew.

Oh!  I thought the original Hebrew was more along the lines of a roommate.  Shucks.  There goes my faith again.  [/sarcasm]

:)
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Amicale on March 14, 2012, 07:37:47 PM
And, yes, for you Christians out there, it is translated as "slave" from the original Hebrew.

Oh!  I thought the original Hebrew was more along the lines of a roommate.  Shucks.  There goes my faith again.  [/sarcasm]

:)

AD, I hope the compliment I'm about to give you won't surprise and shock you or anything  :D but I happen to think that it's highly unlikely stuff like this would sway your personal faith. From what I can tell from what you've posted or said in the past, you've carefully thought about why you believe what you do, you've managed to make your faith both personal and contemporary, and you're willing to say 'I don't know' when you honestly aren't sure of something -- you don't blindly accept old arguments just because some think they might be good ones. So not that my opinion's worth anything, but even if we agree to disagree on faith issues, I genuinely respect the way you conduct yourself, and the way it seems you've thought out your beliefs. Things that don't make good moral sense today, you don't appear to buy into. And that's why it would certainly surprise me if you'd look at the slavery passage and go "oh shucks, I can't believe any more."
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: AnimatedDirt on March 14, 2012, 08:08:02 PM
AD, I hope the compliment I'm about to give you won't surprise and shock you or anything...[...]

I'll take it as such.  Thank you.

I suppose the frustrating part about being on this forum (as I don't belong to any other forum of the Atheist sort) is that, as I've mentioned, there is good reason to doubt, however I feel there is just as much reason to believe.  Both, the believer and the unbeliever, have made a choice based on their own interpretation and order of importance. 
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Asmodean on March 14, 2012, 08:32:35 PM
...and order of importance. 
I think priorities are indeed an important part of it for the more reflected believer or atheist. For someone who never knew a different life philosophy, maybe not so much.
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Truthseeker on March 14, 2012, 10:44:18 PM
And, yes, for you Christians out there, it is translated as "slave" from the original Hebrew.

Oh!  I thought the original Hebrew was more along the lines of a roommate.  Shucks.  There goes my faith again.  [/sarcasm]

:)

AD, the comment I made was not at all intended to be offensive.  I certainly hope it did not come off that way.  I am just all to familiar with the argument of misinterpretation.  It is yet another source of reasoning that I employed as much or more than anyone when I was defending statements in the Bible (of which I held very dear) that seemed off the rails.  Whenever I came upon such a statement, one of my first responses was to look it up in the original Hebrew hoping it had been mistranslated.  So my apologies if it came off as anything other than just completing my thought.
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: AnimatedDirt on March 14, 2012, 10:58:07 PM
And, yes, for you Christians out there, it is translated as "slave" from the original Hebrew.

Oh!  I thought the original Hebrew was more along the lines of a roommate.  Shucks.  There goes my faith again.  [/sarcasm]

:)

AD, the comment I made was not at all intended to be offensive.  I certainly hope it did not come off that way.  I am just all to familiar with the argument of misinterpretation.  It is yet another source of reasoning that I employed as much or more than anyone when I was defending statements in the Bible (of which I held very dear) that seemed off the rails.  Whenever I came upon such a statement, one of my first responses was to look it up in the original Hebrew hoping it had been mistranslated.  So my apologies if it came off as anything other than just completing my thought.

That's the whole point.  The bible DOES SEEM to condone lots of things...the meaning is not always on the surface, but within the context of the culture.  If some person lost their faith in God over whether the translation was "slave" or "roommate" is to say that that person never understood the story(ies) and simply never thought them over and put them into the context of today.  Also, this person probably never realized that WE are all slaves to the law that condemns...and how the slave of that culture relates to us today.  It has nothing to do with whether the bible condones slavery.  The historical story simply relays the actions of those people and is there for a reason.  If we make that reason to be the shallow "slavery" issue of the Negros from Africa and the early American position...we've lost the deeper meanin.  If it does condone slavery, then why is it that all of Christianity is not promoting slavery? 
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Guardian85 on March 14, 2012, 11:08:34 PM
  If it does condone slavery, then why is it that all of Christianity is not promoting slavery? 

Because mainstream religion has cherry picked the bits they like, and most christians don't even know it's in there?
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Truthseeker on March 14, 2012, 11:43:26 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt

That's the whole point.  The bible DOES SEEM to condone lots of things...the meaning is not always on the surface, but within the context of the culture.  If some person lost their faith in God over whether the translation was "slave" or "roommate" is to say that that person never understood the story(ies) and simply never thought them over and put them into the context of today.  Also, this person probably never realized that WE are all slaves to the law that condemns...and how the slave of that culture relates to us today.  It has nothing to do with whether the bible condones slavery.  The historical story simply relays the actions of those people and is there for a reason.  If we make that reason to be the shallow "slavery" issue of the Negros from Africa and the early American position...we've lost the deeper meanin.  If it does condone slavery, then why is it that all of Christianity is not promoting slavery? 

My only point was that I was not trying to be offensive with the "And yes, for those Christians out there...." comment.  As far as the rest of your post, I was never one to give my Christian beliefs or the Bible cursory thought.  The Bible was my life.  I studied it backwards and forwards for a solid decade.  I would have laid down my life for it.  I majored in theology for a few semesters.   It was my aim to be a preacher.  So I do have an intimate understanding of what you are referring to when you speak of the "culture" of that time and how it relates to today.  And I certainly did not walk away from my faith because of this silly verse.  Good god there are so many other blinding non sequiturs in the Bible that gave me pause and forced me to reconcile my rationale mind with the belief I was grasping.   It was not easy to walk away by any means.  I cried my eyes out.  But I knew I could not continue in this way. 

Furthermore, I completely concur with Amicale and her respect for you and your conduct on this forum.  Christianity needs more stand up people like yourself.       
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Sandra Craft on March 15, 2012, 01:19:03 AM
Also, this person probably never realized that WE are all slaves to the law that condemns...and how the slave of that culture relates to us today.

I've got to say, this is something that's always irked me -- equating a metaphorical state to an actual one.  We may be subject to the laws, but that is nowhere near the same as being a slave.

Quote
It has nothing to do with whether the bible condones slavery.  The historical story simply relays the actions of those people and is there for a reason.  If we make that reason to be the shallow "slavery" issue of the Negros from Africa and the early American position...we've lost the deeper meanin.

I rather think the deeper meaning of the bible's condoning slavery is found it's being evidence that humans create the gods that suit them, and I don't even know what to make of the idea that America's history of slavery is a shallow issue. 

Quote
If it does condone slavery, then why is it that all of Christianity is not promoting slavery? 

Different times, different culture sweeping embarrassing old ways under the rug, or ignorance of the bible's contents.  We've gone over this before.
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 02:57:43 PM
My only point was that I was not trying to be offensive with the "And yes, for those Christians out there...." comment.  As far as the rest of your post, I was never one to give my Christian beliefs or the Bible cursory thought.  The Bible was my life.  I studied it backwards and forwards for a solid decade.  I would have laid down my life for it.  I majored in theology for a few semesters.   It was my aim to be a preacher.  So I do have an intimate understanding of what you are referring to when you speak of the "culture" of that time and how it relates to today.  And I certainly did not walk away from my faith because of this silly verse.  Good god there are so many other blinding non sequiturs in the Bible that gave me pause and forced me to reconcile my rationale mind with the belief I was grasping.   It was not easy to walk away by any means.  I cried my eyes out.  But I knew I could not continue in this way.  

Furthermore, I completely concur with Amicale and her respect for you and your conduct on this forum.  Christianity needs more stand up people like yourself.

I didn't mean to insinuate that you had given up your religion over something so silly.  What I meant is that people (not you) that DO give up on religion over these types of things are the same people (IMHO) that do not take the time to own their religion.  That's not to say that everything can be explained, but that one can come to understand that we cannot always have all the answers.  Much like in science, we shrug our shoulders and expect that further down the path to truth we will find it.  It's quite ok to say we don't know everything.

And thank you too.  I endeavor to keep on that path.
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 03:12:17 PM
Also, this person probably never realized that WE are all slaves to the law that condemns...and how the slave of that culture relates to us today.

I've got to say, this is something that's always irked me -- equating a metaphorical state to an actual one.  We may be subject to the laws, but that is nowhere near the same as being a slave.

Uninformed statement.  That's to say that it seems to me you might not have a clear understanding of the meaning when the bible writer says we are slaves to the law.  I'll leave you to search that out for yourself if you really want an understanding.

Quote from: BooksCatsEtc
Quote
It has nothing to do with whether the bible condones slavery.  The historical story simply relays the actions of those people and is there for a reason.  If we make that reason to be the shallow "slavery" issue of the Negros from Africa and the early American position...we've lost the deeper meanin.

I rather think the deeper meaning of the bible's condoning slavery is found it's being evidence that humans create the gods that suit them, and I don't even know what to make of the idea that America's history of slavery is a shallow issue.

What I meant by "shallow" (maybe not such a great word to convey) is that we equate the slavery of the bible to the slavery we know from our more recent history.  It wasn't the same. 

Quote from: BooksCatsEtc
Quote
If it does condone slavery, then why is it that all of Christianity is not promoting slavery? 

Different times, different culture sweeping embarrassing old ways under the rug, or ignorance of the bible's contents.  We've gone over this before.

It doesn't embarrass me one bit.  It's human nature portrayed without editing out the "ugly" side.
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Ecurb Noselrub on March 15, 2012, 03:51:58 PM
  If it does condone slavery, then why is it that all of Christianity is not promoting slavery? 

Because mainstream religion has cherry picked the bits they like, and most christians don't even know it's in there?

And what's wrong with cherry picking?  How else do you get the cherries?  Once you move past the "written in stone" idea (which almost all Christians have), then it's just a matter of figuring which principles and practices still apply in the modern world.  You can have a core of what is considered historical fact (Paul's summary of the core gospel truth in I Cor. 15, for example), and then the rest is a matter of contemporary application.
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Amicale on March 15, 2012, 04:35:17 PM
  If it does condone slavery, then why is it that all of Christianity is not promoting slavery? 

Because mainstream religion has cherry picked the bits they like, and most christians don't even know it's in there?

And what's wrong with cherry picking?  How else do you get the cherries?  Once you move past the "written in stone" idea (which almost all Christians have), then it's just a matter of figuring which principles and practices still apply in the modern world.  You can have a core of what is considered historical fact (Paul's summary of the core gospel truth in I Cor. 15, for example), and then the rest is a matter of contemporary application.

