Religion
Related: About this forum"Thou shalt not enslave your fellow human beings." ~ Absolutelyfuckingnowhere 3:16
Found this on FB.
rug
(82,333 posts)"The second is this: Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these. I'll leave the group to judge if it counts as a counter argument to the OP, assuming that was your intention.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Do you think slave-owning Christians did?
Of course, some slave owners thought they were genuinely loving their slaves by helping them out of their "savage heathen" life, putting them to work and giving them Christianity. So in that regard they were following that commandment pretty well.
rug
(82,333 posts)It references Leviticus 19:18.
"Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord."
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Clearly implying that "your neighbor" is "your people" - other races need not apply.
rug
(82,333 posts)28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, Of all the commandments, which is the most important?
29 The most important one, answered Jesus, is this: Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.
30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.
31 The second is this: Love your neighbor as yourself.[There is no commandment greater than these.
32 Well said, teacher, the man replied. You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him.
33 To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.
34 When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, You are not far from the kingdom of God. And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions.
Your clear implication is rather murky.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Where specifically does Jesus condemn slavery? Where does he specifically define who one's neighbor is?
rug
(82,333 posts)Luke 10
25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. Teacher, he asked, what must I do to inherit eternal life?
26 What is written in the Law? he replied. How do you read it?
27 He answered, Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind;and, Love your neighbor as yourself.
28 You have answered correctly, Jesus replied. Do this and you will live.(AI)
29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, And who is my neighbor?
30 In reply Jesus said: A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead.
31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side.
32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side.
33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him.
34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 3
35 The next day he took out two denarii[ and gave them to the innkeeper. Look after him, he said, and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.
36 Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?
37 The expert in the law replied, The one who had mercy on him.
Jesus told him, Go and do likewise.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Jesus asks: "Who was a neighbor to the injured man?"
The Samaritan was. "The one who had mercy on him."
Therefore, *my* neighbor is someone that does something good for me. If they aren't doing what I like, they aren't my neighbor. Too easy.
rug
(82,333 posts)You have a particulary churlish view of one of the most humanitarian passages in scripture.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)and you need to stop making these things personal. Keep it out of the gutter, rug.
I am pointing out how someone else could easily interpret the passage to restrict who gets the label of "neighbor."
The contrast between the parable and the interpretation struck me.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)And both seem to have some validity.
EDIT: Tho even your interpretation of it does not seem to apply to the issue of slavery.
LTX
(1,020 posts)because the Torah and New Testament were written before 1830.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)...for what is supposed to be a divine/holy scripture. At least it is in my book.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)at that time, I would expect nothing different. However, the Bible does refer to how slaves are to be treated kindly. To apply today's standards to another era is plainly foolish. You and those like you clearly have an agenda.
Guess what. Even atheists of the day had slaves or condoned slavery.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)Indeed to apply today's standards to another era IS foolish, yet that is not what I was doing. I was questioning the holy nature of the bible because, in my opinion, an all powerful deity should be above such things as the "standards of an era" and instead SHOULD have been able to affect what those standards were through the inspiration that said deity gave to those who wrote its "holy scripture."
That atheists of the day had slaves is a completely meaningless statement in the context of the discussion, because as you said, to apply today's standards to another era is plainly foolish.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)accusations are no more ridiculous than if I were to blame atheists here for refusing to stand up and speak out for those who were enslaved during the more recent times under atheistic dictators. Shameful.
I do consider your argument to be quite ridiculous and clearly motivated by bias against another group. You clearly have an anti-religious agenda.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)I don't "assume" to speak for a god I don't believe exists. I don't speak for any god period. I would "assume" that an "all powerful deity of the universe" to be of a higher moral fiber than the deity that is described in the bible. That this deity fails to pass even the most basic of moral tests based on the writings of his "holy scriptures" is why I left the christian church in the first place, and eventually became an atheist.
I'm not blaming "people" for anything at all, and that you continue to try and imply that I am and use that as some sort of counter argument is what is truly "shameful."
As for my "anti-religious agenda" it extends only so far as to keep religion out of politics. Do I view religion as doing more harm than good? Yes. But do I go out of my way to make every practitioner of said religion to feel like an asshole for following it? I try not to. And do I still believe people should have the right to the free exercise of religion? Absolutely.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)You are not critiquing the nature of politics. You are clearly in support of being anti-religious.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)eqfan592
(5,963 posts)humblebum
(5,881 posts)a huge red herring fallacy, which proves that your intentions are solely anti-religious.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Last edited Sun May 13, 2012, 12:12 PM - Edit history (1)
1. Argument
2. red-herring
3. Fallacy
4. Proves
5. Intentions
6. Solely
7.anti-religious
"Full of fail", indeed!
Response to cleanhippie (Reply #32)
Post removed
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)School on a holiday, humblebum, school on a holiday.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)to an attack I would say. You are an old hand at playing that violin music in the background.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)And stooped to a new low. Again, school on a holiday.
