News:

Nitpicky? Hell yes.

Main Menu

Slaves, Obey Your Masters

Started by AnimatedDirt, March 13, 2012, 08:55:28 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Amicale

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 16, 2012, 05:58:40 PM
Quote from: 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!

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.


"Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb we are bound to others. By every crime and act of kindness we birth our future." - Cloud Atlas

"To live in the hearts of those we leave behind is to never die." -Carl Sagan

Sweetdeath

Quote from: Amicale on March 16, 2012, 06:03:27 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 16, 2012, 05:58:40 PM
Quote from: 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!

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...
Law 35- "You got to go with what works." - Robin Lefler

Wiggum:"You have that much faith in me, Homer?"
Homer:"No! Faith is what you have in things that don't exist. Your awesomeness is real."

"I was thinking that perhaps this thing called God does not exist. Because He cannot save any one of us. No matter how we pray, He doesn't mend our wounds.

Amicale

Quote from: Sweetdeath on March 16, 2012, 06:05:47 PM
Quote from: Amicale on March 16, 2012, 06:03:27 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 16, 2012, 05:58:40 PM
Quote from: 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!

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.


"Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb we are bound to others. By every crime and act of kindness we birth our future." - Cloud Atlas

"To live in the hearts of those we leave behind is to never die." -Carl Sagan

AnimatedDirt

Quote from: Amicale on March 16, 2012, 06:03:27 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 16, 2012, 05:58:40 PM
Quote from: 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!

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.

AnimatedDirt

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

AnimatedDirt

Quote from: Sweetdeath on March 16, 2012, 06:05:47 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.

Recusant

#96
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?
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


Amicale

#97
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. :)


"Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb we are bound to others. By every crime and act of kindness we birth our future." - Cloud Atlas

"To live in the hearts of those we leave behind is to never die." -Carl Sagan

The Magic Pudding

Quote from: 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?

Creative divinity?

Sandra Craft

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 16, 2012, 05:58:40 PM
Quote from: 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!

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.
Sandy

  

"Life is short, and it is up to you to make it sweet."  Sarah Louise Delany

DeterminedJuliet

Quote from: 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?

Exactly.
"We've thought of life by analogy with a journey, with pilgrimage which had a serious purpose at the end, and the THING was to get to that end; success, or whatever it is, or maybe heaven after you're dead. But, we missed the point the whole way along; It was a musical thing and you were supposed to sing, or dance, while the music was being played.

AnimatedDirt

#101
Quote from: 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?

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, 22You 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, 28You 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?.  I read about 1/4 of it and skimmed the rest.

Edit:  Adding the following.

From this Huffington Post link asking questions of former President Jimmy Carter.

QuoteWhat 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.

Recusant

#102
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 19, 2012, 03:25:38 PMI'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.

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 19, 2012, 03:25:38 PMWe 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, 22You 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, 28You 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."

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 19, 2012, 03:25:38 PMHere's a page based on the question, Does God condone slavery?.  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.

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on March 19, 2012, 03:25:38 PMEdit:  Adding the following.

From this Huffington Post link asking questions of former President Jimmy Carter.


QuoteWhat 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.
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


Ecurb Noselrub

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.

Sweetdeath

Quote from: 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.

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.
Law 35- "You got to go with what works." - Robin Lefler

Wiggum:"You have that much faith in me, Homer?"
Homer:"No! Faith is what you have in things that don't exist. Your awesomeness is real."

"I was thinking that perhaps this thing called God does not exist. Because He cannot save any one of us. No matter how we pray, He doesn't mend our wounds.