Well, I think we can at least say something good about the flexible nature of the Christians who have decided to get past the 'written in stone' idea. The problem is, despite their preference for not taking the Bible to be a 'written in stone' type of thing, the Bible itself says in several passages that it's the word of God, that it's meant to be authoritative, etc. In some cases (one, at least) the word of God was supposedly quite literally set in stone. So, either one believes that all the scriptures are the inspired word of God... or they don't. That's the problem right there, with picking and choosing what you like, and leaving what you don't. If Christians believed the Bible was completely, 100% human in origin, then sure, take only what you like -- the good bits.

Thing is, they believe the Bible to be divine. So when they gloss over or skip certain parts of it, what they're saying is either "I don't believe THIS part is from God", or "I don't really believe the whole thing is from God", or "whether it's divine or not, I don't buy that particular part". The Bible says God never changes, that he's the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. So the argument can't even be made for "well, that was back then, and this is now." One can only logically assume that if 'God' said something and meant it then, he'd say it and mean it now -- otherwise, it would suggest that God changes with the times, just like we do.

Don't get me wrong -- I think it's great that humans change, that we're capable of change, and capable of rational, critical thought. I just think it doesn't do us much good to be picky and choosy about what we decide to think critically about. :) But it's at least progress, to know that we're increasingly seeing the ancient texts as cultural, contextual, human documents. Which of course they are. At least in that sense, the Christians who also agree on this point seem to be taking part in a shift away from the belief that God is the essential author of the bible. They see that human flaws, bias, and culture snuck in there. Admitting that the bible perhaps isn't as inspired as previous generations insisted it was can only be a good thing -- because I'd HATE to think that God, if God existed, could honestly hold the "morality" found in so much of the Bible.
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Guardian85 on March 15, 2012, 04:54:28 PM
Amicale, are you reading my mind?
That is very much my thinking about the bible.

There is also the matter of the thousands and thousands of christians that pick and choose bits of the bible, and still claim it to be perfect and authoritarian.  Add to these the people who have never actually read the bible, but only had the nice bits read to them...

We call that hipocricy where I come from.
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Asmodean on March 15, 2012, 05:01:13 PM
We call that hipocricy where I come from.
We call it hypocrisy over at my place  :P
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Ecurb Noselrub on March 15, 2012, 05:24:08 PM
the Bible itself says in several passages that it's the word of God, that it's meant to be authoritative, etc. In some cases (one, at least) the word of God was supposedly quite literally set in stone. So, either one believes that all the scriptures are the inspired word of God... or they don't. 

Well, the "Bible" is 66 separate books, so even if the 10 Commandments were literally written in stone, and even if a few places in the NT says that scripture is all inspired by God, that still doesn't mean that it all applies in the same way right now. Even if you read it all as one work, it's pretty easy to see that in the New Testament the church decided that the Old Testament did not apply, at the very least, to Gentile Christians (see Acts 15 for the definitive apostolic decision on this point).  So, an interpretation that allows room for progressive revelation and application is quite consistent with biblical development. 
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Ali on March 15, 2012, 05:42:48 PM
Quote
We ask that you turn your anger toward the (state) House of Representatives," he said, adding that his group does not support or condone slavery while the Bible, which he called "evil," does.

This is the point.

I like the "well obviously you don't have to take all of the bible literally" argument.  Can Christians please get together and create an annotated version that clearly lays out which parts you should take literally, which parts no longer apply, et cetera?  Pleaseandthankyou.
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 05:45:16 PM
I like the "well obviously you don't have to take all of the bible literally" argument.  Can Christians please get together and create an annotated version that clearly lays out which parts you should take literally, which parts no longer apply, et cetera?  Pleaseandthankyou.

We know for ourselves (that's to say we should know for our own knowledge)...what purpose would it serve you?  Or if you have a specific instance in mind...shoot and I would at least give you how I see it.

Edit: Parenthesis add.
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Truthseeker on March 15, 2012, 05:46:41 PM
Quote
We ask that you turn your anger toward the (state) House of Representatives," he said, adding that his group does not support or condone slavery while the Bible, which he called "evil," does.

This is the point.

I like the "well obviously you don't have to take all of the bible literally" argument.  Can Christians please get together and create an annotated version that clearly lays out which parts you should take literally, which parts no longer apply, et cetera?  Pleaseandthankyou.

Holy shit.  Yes this!!
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Truthseeker on March 15, 2012, 05:50:55 PM
I like the "well obviously you don't have to take all of the bible literally" argument.  Can Christians please get together and create an annotated version that clearly lays out which parts you should take literally, which parts no longer apply, et cetera?  Pleaseandthankyou.

We know for ourselves (that's to say we should know for our own knowledge)...what purpose would it serve you?  Or if you have a specific instance in mind...shoot and I would at least give you how I see it.

But this simply is not true at all AD.  Even Christians are not in agreement with what should be relative today or what should be looked at as simply customary for Biblical times. 

After further reflection I suppose Ali's suggestion (as great as it is) really would be impossible due to this fact.
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Ali on March 15, 2012, 05:51:21 PM
I like the "well obviously you don't have to take all of the bible literally" argument.  Can Christians please get together and create an annotated version that clearly lays out which parts you should take literally, which parts no longer apply, et cetera?  Pleaseandthankyou.

We know for ourselves (that's to say we should know for our own knowledge)...what purpose would it serve you?  Or if you have a specific instance in mind...shoot and I would at least give you how I see it.

Edit: Parenthesis add.

I think it would clear up a lot of confusion about your religion.  Like, if I said "the Bible condones slavery" and you could pull out your annotated bible and say "No, see here, we struck that part out".  It would be a useful guide to others to let us know what you actually believe.
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 06:04:13 PM
I think it would clear up a lot of confusion about your religion.  Like, if I said "the Bible condones slavery" and you could pull out your annotated bible and say "No, see here, we struck that part out".  It would be a useful guide to others to let us know what you actually believe.

No part is "struck" out. (Generally as Christians...I understand some, like Bruce, have a different take.  But he is able to convey why he does or doesn't believe.  He owns his beliefs.)  It's simply seen in context and applied or not.  The whole (bible) really serves to interpret itself mostly.  If we are to love others as ourselves, then slavery as we know it in our day is not condoned...so then the slavery of the OT or even the NT days must have been different and so treated different.  If it is, this knowledge can be found by studying.  To spoon feed a person is to never allow that person to become and "adult" or a person that owns their own beliefs.

Again, no person has all the answers, however we don't give up on finding more insight nor cling to belief so dogmatic that we cannot adapt as we gain further insight.
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Amicale on March 15, 2012, 06:32:05 PM
I like the "well obviously you don't have to take all of the bible literally" argument.  Can Christians please get together and create an annotated version that clearly lays out which parts you should take literally, which parts no longer apply, et cetera?  Pleaseandthankyou.

We know for ourselves (that's to say we should know for our own knowledge)...what purpose would it serve you?  Or if you have a specific instance in mind...shoot and I would at least give you how I see it.

Edit: Parenthesis add.

I think it would clear up a lot of confusion about your religion.  Like, if I said "the Bible condones slavery" and you could pull out your annotated bible and say "No, see here, we struck that part out".  It would be a useful guide to others to let us know what you actually believe.

Ali, I like your idea and if it could work, it would be useful -- the only problem is, there are so many different Christian sects and groups that completely disagree with one another on these issues. The Catholics, Baptists, Eastern Orthodox, Seventh Day Adventists, Nazarenes, etc etc (keep going) would be in committee meetings SO long that they'd die of old age before that annotated bible every Christian group agreed on was written.

It's prettymuch the 'No true Scotsman' theory. "My group believes this, but your group believes that, so your group can't possibly be Christian/right/being honest".
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 06:46:33 PM
I like the "well obviously you don't have to take all of the bible literally" argument.  Can Christians please get together and create an annotated version that clearly lays out which parts you should take literally, which parts no longer apply, et cetera?  Pleaseandthankyou.

We know for ourselves (that's to say we should know for our own knowledge)...what purpose would it serve you?  Or if you have a specific instance in mind...shoot and I would at least give you how I see it.

Edit: Parenthesis add.

I think it would clear up a lot of confusion about your religion.  Like, if I said "the Bible condones slavery" and you could pull out your annotated bible and say "No, see here, we struck that part out".  It would be a useful guide to others to let us know what you actually believe.

Ali, I like your idea and if it could work, it would be useful -- the only problem is, there are so many different Christian sects and groups that completely disagree with one another on these issues. The Catholics, Baptists, Eastern Orthodox, Seventh Day Adventists, Nazarenes, etc etc (keep going) would be in committee meetings SO long that they'd die of old age before that annotated bible every Christian group agreed on was written.

It's prettymuch the 'No true Scotsman' theory. "My group believes this, but your group believes that, so your group can't possibly be Christian/right/being honest".

You're pretty spot on.  This is why EACH PERSON should own their religious beliefs.  The "religion" aspect simply comes in to play as a way to associate with the like-minded or the closely-like-minded.  It's only human nature to point at others to try and put our beliefs on a pedestal.  The Atheist is not outside of this as is plainly evidenced here at HAF when we say one belief is superior to another as the other stems from delusion...same thing.
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Ali on March 15, 2012, 07:05:10 PM
I think it would clear up a lot of confusion about your religion.  Like, if I said "the Bible condones slavery" and you could pull out your annotated bible and say "No, see here, we struck that part out".  It would be a useful guide to others to let us know what you actually believe.

No part is "struck" out. (Generally as Christians...I understand some, like Bruce, have a different take.  But he is able to convey why he does or doesn't believe.  He owns his beliefs.)  It's simply seen in context and applied or not.  The whole (bible) really serves to interpret itself mostly.  If we are to love others as ourselves, then slavery as we know it in our day is not condoned...so then the slavery of the OT or even the NT days must have been different and so treated different.  If it is, this knowledge can be found by studying.  To spoon feed a person is to never allow that person to become and "adult" or a person that owns their own beliefs.

Again, no person has all the answers, however we don't give up on finding more insight nor cling to belief so dogmatic that we cannot adapt as we gain further insight.

To the bolded, seriously?  That's how you reconcile slavery in the Bible, it must have been some sort of kinder, gentler slavery?

Anyway, my point is that if you ask a Christian where they get their beliefs, they typically point to the Bible.  Okay, fair enough.  But then when you pojnt to a more "unsavory" part of the Bible, like people raping an murdering and enslaving each other, suddenly it' not applicable or only makes sense within the context of biblical times, or whatever.  And I just wonder how even Christians know which parts to believe in.  Is it just based on however you feel?  Like, you feel that slavery is bad, so we can disregard that part, but discriminating against homosexuals still seems relevent, so we'll keep that part in for now?  It just seems so loosey goosey (for people who follow a written code like the Bible.  Ahteists can also be loosey goosey but then again we don't have a written code of beliefs that we claim to adhere to.)
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Sweetdeath on March 15, 2012, 07:09:37 PM
You got it all wrong Ali, rape and murder is alright as long as you do it in the name of god.  ::)

I'm not exactly sure what people mean when they say  some parts of the bible can apply to modern times. Which times? Which parts? I don't get it.

Christians should take a step back and really look at the world and how the bible doesn't apply to 2012.
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 08:05:50 PM
I think it would clear up a lot of confusion about your religion.  Like, if I said "the Bible condones slavery" and you could pull out your annotated bible and say "No, see here, we struck that part out".  It would be a useful guide to others to let us know what you actually believe.

No part is "struck" out. (Generally as Christians...I understand some, like Bruce, have a different take.  But he is able to convey why he does or doesn't believe.  He owns his beliefs.)  It's simply seen in context and applied or not.  The whole (bible) really serves to interpret itself mostly.  If we are to love others as ourselves, then slavery as we know it in our day is not condoned...so then the slavery of the OT or even the NT days must have been different and so treated different.  If it is, this knowledge can be found by studying.  To spoon feed a person is to never allow that person to become and "adult" or a person that owns their own beliefs.

Again, no person has all the answers, however we don't give up on finding more insight nor cling to belief so dogmatic that we cannot adapt as we gain further insight.

To the bolded, seriously?  That's how you reconcile slavery in the Bible, it must have been some sort of kinder, gentler slavery?

Anyway, my point is that if you ask a Christian where they get their beliefs, they typically point to the Bible.  Okay, fair enough.  But then when you pojnt to a more "unsavory" part of the Bible, like people raping an murdering and enslaving each other, suddenly it' not applicable or only makes sense within the context of biblical times, or whatever.  And I just wonder how even Christians know which parts to believe in.  Is it just based on however you feel?  Like, you feel that slavery is bad, so we can disregard that part, but discriminating against homosexuals still seems relevent, so we'll keep that part in for now?  It just seems so loosey goosey (for people who follow a written code like the Bible.  Ahteists can also be loosey goosey but then again we don't have a written code of beliefs that we claim to adhere to.)

It was a different type.  You can take my word for it of you can come to your own conclusion based on...what -- the only slavery you know?  So be it.  I can't dictate your mind.

Rape?  I'm not aware of any instance that God says "go and rape".  Go and kill...yes.  The context of killing is from a diety that owns life itself, if he does exist.  That is the rationalization.  If God created life, then it is his to take away, isn't it?  Not logical?  No, I would assume not since you might not approach it from this side.  You might approach it that life evolved by chance and therefore no one has the right to take another's life...and I would agree.  (assuming we agree on a productive society).

It's not at all how we feel.  If it were, we'd be driven by our emotions only.  Love is a good emotion.  Hate is a bad emotion.  One leads to better things, the other leads to things we probably agree are not condusive to a productive society where each has certain rights.

I hope I'm helping you understand.  I'm not out to change your mind.  I can't.   
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Ali on March 15, 2012, 08:44:16 PM
I think it would clear up a lot of confusion about your religion.  Like, if I said "the Bible condones slavery" and you could pull out your annotated bible and say "No, see here, we struck that part out".  It would be a useful guide to others to let us know what you actually believe.

No part is "struck" out. (Generally as Christians...I understand some, like Bruce, have a different take.  But he is able to convey why he does or doesn't believe.  He owns his beliefs.)  It's simply seen in context and applied or not.  The whole (bible) really serves to interpret itself mostly.  If we are to love others as ourselves, then slavery as we know it in our day is not condoned...so then the slavery of the OT or even the NT days must have been different and so treated different.  If it is, this knowledge can be found by studying.  To spoon feed a person is to never allow that person to become and "adult" or a person that owns their own beliefs.

Again, no person has all the answers, however we don't give up on finding more insight nor cling to belief so dogmatic that we cannot adapt as we gain further insight.

To the bolded, seriously?  That's how you reconcile slavery in the Bible, it must have been some sort of kinder, gentler slavery?

Anyway, my point is that if you ask a Christian where they get their beliefs, they typically point to the Bible.  Okay, fair enough.  But then when you pojnt to a more "unsavory" part of the Bible, like people raping an murdering and enslaving each other, suddenly it' not applicable or only makes sense within the context of biblical times, or whatever.  And I just wonder how even Christians know which parts to believe in.  Is it just based on however you feel?  Like, you feel that slavery is bad, so we can disregard that part, but discriminating against homosexuals still seems relevent, so we'll keep that part in for now?  It just seems so loosey goosey (for people who follow a written code like the Bible.  Ahteists can also be loosey goosey but then again we don't have a written code of beliefs that we claim to adhere to.)

It was a different type.  You can take my word for it of you can come to your own conclusion based on...what -- the only slavery you know?  So be it.  I can't dictate your mind.

Rape?  I'm not aware of any instance that God says "go and rape".  Go and kill...yes.  The context of killing is from a diety that owns life itself, if he does exist.  That is the rationalization.  If God created life, then it is his to take away, isn't it?  Not logical?  No, I would assume not since you might not approach it from this side.  You might approach it that life evolved by chance and therefore no one has the right to take another's life...and I would agree.  (assuming we agree on a productive society).

It's not at all how we feel.  If it were, we'd be driven by our emotions only.  Love is a good emotion.  Hate is a bad emotion.  One leads to better things, the other leads to things we probably agree are not condusive to a productive society where each has certain rights.

I hope I'm helping you understand.  I'm not out to change your mind.  I can't.   

It would have to be pretty darn different to make owning another human being like property "okay."   Even if they were treated like kings (which seems unlikely) if they were owned by someone else and not allowed to make their own grown up decisions, I would still say that's pretty messed up.

The Bible on rape, for your reading pleasure.

  As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace.  If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor.  But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town.  When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town.  But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder.  You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you. - Deuteronomy 20:10-14

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  (This one deals with rape AND slavery.  Fun!)

 Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst.  And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city.  - Zechariah 14:1-2

I assume that you don't believe that it's okay to rape because the Bible says so.  So what I'm asking is, how did you decide that you believe that, if not gfor just the way you feel?
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Truthseeker on March 15, 2012, 08:45:54 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt
Rape?  I'm not aware of any instance that God says "go and rape".  

Ali, Damn you.  You completely beat me to the punch.  I just spent some time assembling all this and I am not about to just delete it.  You all can just read again.  

Rape along with some other egregious orders with nothing taken out of context.  This is pretty damn clear:

They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men.  All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle.  They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword.  Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder.  They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived.  After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.  

Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp.  But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle.  "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded.  "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor.  They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people.  Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man.  Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.

                                                                                     Numbers 31:7-18                                                                        

   As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace.  If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor.  But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town.  When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town.  But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder.  You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

                                                                                     Deuteronomy 20:10-14


Also check out Judges 21
  

Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 08:48:31 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt
Rape?  I'm not aware of any instance that God says "go and rape". 

Rape along with some other egregious orders with nothing taken out of context.  This is pretty damn clear:

They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men.  All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle.  They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword.  Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder.  They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived.  After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.  

Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp.  But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle.  "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded.  "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor.  They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people.  Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man.  Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.

                                                                                     Numbers 31:7-18                                                                        

   As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace.  If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor.  But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town.  When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town.  But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder.  You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

                                                                                     Deuteronomy 20:10-14


Also check out Judges 21

I don't see anywhere that God says, "go and rape". 
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Ali on March 15, 2012, 08:54:37 PM
I guess it doesn't specifically say "Go and rape, that's an order."  It's more like "You can rape, if you feel like it."

Quote
Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.

is so much less rapey than

Quote
Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you must keep them for yourselves.

 ::)
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Truthseeker on March 15, 2012, 09:07:53 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt

I don't see anywhere that God says, "go and rape". 

AD.  You are smarter than that.  I know you are.  I am not trying to be condescending, but it is right before your eyes.  Remove that veneer of sanctity and see reality.  Ali really should not have had to point out that it does not have your exact verbiage. 
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 09:11:01 PM
I guess it doesn't specifically say "Go and rape, that's an order."  It's more like "You can rape, if you feel like it."

Quote
Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.

is so much less rapey than

Quote
Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you must keep them for yourselves.

 ::)

You're inserting your own bias...something that is not there.  The commentary on this passage is:

Quote
While the troops killed the men of Midian, they spared the women and children as plunder. Moses commanded that only the virgin women (who were thus innocent of the indecencies at Peor) could be spared; the guilty women and the boys (who might endanger the inheritance rights of Israelite men) were to be put to death.

No where does it say these were raped as directed by God.  In fact the word it uses is, "innocent" and "spared".
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 09:13:55 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt

I don't see anywhere that God says, "go and rape". 

AD.  You are smarter than that.  I know you are.  I am not trying to be condescending, but it is right before your eyes.  Remove that veneer of sanctity and see reality.  Ali really should not have had to point out that it does not have your exact verbiage. 

The accusation is that God/the Bible condones rape.  Where? 
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Ali on March 15, 2012, 09:14:45 PM
IT SAYS "KEEP THE WOMEN FOR YOURSELVES."  What do you think they were going to do with them?  Serve them lemonade?  In another passage it talks about a man buying a woman for a slave and then taking her as a wife.  Newsflash, if she's a slave, she can't say no.  If she can't say no, IT'S RAPE.  
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Ali on March 15, 2012, 09:20:30 PM
I guess it doesn't specifically say "Go and rape, that's an order."  It's more like "You can rape, if you feel like it."

Quote
Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.

is so much less rapey than

Quote
Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you must keep them for yourselves.

 ::)

You're inserting your own bias...something that is not there.  The commentary on this passage is:

Quote
While the troops killed the men of Midian, they spared the women and children as plunder. Moses commanded that only the virgin women (who were thus innocent of the indecencies at Peor) could be spared; the guilty women and the boys (who might endanger the inheritance rights of Israelite men) were to be put to death.

No where does it say these were raped as directed by God.  In fact the word it uses is, "innocent" and "spared".

Oh, and I do NOT buy that they kept the virgins because they were the only ones that were innocent of the "indecencies of Peor." (whatever that means.)  I bet there were plenty of decent married non-virgins that got killed that had never even heard of the "indecencies of Peor."  It's just that religious dudes have a rather indecent obsession with being the one to get to pop a girl's cherry.
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Truthseeker on March 15, 2012, 09:30:03 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt

The accusation is that God/the Bible condones rape.  Where? 

Wow!  God, that was me.  Seeing that response is like a leap back in time. 

I'll let it go now.  But I think AD, if you are intellectually honest with yourself you can see what Ali and I are pointing out.  But I truly do know and appreciate where you are coming from.  I sincerely do.  You seem like a good person with a good heart.  As alluded to before, Christianity should be glad to have you. 
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 09:52:33 PM
IT SAYS "KEEP THE WOMEN FOR YOURSELVES."  What do you think they were going to do with them?  Serve them lemonade?  In another passage it talks about a man buying a woman for a slave and then taking her as a wife.  Newsflash, if she's a slave, she can't say no.  If she can't say no, IT'S RAPE.

We can only assume.  It seems pretty much the culture of the day that the conquered knew their place and accepted it.  They possibly were raped, I don't gloss over whether there was rape in the bible.  My point is that no where does God "condone" rape.  Man has always done what he (and she) wants to do regardless of their moral compass.  If there was rape, God will judge accordingly those that did their own bidding.
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 09:55:15 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt

The accusation is that God/the Bible condones rape.  Where? 

Wow!  God, that was me.  Seeing that response is like a leap back in time. 

I'll let it go now.  But I think AD, if you are intellectually honest with yourself you can see what Ali and I are pointing out.  But I truly do know and appreciate where you are coming from.  I sincerely do.  You seem like a good person with a good heart.  As alluded to before, Christianity should be glad to have you.

And yet the fact remains, no where does God call his people to rape.  Maybe you see the delay in judgment as condoning.  But if the book is correct and God is, the end is yet to come and judgment will come.  God's ways, if he is, will be known.
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Ali on March 15, 2012, 10:03:36 PM
IT SAYS "KEEP THE WOMEN FOR YOURSELVES."  What do you think they were going to do with them?  Serve them lemonade?  In another passage it talks about a man buying a woman for a slave and then taking her as a wife.  Newsflash, if she's a slave, she can't say no.  If she can't say no, IT'S RAPE.

We can only assume.  It seems pretty much the culture of the day that the conquered knew their place and accepted it.  They possibly were raped, I don't gloss over whether there was rape in the bible.  My point is that no where does God "condone" rape.  Man has always done what he (and she) wants to do regardless of their moral compass.  If there was rape, God will judge accordingly those that did their own bidding.

According to the Bible, god says "Keep the women for yourselves."  He also lays out rules for marrying your female slave who is unable to say no.  How can you call that anything but condoning rape?
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 10:19:05 PM
According to the Bible, god says "Keep the women for yourselves."  He also lays out rules for marrying your female slave who is unable to say no.  How can you call that anything but condoning rape?

I'm not sure "God" did this, however I can concede that if so, God works through our stubborness and if we do keep women for ourselves, then we must marry them...and they become equals. 

As I've said, I don't have all the answers.  I don't have all the knowledge of every instance of cultural happenings nor if God did say this or that specifically on every instance.  I can, however say that if God is, there is an explanation.
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Guardian85 on March 15, 2012, 10:34:54 PM
According to the Bible, god says "Keep the women for yourselves."  He also lays out rules for marrying your female slave who is unable to say no.  How can you call that anything but condoning rape?

I'm not sure "God" did this, however I can concede that if so, God works through our stubborness and if we do keep women for ourselves, then we must marry them...and they become equals. 

As I've said, I don't have all the answers.  I don't have all the knowledge of every instance of cultural happenings nor if God did say this or that specifically on every instance.  I can, however say that if God is, there is an explanation.
Because forced marriage is so much better then just plain rape?  :-\

And please don't serve up the old "God works in mysterious ways" statement.....
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: AnimatedDirt on March 15, 2012, 10:40:56 PM
Because forced marriage is so much better then just plain rape?  :-\

And please don't serve up the old "God works in mysterious ways" statement...

It sounds like you have proof he doesn't...do share.
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: DeterminedJuliet on March 16, 2012, 12:18:36 AM
AD, if it wasn't the bible and was just any other piece of ancient literature, how would you read those passages? Honestly, now.
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Sandra Craft on March 16, 2012, 01:18:16 AM
You're inserting your own bias...something that is not there.  The commentary on this passage is:

Quote
While the troops killed the men of Midian, they spared the women and children as plunder. Moses commanded that only the virgin women (who were thus innocent of the indecencies at Peor) could be spared; the guilty women and the boys (who might endanger the inheritance rights of Israelite men) were to be put to death.

No where does it say these were raped as directed by God.  In fact the word it uses is, "innocent" and "spared".

1.  It's the bolded that really stands out for me, since "innocent" and "spared" really aren't meaningful -- "innocent" apparently means unable to screw with inheritance rights and "spared" means turned into plunder.

2.  It's always been interesting to me that the god who has so much to say point blank on some issues that just aren't as important can't say "don't rape anyone" or be clearer on the "do as you will with them" idea.  Why not delay judgement in not honoring your parents instead of delaying judgement on committing rape?  Could this possibly be less god-like and more human?
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Amicale on March 16, 2012, 01:33:10 AM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt
And yet the fact remains, no where does God call his people to rape.  Maybe you see the delay in judgment as condoning.  But if the book is correct and God is, the end is yet to come and judgment will come.  God's ways, if he is, will be known.

Actually, he does. In fact, he says he'll allow rape to happen.

2 Samuel 12:7-12.

Quote
7 Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man! Thus says the Lord God of Israel: ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. 8 I gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your keeping, and gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if that had been too little, I also would have given you much more! 9 Why have you despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in His sight? You have killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword; you have taken his wife to be your wife, and have killed him with the sword of the people of Ammon. 10 Now therefore, the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised Me, and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.’ 11 Thus says the Lord: ‘Behold, I will raise up adversity against you from your own house; and I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun. 12 For you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, before the sun.’”

1. God gives David several things, including his 'master's wives' into his keeping. If we're generous, we can say he was maybe just supposed to look after them and treat them nicely. Okay.
2. David messed up by killing Uriah, he took Uriah's wife to be his wife... which of course wasn't consensual; it would have been forced, which meant she would have been forced to sleep with him. If you think that's not the case, ask yourself if she could have said NO to being his wife.
3. Because David killed Uriah and took Uriah's wife, God responds by taking their wives and giving them to their neighbors. God here speaks as though a) women are just property b) women can be given away without their will.
4. Not only are the wives given away like property, but the neighbor is supposed to 'lie with them' out in the open, apparently. In other words, have sex with them. And of course the women have no say in it, and couldn't say no if they didn't like this arrangement, now could they.
5. God's not only going to do this, he's going to make a public spectacle of it, to shame David. Not to mention shaming the women who are taken against their will, given to other men, and who are forced to have sex with them.

How can we not see this as God condoning rape? No, the text doesn't SAY the word rape, but the context is certainly clear enough. God wants to punish someone for doing something, but in the end, he winds up punishing the women who simply appear to be of no consequence to God, like they're expendable. They can't say no. They're forced into a situation. They're given as property. They have to have sex with strange men, all because God's punishing one man. That's rape.
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Too Few Lions on March 16, 2012, 09:52:39 AM
Rape?  I'm not aware of any instance that God says "go and rape".  Go and kill...yes.  The context of killing is from a diety that owns life itself, if he does exist.  That is the rationalization.  If God created life, then it is his to take away, isn't it?  Not logical?  No, I would assume not since you might not approach it from this side.  You might approach it that life evolved by chance and therefore no one has the right to take another's life...and I would agree.  (assuming we agree on a productive society).
This bit actually bothers me more than slavery or rape. The Old Testament is an object lesson in religious intolerance, it was written by priests of Yahweh who seemed to think it was perfectly acceptable to murder people if they worshipped other gods, and they wrote a book where their god and some of his prophets and kings actively encouraged it.
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: AnimatedDirt on March 16, 2012, 02:37:44 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt
And yet the fact remains, no where does God call his people to rape.  Maybe you see the delay in judgment as condoning.  But if the book is correct and God is, the end is yet to come and judgment will come.  God's ways, if he is, will be known.

Actually, he does. In fact, he says he'll allow rape to happen.

2 Samuel 12:7-12.

Quote
7 Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man! Thus says the Lord God of Israel: ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. 8 I gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your keeping, and gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if that had been too little, I also would have given you much more! 9 Why have you despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in His sight? You have killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword; you have taken his wife to be your wife, and have killed him with the sword of the people of Ammon. 10 Now therefore, the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised Me, and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.’ 11 Thus says the Lord: ‘Behold, I will raise up adversity against you from your own house; and I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun. 12 For you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, before the sun.’”

1. God gives David several things, including his 'master's wives' into his keeping. If we're generous, we can say he was maybe just supposed to look after them and treat them nicely. Okay.
2. David messed up by killing Uriah, he took Uriah's wife to be his wife... which of course wasn't consensual; it would have been forced, which meant she would have been forced to sleep with him. If you think that's not the case, ask yourself if she could have said NO to being his wife.
3. Because David killed Uriah and took Uriah's wife, God responds by taking their wives and giving them to their neighbors. God here speaks as though a) women are just property b) women can be given away without their will.
4. Not only are the wives given away like property, but the neighbor is supposed to 'lie with them' out in the open, apparently. In other words, have sex with them. And of course the women have no say in it, and couldn't say no if they didn't like this arrangement, now could they.
5. God's not only going to do this, he's going to make a public spectacle of it, to shame David. Not to mention shaming the women who are taken against their will, given to other men, and who are forced to have sex with them.

How can we not see this as God condoning rape? No, the text doesn't SAY the word rape, but the context is certainly clear enough. God wants to punish someone for doing something, but in the end, he winds up punishing the women who simply appear to be of no consequence to God, like they're expendable. They can't say no. They're forced into a situation. They're given as property. They have to have sex with strange men, all because God's punishing one man. That's rape.

Uh...no.  It's oh so obvious you've not read the story. 
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Amicale on March 16, 2012, 02:49:51 PM

Uh...no.  It's oh so obvious you've not read the story. 

Actually, I have (and had my bible open in front of me), but thanks for insulting me.

If that's not what it means at all, then you could have been kind enough to explain what it did mean. I actually did want to understand it. If I made an assumption that wasn't true or accurate, you could have told me why. From the context of that story, it certainly looks like the character of God in the story is saying exactly what the texts SAYS he says. Even if it was a parable, or a warning that never came to pass... it seems like he still says it.

How about you explain it?
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Sandra Craft on March 16, 2012, 02:51:57 PM
Uh...no.  It's oh so obvious you've not read the story. 

That's all you have?  How about an explanation of how a very obvious interpretation is wrong?
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: AnimatedDirt on March 16, 2012, 02:59:49 PM

Uh...no.  It's oh so obvious you've not read the story. 

Actually, I have (and had my bible open in front of me), but thanks for insulting me.

If that's not what it means at all, then you could have been kind enough to explain what it did mean. I actually did want to understand it. If I made an assumption that wasn't true or accurate, you could have told me why. From the context of that story, it certainly looks like the character of God in the story is saying exactly what the texts SAYS he says. Even if it was a parable, or a warning that never came to pass... it seems like he still says it.

How about you explain it?

Sorry for insulting you.  Sometimes I get the same spirit in me that others answer me by...not that you had.

Quote from: 2 Samuel 11:2-5
One evening David got up from his bed and walked around on the roof of the palace. From the roof he saw a woman bathing. The woman was very beautiful, and David sent someone to find out about her. The man said, "Isn't this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam and the wife of Uriah the Hittite?"  Then David sent messengers to get her. She came to him, and he slept with her. (She had purified herself from her uncleanness.) Then* she went back home.  The woman conceived and sent word to David, saying, "I am pregnant."

1.  If David could see her from his roof...she was well aware of what she was doing...bathing.  He was the king...

2.  She came to him willingly.  See No. 1.

3.  She had just finished her period and so this makes it clear it was David's baby.

4.  She tells David she is prego.  The law prescribed death penalty for both of them (Lev. 20:10, Dt 22:22) By telling him, she leaves the next step up to him. (from a commentary)


Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Ali on March 16, 2012, 03:11:18 PM
1.  If David could see her from his roof...she was well aware of what she was doing...bathing.  He was the king...

2.  She came to him willingly.  See No. 1.

This made my eyes bug out of my head.  It's soooo "she was asking for it."   She just happened to know (or hope) that David would get out of bed, climb up onto the roof and see her bathing.  And of course she came to him, he was the king.  What would have happened to her if she had said no?  Again, if you can't say no...it's rape.

3.  She had just finished her period and so this makes it clear it was David's baby.

Actually, if you know anything about the female reproductive cycle, if she had just finished her period it's actually unlikely that it was David's baby.  Most women ovulate somewhere around cycle day 14, and most women finish their periods somewhere between cycle day 5-7.  But I digress.

And none of what your wrote explains how god means anything but "I'm going to have someone rape your wives in plain daylight where everyone can see" when he says "and I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun."
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: AnimatedDirt on March 16, 2012, 03:11:33 PM
One more point I missed.

Quote from: 2 Samuel 11:6-15
So David sent this word to Joab: "Send me Uriah the Hittite." And Joab sent him to David. 7 When Uriah came to him, David asked him how Joab was, how the soldiers were and how the war was going. 8 Then David said to Uriah, "Go down to your house and wash your feet." So Uriah left the palace, and a gift from the king was sent after him. 9 But Uriah slept at the entrance to the palace with all his master's servants and did not go down to his house.
    2SA 11:10 When David was told, "Uriah did not go home," he asked him, "Haven't you just come from a distance? Why didn't you go home?"
    2SA 11:11 Uriah said to David, "The ark and Israel and Judah are staying in tents, and my master Joab and my lord's men are camped in the open fields. How could I go to my house to eat and drink and lie with my wife? As surely as you live, I will not do such a thing!"
    2SA 11:12 Then David said to him, "Stay here one more day, and tomorrow I will send you back." So Uriah remained in Jerusalem that day and the next. 13 At David's invitation, he ate and drank with him, and David made him drunk. But in the evening Uriah went out to sleep on his mat among his master's servants; he did not go home.
    2SA 11:14 In the morning David wrote a letter to Joab and sent it with Uriah. 15 In it he wrote, "Put Uriah in the front line where the fighting is fiercest. Then withdraw from him so he will be struck down and die."

Clearly David sent for Uriah to give him a conjugal visit.  David sends for Uriah...and then asks, "How are things going..."  Really?

He sent for him to visit with his own wife that way the pregnancy would be seen as theirs and not of David.  But Uriah was too faithful of a soldier.  He felt it wasn't fair of him to be having fun while his fellow soldiers were in battle.  David gives him ANOTHER night AND gets him drunk...Uriah still stays "with his master".  It wasn't David's intention to TAKE Bathsheba as his own. 
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Ali on March 16, 2012, 03:15:52 PM
One more point I missed.

Quote from: 2 Samuel 11:6-15
So David sent this word to Joab: "Send me Uriah the Hittite." And Joab sent him to David. 7 When Uriah came to him, David asked him how Joab was, how the soldiers were and how the war was going. 8 Then David said to Uriah, "Go down to your house and wash your feet." So Uriah left the palace, and a gift from the king was sent after him. 9 But Uriah slept at the entrance to the palace with all his master's servants and did not go down to his house.
    2SA 11:10 When David was told, "Uriah did not go home," he asked him, "Haven't you just come from a distance? Why didn't you go home?"
    2SA 11:11 Uriah said to David, "The ark and Israel and Judah are staying in tents, and my master Joab and my lord's men are camped in the open fields. How could I go to my house to eat and drink and lie with my wife? As surely as you live, I will not do such a thing!"
    2SA 11:12 Then David said to him, "Stay here one more day, and tomorrow I will send you back." So Uriah remained in Jerusalem that day and the next. 13 At David's invitation, he ate and drank with him, and David made him drunk. But in the evening Uriah went out to sleep on his mat among his master's servants; he did not go home.
    2SA 11:14 In the morning David wrote a letter to Joab and sent it with Uriah. 15 In it he wrote, "Put Uriah in the front line where the fighting is fiercest. Then withdraw from him so he will be struck down and die."

Clearly David sent for Uriah to give him a conjugal visit.  David sends for Uriah...and then asks, "How are things going..."  Really?

He sent for him to visit with his own wife that way the pregnancy would be seen as theirs and not of David.  But Uriah was too faithful of a soldier.  He felt it wasn't fair of him to be having fun while his fellow soldiers were in battle.  David gives him ANOTHER night AND gets him drunk...Uriah still stays "with his master".  It wasn't David's intention to TAKE Bathsheba as his own. 

Yeah, and again, how does any of this explain away that David raped Bathseba and then god is going to have his wives raped back?  Dacvid tries to pull some tricky maneuvers so he doesn't get found out.  What does that prove except he's got a guilty conscience?
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Amicale on March 16, 2012, 03:17:05 PM

Uh...no.  It's oh so obvious you've not read the story. 

Actually, I have (and had my bible open in front of me), but thanks for insulting me.

If that's not what it means at all, then you could have been kind enough to explain what it did mean. I actually did want to understand it. If I made an assumption that wasn't true or accurate, you could have told me why. From the context of that story, it certainly looks like the character of God in the story is saying exactly what the texts SAYS he says. Even if it was a parable, or a warning that never came to pass... it seems like he still says it.

How about you explain it?

Sorry for insulting you.  Sometimes I get the same spirit in me that others answer me by...not that you had.

Quote from: 2 Samuel 11:2-5
One evening David got up from his bed and walked around on the roof of the palace. From the roof he saw a woman bathing. The woman was very beautiful, and David sent someone to find out about her. The man said, "Isn't this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam and the wife of Uriah the Hittite?"  Then David sent messengers to get her. She came to him, and he slept with her. (She had purified herself from her uncleanness.) Then* she went back home.  The woman conceived and sent word to David, saying, "I am pregnant."

1.  If David could see her from his roof...she was well aware of what she was doing...bathing.  He was the king...

2.  She came to him willingly.  See No. 1.

3.  She had just finished her period and so this makes it clear it was David's baby.

4.  She tells David she is prego.  The law prescribed death penalty for both of them (Lev. 20:10, Dt 22:22) By telling him, she leaves the next step up to him. (from a commentary)




Apology accepted. I can understand feeling defensive if you think you ought to be on the defense, but when I post, I TRY not to attack others. If I came across as attacking you somehow, then I apologize too. It's just that when I post about the Bible, I'm trying to understand the context of something, and if I make wrong or faulty assumptions, I'd sooner just be told how it is that I'm wrong, so I can correct myself if I need to. :)

OK, back to the story. So, David sees her bathing, and because she's beautiful and he wants her, she somehow wants him too? Just because he saw her bathing? That part of the story says that he sent messengers to go get her, so it was like she was summoned. And then he slept with her. Just like that? I must not understand why she would have willingly done so. David had power. She maybe knew that. She slept with him once, got pregnant, went home, and later told him she was pregnant. OK. Well, fair enough... different time, different culture, I suppose. It's the biblical equivalent of a 'booty call', I guess - sorry to be crass. ;)

Skip forward to verses 11 and 12 that I quoted in my first post, though.

11 Thus says the Lord: ‘Behold, I will raise up adversity against you from your own house; and I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun. 12 For you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, before the sun.’”

How is this explained? This was the part I had the major issue with. That God said he'd take women, give them to a neighbor, and the neighbor will 'have relations' with them. Is this objectionable to you, AD, that God would even say something like this? How is it that women can be given to anyone? How could they go willingly, and willingly 'lie with' those men? They still seem to be treated like property here, or sex objects. Can you explain to me how this isn't the case?
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Amicale on March 16, 2012, 03:19:11 PM
Ali and I answered at the same time, I guess. I think we're thinking the same things.

1. I'm not convinced David and Bathsheba's union would have been consensual.

2. I don't understand why God basically says 'you had sex with a woman, now I'll make your women have sex with these other men'. This second point still smacks of rape to me.
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: AnimatedDirt on March 16, 2012, 03:19:55 PM
Actually, if you know anything about the female reproductive cycle, if she had just finished her period it's actually unlikely that it was David's baby.  Most women ovulate somewhere around cycle day 14, and most women finish their periods somewhere between cycle day 5-7.  But I digress.

Exactly right.  It wasn't a one-night stand, was it?

Quote from: Ali
And none of what your wrote explains how god means anything but "I'm going to have someone rape your wives in plain daylight where everyone can see" when he says "and I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun."

You're not looking at this from the cultural setting, but I can't help that.  You're reading at face value and not a study.  I can see why you'd feel this way.

This goes to show that God knows the future.  You may say God caused the future, but I would simply disagree.

Quote from: 2 Samuel 16:22
So they pitched a tent for Absalom on the roof, and he lay with his father's concubines in the sight of all Israel.

This is David's son.  The whole story is quite interesting.

Edit:  Fixed quote.

Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: AnimatedDirt on March 16, 2012, 03:28:44 PM
Ali and I answered at the same time, I guess. I think we're thinking the same things.

1. I'm not convinced David and Bathsheba's union would have been consensual.

2. I don't understand why God basically says 'you had sex with a woman, now I'll make your women have sex with these other men'. This second point still smacks of rape to me.

Thank you for accepting my apology. 

I can't convince you.  I can only present you the "facts".  (I only use quotes because most of *you put the bible as a fairytale...or fiction)

All I can say is ponder the situation some.  Women are not all pure.  Bathsheba was a woman of high standing...living within eye-shot of the king?  Her husband in the military...?  She knew exactly what she was doing bathing within eye-shot of the king.  Is it that you would never think a married woman would want a man of power even if she was married to another?  Is that really a stretch?  I don't think so and the story confirms this.  David was king!  Could he not do whatever he wanted?  Why go through this whole charade to cover up.
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Asmodean on March 16, 2012, 03:42:43 PM
put the bible as a fairytale...or fiction
Lacking any reason to assume the opposite, should that not be the default for any book?
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: AnimatedDirt on March 16, 2012, 03:50:11 PM
put the bible as a fairytale...or fiction
Lacking any reason to assume the opposite, should that not be the default for any book?

Just keeping you happy, Asmo.
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Ali on March 16, 2012, 04:07:19 PM
Quote
You're not looking at this from the cultural setting, but I can't help that.  You're reading at face value and not a study.  I can see why you'd feel this way.

And this is why I need an annotated bible that clearly lists which parts you are supposed to adhere to and which parts can safely be ignored or taken as a "cultural study."  Which brings us full circle to the question I asked before, which is: how do you (You as in AD, and also you as in Christians in general) decide which parts are meant to tell you how to live your life and build your moral code, and which parts are just cultural studies? 
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Asmodean on March 16, 2012, 04:28:15 PM
put the bible as a fairytale...or fiction
Lacking any reason to assume the opposite, should that not be the default for any book?

Just keeping you happy, Asmo.
The Asmo's old car is more alive than it has been for a year or so, so I wouldn't worry about managing to displease His Grayness in the next few hours.  ;D
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: AnimatedDirt on March 16, 2012, 04:35:31 PM
Quote
You're not looking at this from the cultural setting, but I can't help that.  You're reading at face value and not a study.  I can see why you'd feel this way.

And this is why I need an annotated bible that clearly lists which parts you are supposed to adhere to and which parts can safely be ignored or taken as a "cultural study."  Which brings us full circle to the question I asked before, which is: how do you (You as in AD, and also you as in Christians in general) decide which parts are meant to tell you how to live your life and build your moral code, and which parts are just cultural studies?

I think I clearly laid the basics out for you without the use of anything but the bible itself and one or two chapters of it.  I used one point from a bible commentary.

To your question on how we tell how to live our life and build our moral code...the moral code we follow is not following the lives of men.  Clearly what David did went against the law (Lev. 20:10, Deut. 22:22) so we Christians wouldn't be putting what you consider "rape" into our moral code...not to mention murder, nor would we be putting that law into practice today, but that's a whole other story and much deeper than this.
 
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Guardian85 on March 16, 2012, 04:41:05 PM
All I can say is ponder the situation some.  Women are not all pure.  Bathsheba was a woman of high standing...living within eye-shot of the king?  Her husband in the military...?  She knew exactly what she was doing bathing within eye-shot of the king.  Is it that you would never think a married woman would want a man of power even if she was married to another?  Is that really a stretch?  I don't think so and the story confirms this.  David was king!  Could he not do whatever he wanted?  Why go through this whole charade to cover up.

Ahhh...
So the defence of David is that Bathsheba was a two-timing skank that enticed the king?
Sounds like a case of blaming the victim to me.

Actually, if you know anything about the female reproductive cycle, if she had just finished her period it's actually unlikely that it was David's baby.  Most women ovulate somewhere around cycle day 14, and most women finish their periods somewhere between cycle day 5-7.  But I digress.

Exactly right.  It wasn't a one-night stand, was it?

Quote from: Ali
And none of what your wrote explains how god means anything but "I'm going to have someone rape your wives in plain daylight where everyone can see" when he says "and I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun."

You're not looking at this from the cultural setting, but I can't help that.  You're reading at face value and not a study.  I can see why you'd feel this way.

This goes to show that God knows the future.  You may say God caused the future, but I would simply disagree.
If God knew that the women were going to be raped, why did he not intercede, or allow David to defend the women with his soldiers? Any way you slice it, God allows the rape to happen.
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Too Few Lions on March 16, 2012, 04:42:41 PM
I can't convince you.  I can only present you the "facts".  (I only use quotes because most of *you put the bible as a fairytale...or fiction)
To be fair, this particular story about David and is most very likely fiction. The Books of Samuel were  written in the reign of Josiah, around 625 BCE, and David, if he ever lived, existed over 300 years earlier.
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Ali on March 16, 2012, 04:55:43 PM
Quote
You're not looking at this from the cultural setting, but I can't help that.  You're reading at face value and not a study.  I can see why you'd feel this way.

And this is why I need an annotated bible that clearly lists which parts you are supposed to adhere to and which parts can safely be ignored or taken as a "cultural study."  Which brings us full circle to the question I asked before, which is: how do you (You as in AD, and also you as in Christians in general) decide which parts are meant to tell you how to live your life and build your moral code, and which parts are just cultural studies?

I think I clearly laid the basics out for you without the use of anything but the bible itself and one or two chapters of it.  I used one point from a bible commentary.

To your question on how we tell how to live our life and build our moral code...the moral code we follow is not following the lives of men.  Clearly what David did went against the law (Lev. 20:10, Deut. 22:22) so we Christians wouldn't be putting what you consider "rape" into our moral code...not to mention murder, nor would we be putting that law into practice today, but that's a whole other story and much deeper than this.
 

Okay, but in the story, god says that the appropriate revenge is that David's wives are to be raped in his sight, which kind of implies that God condones rape or at elast isn't above using rape to get back at someone.  So how does God's expressed attitudes towards rape not find it's way into your moral code.  Which, actually, given the fact that you don't seem to think that sleeping with a woman who has no choice in the matter is not rape, and that the woman is to blame for "asking for it" I think maybe it did. 
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Truthseeker on March 16, 2012, 05:07:05 PM
Quote from: Ali
  Which, actually, given the fact that you don't seem to think that sleeping with a woman who has no choice in the matter is not rape, and that the woman is to blame for "asking for it" I think maybe it did. 

Damnnnnn!!  That is going to leave a mark. 

BTW.  My absense from this thread should not be framed as not interested.  I have my popcorn ready and have been enjoying every minute of this!
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: AnimatedDirt on March 16, 2012, 05:34:16 PM
Okay, but in the story, god says that the appropriate revenge is that David's wives are to be raped in his sight, which kind of implies that God condones rape or at elast isn't above using rape to get back at someone.  So how does God's expressed attitudes towards rape not find it's way into your moral code.  Which, actually, given the fact that you don't seem to think that sleeping with a woman who has no choice in the matter is not rape, and that the woman is to blame for "asking for it" I think maybe it did.

To lie with/ sleep with (non-rape): 'im shakhabh

To rape: ve- chazaq 'im shakhabh

See Deut. 22:25, 28.  The word "rape" does not occur in the bible (according to the NIV trans).  "rapes" occurs twice.  Both times it is specifically as shown above.

Compare with 2 Samuel 12:11

Like I said, I can't make you change your mind nor am I necessarily trying.
I'm simply presenting you with more info.  You make the call.
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Guardian85 on March 16, 2012, 05:40:11 PM
And if you lie with a woman who has not given her concent, we call it...? Come on, AD, you know this!

Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Truthseeker on March 16, 2012, 05:44:01 PM
Quote from: Guardian85
Come on, AD, you know this!

Almost verbatim what I posted on page four. 
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Amicale on March 16, 2012, 05:58:26 PM
And if you lie with a woman who has not given her concent, we call it...? Come on, AD, you know this!



I think sometimes, people get this idea in their heads that rape has to be a violent, aggressive attack in a dark park, field, or alleyway. Not the case. Rape is quite simply defined as having sex with someone who has not given, or is not able to give, their full consent free of coercion. Rape isn't always this dramatic scene, complete with violence and screaming and fighting. It can be, and often is, an entirely quiet affair filled with fear, with worry, with guilt, with a sense of the complete loss of control. Rape is the act of taking power away from someone in a sexual way. It's making them submit to you, when they don't want to, when they haven't given their consent.

Sure, something in a piece of literature, in the news, or in a personal shared account might not be described exactly as the 'classic' rape scenario that most people would expect. That doesn't mean a rape hasn't happened.
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: AnimatedDirt on March 16, 2012, 05:58:40 PM
And if you lie with a woman who has not given her concent, we call it...? Come on, AD, you know this!

Are we talking about today's society or the society/culture of a couple thousand or more years ago?
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Sweetdeath on March 16, 2012, 06:01:12 PM
Are you serious? Has the word and meaning of rape EVER changed in 2000 years?
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Amicale on March 16, 2012, 06:03:27 PM
And if you lie with a woman who has not given her concent, we call it...? Come on, AD, you know this!

Are we talking about today's society or the society/culture of a couple thousand or more years ago?

AD, unfortunately, you can't pull the 'that was then, this is now' argument. The violation of a woman is the violation of a woman, it doesn't make it okay simply because it happened thousands of years ago. If it wasn't okay with that woman that it happened to her, then it shouldn't be okay with us NOW that it happened to her. It insults women to say 'well, that was their culture', as though that's somehow supposed to make it alright or acceptable. Truth is, the mentality from a few thousand years ago stuck around a LONG time after the Bible's books were written down, partially thanks to the Bible's books BEING written down. Slavery, the treatment of women as being the property of men, and many other horrible things have happened because people took the society/culture of a few thousand years ago seriously... and applied it to today.
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Sweetdeath on March 16, 2012, 06:05:47 PM
And if you lie with a woman who has not given her concent, we call it...? Come on, AD, you know this!

Are we talking about today's society or the society/culture of a couple thousand or more years ago?

AD, unfortunately, you can't pull the 'that was then, this is now' argument. The violation of a woman is the violation of a woman, it doesn't make it okay simply because it happened thousands of years ago. If it wasn't okay with that woman that it happened to her, then it shouldn't be okay with us NOW that it happened to her. It insults women to say 'well, that was their culture', as though that's somehow supposed to make it alright or acceptable. Truth is, the mentality from a few thousand years ago stuck around a LONG time after the Bible's books were written down, partially thanks to the Bible's books BEING written down. Slavery, the treatment of women as being the property of men, and many other horrible things have happened because people took the society/culture of a few thousand years ago seriously... and applied it to today.

I'm trying to figure out if AD is actually defending rape in the bible, which really scares me...
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Amicale on March 16, 2012, 06:08:23 PM
And if you lie with a woman who has not given her concent, we call it...? Come on, AD, you know this!

Are we talking about today's society or the society/culture of a couple thousand or more years ago?

AD, unfortunately, you can't pull the 'that was then, this is now' argument. The violation of a woman is the violation of a woman, it doesn't make it okay simply because it happened thousands of years ago. If it wasn't okay with that woman that it happened to her, then it shouldn't be okay with us NOW that it happened to her. It insults women to say 'well, that was their culture', as though that's somehow supposed to make it alright or acceptable. Truth is, the mentality from a few thousand years ago stuck around a LONG time after the Bible's books were written down, partially thanks to the Bible's books BEING written down. Slavery, the treatment of women as being the property of men, and many other horrible things have happened because people took the society/culture of a few thousand years ago seriously... and applied it to today.

I'm trying to figure out if AD is actually defending rape in the bible, which really scares me...

I would like to think and hope that he isn't, and I hope that he explains how he does not defend it.
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: AnimatedDirt on March 16, 2012, 06:26:00 PM
And if you lie with a woman who has not given her concent, we call it...? Come on, AD, you know this!

Are we talking about today's society or the society/culture of a couple thousand or more years ago?

AD, unfortunately, you can't pull the 'that was then, this is now' argument.  The violation of a woman is the violation of a woman, it doesn't make it okay simply because it happened thousands of years ago. If it wasn't okay with that woman that it happened to her, then it shouldn't be okay with us NOW that it happened to her. It insults women to say 'well, that was their culture', as though that's somehow supposed to make it alright or acceptable. Truth is, the mentality from a few thousand years ago stuck around a LONG time after the Bible's books were written down, partially thanks to the Bible's books BEING written down. Slavery, the treatment of women as being the property of men, and many other horrible things have happened because people took the society/culture of a few thousand years ago seriously... and applied it to today.

Actually, I believe I can with some degree of caution that i'll give you.  We have no way of knowing the mind of the woman then, other than to assume.  You're assuming she didn't accept her role in her culture as the norm.  I'm assuming she did.  So because the roles and thinking of women today is that a woman being "taken" into another home as a wife is appalling doesn't necessarily make it so.

I can agree, however, that we differ on opinion.  I suppose a better person to answer such questions is one that has studied the culture in a more in depth manner.  I'm not aware of one at the moment, but I may look around and see what I find.

Is that ok with you that we disagree on something we don't actually know for sure?  I say for sure only because you're using today's thinking (which I don't disagree with) to assume positions and thinking of a few thousand years ago.  That's all.

Using "preview" (the red warning someone has posted before you., I see the question is if I'm defending rape in the bible.  Not at all.  What you all are calling rape, I'm not seeing as rape in that (at least in the David/Bathsheba acct) she was a willing participant.  Bathing in eyesight of the king being a beautiful woman, no mention of resisting, David sent food to the house of Uriah and Bathsheba for them both and Uriah didn't go, it was in Bathsheba's best interest to be the mother of the next king.  And in the case of the women being taken as 'spoils', again, I believe it was simply the law of the land that the women simply went along with knowing they'd be taken care of.
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: AnimatedDirt on March 16, 2012, 08:16:36 PM
Here's one link that lends some reference.  Please note I don't present this link as proof, but simply some evidence.  There are hints within this link, however it doesn't necessarily prove my stance.

Women in the Ancient World (http://www.womenintheancientworld.com/women%20and%20the%20law%20in%20ancient%20israel.htm)
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: AnimatedDirt on March 16, 2012, 08:17:49 PM
I'm trying to figure out if AD is actually defending rape in the bible, which really scares me...

If you didn't catch it in my post:  No.  I'm not defending rape in the bible or otherwise.
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Recusant on March 16, 2012, 11:12:42 PM
Christianity and the other Abrahamic faiths present themselves as being instruments which communicate eternal, objective moral truths from the creator god to humanity through direct inspiration. How is one supposed to reconcile that position with the "that was a different time, a different culture; we shouldn't judge them by our standards" line?
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Amicale on March 17, 2012, 02:21:18 AM
Yes, AD, I can definitely accept that you and I have a difference of opinion and interpretation. Bowing out of this thread now. Thank you for the conversation. :)
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: The Magic Pudding on March 17, 2012, 03:06:01 AM
Christianity and the other Abrahamic faiths present themselves as being instruments which communicate eternal, objective moral truths from the creator god to humanity through direct inspiration. How is one supposed to reconcile that position with the "that was a different time, a different culture; we shouldn't judge them by our standards" line?

Creative divinity?
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Sandra Craft on March 17, 2012, 03:29:35 AM
And if you lie with a woman who has not given her concent, we call it...? Come on, AD, you know this!

Are we talking about today's society or the society/culture of a couple thousand or more years ago?

I thought we were talking about why, or why not, the bible is entitled to be celebrated by making 2012 its year -- even if only in PA.
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: DeterminedJuliet on March 17, 2012, 03:39:18 AM
Christianity and the other Abrahamic faiths present themselves as being instruments which communicate eternal, objective moral truths from the creator god to humanity through direct inspiration. How is one supposed to reconcile that position with the "that was a different time, a different culture; we shouldn't judge them by our standards" line?

Exactly.
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: AnimatedDirt on March 19, 2012, 03:25:38 PM
Christianity and the other Abrahamic faiths present themselves as being instruments which communicate eternal, objective moral truths from the creator god to humanity through direct inspiration. How is one supposed to reconcile that position with the "that was a different time, a different culture; we shouldn't judge them by our standards" line?

I'm not so sure it is simply a 'line' but more a norm.  We even see Jesus taking the literal words and making them a deeper meaning and more meaningful to all.

e.g.

Quote from: Matthew 5:21, 22
You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, `Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment.

Quote from: Matthew 5:27, 28
You have heard that it was said, `Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Our knowledge of God and his laws are not simply surface knowledge, but a knowledge that includes thought.  We are not simply robots that are set to follow the letter of the law, but the spirit of it too...which requires thought.

Here's a page based on the question, Does God condone slavery? (http://christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html).  I read about 1/4 of it and skimmed the rest.

Edit:  Adding the following.

From this Huffington Post link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/19/president-jimmy-carter-bible-book_n_1349570.html?ref=topbar) asking questions of former President Jimmy Carter.

Quote
What about passages saying slaves obey your masters? (Colossians 3:22) Do you think there is ever a time to say, ok, we know that we don’t agree with that passage, let's get rid of it?

Well, the principles of that are still applicable. It wasn’t a matter that the Bible endorses slavery, it was that throughout history, now and in the future there are going to be some who are in a subservient position like when I was commanding officer of a ship when I was in the submarine corps. It is meant to preserve the basic principles that don’t cause resentment or hatred or betrayal or false attitudes. But it also says that a master should respect your servant. So, it works both ways.
 
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Recusant on March 19, 2012, 10:35:53 PM
I'm not so sure it is simply a 'line' but more a norm.

I'm not sure what you mean by this (you're more than welcome to elaborate, and correct me if I misunderstand you), so for now, I stand by my characterization. I know that you didn't invent this approach, so please don't think that I'm addressing you personally: I consider this an example of the facile sophistry that modern theologians employ when they don't have anything better with which to defend their position. "The laws of our God are eternal and objective" has somehow become "we should not judge the values of people of that time by our standards." Yet we're still supposed to accept the "eternal and objective" part. In my opinion, it's either one or the other, and the attempt to have it both ways is an example of doublethink. While doublethink is becoming the norm in many modern societies, I don't consider it a reasonable or acceptable approach to promoting a moral stance.

We even see Jesus taking the literal words and making them a deeper meaning and more meaningful to all.

e.g.

Quote from: Matthew 5:21, 22
You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, `Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment.

Quote from: Matthew 5:27, 28
You have heard that it was said, `Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Our knowledge of God and his laws are not simply surface knowledge, but a knowledge that includes thought.  We are not simply robots that are set to follow the letter of the law, but the spirit of it too...which requires thought.[/size]

As certain rustic philosophers are wont to say: "That dog don't hunt." Jesus taking Old Testament morality and extending it to include thought crimes is not the same as saying that a previous morality is both still valid and current while at the same time not to be considered and rejected in light of modern understanding. We're talking about unequivocal dictates, not vague guidelines which "require thought."

Here's a page based on the question, Does God condone slavery? (http://christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html).  I read about 1/4 of it and skimmed the rest.

I don't blame you. An honest person such as yourself must feel a bit nauseated by the blatant tap-dancing taking place on that page.

Edit:  Adding the following.

From this Huffington Post link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/19/president-jimmy-carter-bible-book_n_1349570.html?ref=topbar) asking questions of former President Jimmy Carter.


Quote
What about passages saying slaves obey your masters? (Colossians 3:22) Do you think there is ever a time to say, ok, we know that we don’t agree with that passage, let's get rid of it?

Well, the principles of that are still applicable. It wasn’t a matter that the Bible endorses slavery, it was that throughout history, now and in the future there are going to be some who are in a subservient position like when I was commanding officer of a ship when I was in the submarine corps. It is meant to preserve the basic principles that don’t cause resentment or hatred or betrayal or false attitudes. But it also says that a master should respect your servant. So, it works both ways.

I think that Jimmy Carter, as politicians go, is admirable in many ways. He seems to be less of a liar than the run of the mill hacks. You'll notice that in that quote, he doesn't deny that slavery is condoned in the Bible.
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Ecurb Noselrub on March 20, 2012, 05:22:12 PM
The writers of the New Testament lived in a different world. They weren't much above slaves themselves in the Roman world, so they had to watch how they reacted with their surrounding culture as they established the new faith.  It seems that they adopted the principle of "don't make waves, unless it's about an ultimate issue."  They were prepared to die for their faith, but didn't try to change every evil practice in the Roman empire.

It all depends on how you see the Bible - if it's the inerrant Word of God, then you have to contend with the charge that it promotes and condones some bad stuff.  If it's just a written record of people who have experienced God in some way and they are trying to relate that in terms of their own culture, then stuff like slavery is not as big an issue.  It's just how those people worked their faith out in their world.  We might do it 100% differently today.
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Sweetdeath on March 20, 2012, 07:54:29 PM
The writers of the New Testament lived in a different world. They weren't much above slaves themselves in the Roman world, so they had to watch how they reacted with their surrounding culture as they established the new faith.  It seems that they adopted the principle of "don't make waves, unless it's about an ultimate issue."  They were prepared to die for their faith, but didn't try to change every evil practice in the Roman empire.

It all depends on how you see the Bible - if it's the inerrant Word of God, then you have to contend with the charge that it promotes and condones some bad stuff.  If it's just a written record of people who have experienced God in some way and they are trying to relate that in terms of their own culture, then stuff like slavery is not as big an issue.  It's just how those people worked their faith out in their world.  We might do it 100% differently today.

It's not that things are done differently today in 2012, but people have evolved, grown smarter, question things, study, discover facts, etc.
We know that holding any human against their will is wrong. We know how important consent is.

It's not about faith. It's about logic and common sense.
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Recusant on March 20, 2012, 09:23:52 PM
The writers of the New Testament lived in a different world. They weren't much above slaves themselves in the Roman world, so they had to watch how they reacted with their surrounding culture as they established the new faith.

The early Christians were free people. A strong distinction was made in the Roman era between slave and free, just as it was centuries before, and centuries later. Yes, the general population of Judea may not have had great status, but then neither did the general population of any province of Rome. However, it so happens that these people had been practicing slavery themselves for a long time before they became part of the Roman empire, and understood quite well the distinction between slave and free, and knew themselves to be free. The slave-holding aspect of the "surrounding culture" was not foreign to these people; their holy book condoned slavery before Paul ever put pen to paper.

It seems that they adopted the principle of "don't make waves, unless it's about an ultimate issue."  They were prepared to die for their faith, but didn't try to change every evil practice in the Roman empire.

The practice of slavery, as I pointed out above, was not something that the Romans had imported to the area. It seems you're trying to imply that the poor proto-Christians had to meekly accept the ways of the evil Romans. Their ancestors had been proud slave-makers and slave-owners long before the arrival of the Romans, so that particular assertion falls by the wayside.

It all depends on how you see the Bible - if it's the inerrant Word of God, then you have to contend with the charge that it promotes and cndones some bad stuff.  If it's just a written record of people who have experienced God in some way and they are trying to relate that in terms of their own culture, then stuff like slavery is not as big an issue.  It's just how those people worked their faith out in their world.  We might do it 100% differently today.

Just people telling us stories; no divine revelation? We can consider a couple of things then.

1. The distinct possibility that none of the gospels was in truth written by an eye witness.

2. The epistles tell us that Paul never actually met Jesus except in his self professed vision of a presence which he said was Jesus.

In light of these circumstances, why give the New Testament any weight at all as a source of moral guidance? The Old Testament is at least as dubious if we dispense with a supposed direct revelation from YHVH, I think. Does Christianity have any moral authority, according to this view? If it does, from whence does it derive? I don't think that the say-so of some 1st century true believers quite does it. The say-so of their predecessors really isn't sufficient, either.

We can also consider something that Thomas Paine pointed out: "It is from the Bible that man has learned cruelty, rapine, and murder; for the belief of a cruel God makes a cruel man." (Letter dated May 12, 1797 (http://www.deism.com/bibleorigins.htm) my emphasis) I don't agree that man has learned cruelty from the Bible, but it could reasonably be said that man was and is able to justify cruelty by recourse to the Bible.
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Sandra Craft on March 21, 2012, 03:22:09 AM
The practice of slavery, as I pointed out above, was not something that the Romans had imported to the area. It seems you're trying to imply that the poor proto-Christians had to meekly accept the ways of the evil Romans. Their ancestors had been proud slave-makers and slave-owners long before the arrival of the Romans, so that particular assertion falls by the wayside.

Particularly when you consider that less than 200 yrs ago some Xtians in this country were using their god and his bible to defend the practice of slavery.  No evil, powerful Romans around to inflict obnoxious practices on them, the people buying and keeping slaves were the people in power.  And they were insisting on their biblical right to do it in the face of a growing movement to knock that shit off, to put it simply.  I'm sure someone is going to bring up the fact that many of the anti-slavery faction were also Xtians using the bible to support their view, but this is just another example of cherry-picking, not a contradiction of the bible supporting slavery.
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Sweetdeath on March 21, 2012, 04:27:37 AM
The practice of slavery, as I pointed out above, was not something that the Romans had imported to the area. It seems you're trying to imply that the poor proto-Christians had to meekly accept the ways of the evil Romans. Their ancestors had been proud slave-makers and slave-owners long before the arrival of the Romans, so that particular assertion falls by the wayside.

Particularly when you consider that less than 200 yrs ago some Xtians in this country were using their god and his bible to defend the practice of slavery.  No evil, powerful Romans around to inflict obnoxious practices on them, the people buying and keeping slaves were the people in power.  And they were insisting on their biblical right to do it in the face of a growing movement to knock that shit off, to put it simply.  I'm sure someone is going to bring up the fact that many of the anti-slavery faction were also Xtians using the bible to support their view, but this is just another example of cherry-picking, not a contradiction of the bible supporting slavery.


That's right. And 200yrs later, states like georgia and arkansaw (sp?) are still extremely rascist....and even still think owning another human.being is their god given right.
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Recusant on March 21, 2012, 07:38:52 AM
. . . 200yrs later, states like georgia and arkansaw (sp?) are still extremely rascist....and even still think owning another human.being is their god given right.

That's painting with a mighty broad brush. I don't think it's reasonable to say that entire states are guilty of racism, except to the extent that their laws support racism (which in the case of the two states you mention, used to be the case). On the other hand, I would agree that there are still individual racists in those states (and certainly elsewhere), some of whom might be willing to endorse slavery, given a context where they felt at ease.
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Too Few Lions on March 21, 2012, 10:18:49 AM
It seems that they adopted the principle of "don't make waves, unless it's about an ultimate issue."  They were prepared to die for their faith, but didn't try to change every evil practice in the Roman empire.
plus I think this statement is wholly incorrect. Early Christians apologists went around telling everyone else they worshipped false gods and demons, and that they were going to burn in hell as a result. I don't see how that can be called 'not making waves'! They were generally considered as troublemakers and intolerant fanatics by the Romans.
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: AnimatedDirt on March 21, 2012, 03:01:11 PM
I'm not so sure it is simply a 'line' but more a norm.

I'm not sure what you mean by this (you're more than welcome to elaborate, and correct me if I misunderstand you),

Simply...that the best position to take is the position of the whole and not part.
Quote from: Recusant
As certain rustic philosophers are wont to say: "That dog don't hunt." Jesus taking Old Testament morality and extending it to include thought crimes is not the same as saying that a previous morality is both still valid and current while at the same time not to be considered and rejected in light of modern understanding. We're talking about unequivocal dictates, not vague guidelines which "require thought."

Dictates that apparently require logic.  If outright murder is wrong, then mental stabs, (hate or most any negative emotion) aimed at our "brother" does the same.  The OT "morality" were the very words and dictates of Jesus himself...or at least this was his claim.

Quote from: Recusant
Here's a page based on the question, Does God condone slavery? (http://christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html).  I read about 1/4 of it and skimmed the rest.

I don't blame you. An honest person such as yourself must feel a bit nauseated by the blatant tap-dancing taking place on that page.

*chuckle*  I didn't stop reading for the "tap dancing".  It was simply that it seemed we were in agreement.(Edit:  That I was in agreement with the article)   I was honest in how much I read in case a point was brought up that I didn't see which I may not agree with.  I assume you read it all and disagreed.  

Quote from: Recusant
I think that Jimmy Carter, as politicians go, is admirable in many ways. He seems to be less of a liar than the run of the mill hacks. You'll notice that in that quote, he doesn't deny that slavery is condoned in the Bible.

Respectfully, I think you missed the point.
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Sweetdeath on March 21, 2012, 04:33:07 PM
. . . 200yrs later, states like georgia and arkansaw (sp?) are still extremely rascist....and even still think owning another human.being is their god given right.

That's painting with a mighty broad brush. I don't think it's reasonable to say that entire states are guilty of racism, except to the extent that their laws support racism (which in the case of the two states you mention, used to be the case). On the other hand, I would agree that there are still individual racists in those states (and certainly elsewhere), some of whom might be willing to endorse slavery, given a context where they felt at ease.
You're right. I could of said some assholes of those states, because I have been to them before in person.
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Hector Valdez on March 26, 2012, 10:08:26 PM
See Sig.
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Amicale on March 26, 2012, 10:58:02 PM
See Sig.

I do believe you're the first person I've come across here on HAF who has quoted themselves in their signature.  :D
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Ali on March 26, 2012, 11:06:25 PM
See Sig.

I do believe you're the first person I've come across here on HAF who has quoted themselves in their signature.  :D

*Snerk*

That's brilliant.  I'm going to do it from now on.  Starting in 30 seconds when I change my signature. 

Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Sweetdeath on March 26, 2012, 11:36:32 PM
See Sig.

I do believe you're the first person I've come across here on HAF who has quoted themselves in their signature.  :D

*Snerk*

That's brilliant.  I'm going to do it from now on.  Starting in 30 seconds when I change my signature. 



You're awesome, Ali :)
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: DeterminedJuliet on March 26, 2012, 11:51:28 PM
See Sig.

I do believe you're the first person I've come across here on HAF who has quoted themselves in their signature.  :D

*Snerk*

That's brilliant.  I'm going to do it from now on.  Starting in 30 seconds when I change my signature. 



*stifles chuckle*
Title: Re: Slaves, Obey Your Masters
Post by: Hector Valdez on April 01, 2012, 05:49:28 PM
Lalalala....I can't hear you... :-*