Response to humblebum (Reply #38)
Post removed
LTX
(1,020 posts)the works as man's attempt to explain or capture the divine, or as "miraculously" authored by the divine. If the latter, I agree, it would be a weak excuse.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)My catechism taught that it was written by man, tho "inspired" by god. A sort of halfway point between the two. I would then argue that god could have inspired better words. But if they book was truly just man's attempt to explain or capture the divine, it begs the question as to why the current church doesn't do away with some of the less, well, "inspired" passages. That this seems so difficult to do leads me to believe most practitioners believe there is at least some divine nature to the words as they were written.
social and political need to have a fixed liturgy evolved into attributions of scriptural divinity. The text itself is an anchor for group cohesion, in the absence of which you have un-moored autonomy, a very frightening drift much akin to lack of, or loss of, family or tribal association or support. To set about changing the text is to yank the anchor up. I tend to think this is particularly true for protestant churches that lack the history and traditions of clerical interpretation, and place great importance on the individual's ability to discern the divine. The bible then takes on even greater importance as a fixed and unchanging source for both cohesion and revelation. In short, the bible itself becomes the priest.
The permanency of scripture and commentary is actually a matter of considerable debate in my own religious traditions. Talmudic commentary was, for example, originally oral and evolving, but itself became subject to written fixity and editorial taboo. The irony of this is not unrecognized. After all, man is an inherently hubristic scribe.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)If the son of god couldn't be bothered to mention it was a bad idea, what kind of moral authority should we give him?
humblebum
(5,881 posts)dmallind
(10,437 posts)humblebum
(5,881 posts)eqfan592
(5,963 posts)humblebum
(5,881 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)nt that.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)OneTenthofOnePercent
(6,268 posts)eqfan592
(5,963 posts)So it doesn't count.
dmallind
(10,437 posts)daaron
(763 posts)There is zero evidence that the Jews were ever enslaved in Egypt.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)backscatter712
(26,355 posts)It didn't take long for the Israelites to sweep into the land of Caanan in a tsunami of genocide, and murder or enslave everyone in the way.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)You might want to do a bit more research on the topic.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)You'd think a code of conduct handed down to Moses directly from an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent deity would have something about not treating fellow human beings as property.
Out of all the serious moral abuses that crop up over and over again throughout history, you'd think that God would have mentioned it in the Ten Commandments. Guess it must have slipped His mind.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)...is that there were 15 commandments to start with, but Mel Brooks broke one of the tablets.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Though I'd take a hint from the first three, which can be boiled down to one - Thou shalt keep thine lips planted on Mine ass at all times.
Maybe the missing five are of the same spirit - we are dealing with a God that shows signs of severe narcissism...
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)You know, the one about not coveting another's property including their wife, livestock, and slaves.
It would have also contradicted the verses saying to take heathens as slaves who will belong to your family forever.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)But the whole litany of rules and regulations laid down by god in the OT. Nowhere is slavery forbidden or even mildly disapproved of. All the idiot apologists on this board have is the argument (which even they must know is lamer than a eunuch's willie) "The Bible is a product of its times"
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Jesus himself said slaves should obey their masters, yet this entire thread is filled with equivocating and dishonest cherry picking of the Bible. Why can't they just admit that God was wrong?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)And they were in a previous thread when asked whether they would sacrifice their own child if god ordered them to.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)all the others, at least a half dozen or so, are wanna be murderers of their own children. That's what happens when you put piety before humanity.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)and I would die to protect other PEOPLE as well. Because I value PEOPLE over religion.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)Last edited Sun May 13, 2012, 02:01 PM - Edit history (1)
I thought you had no religion so the fact that you value PEOPLE over something you don't have and have no use for is meaningless.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)Did you intentionally ignore this, or did you somehow just miss it?
Honestly, I'm curious to see where exactly you intend to go with this line of questioning, and what overall point you think you are going to make.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)I'll edit it. We'll see if this goes anywhere if it does great, if it doesn't no loss. I have no point to make just curious myself.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)and I kinda see your point, I view religion as a means to excuse unethical actions and still be forgiven(Christianity at least). Helps alleviate the guilt when you don't have to answer to yourself. It is also used to excuse or belittle atrocities and injustices.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)as we like be forgiven and then continue in the same sin. Is that you understanding of what Christians are taught?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)it was very difficult to get a straight yes or no answer out of anyone. The thread was a cesspool of evasion, defensiveness and disingenuous dissembling. Christians tend to get that way when confronted with those types of uncomfortable questions.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)the easiest moral choices anyone can make are perverted and skewed to such an extent by their precious holy book, but they don't see it, instead they attack those who bring it up.
rug
(82,333 posts)Ephesians 6:5-8
5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, 8 because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.
Colossians 3:22-25
22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. 23 Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, 24 since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. 25 Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for their wrongs, and there is no favoritism.
1 Peter 2:13-21
13 Submit yourselves for the Lords sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, 14 or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 15 For it is Gods will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people. 16 Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as Gods slaves. 17 Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor.
18 Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. 19 For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God. 20 But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. 21 To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.
Do you believe the writers of these Epistles were condoning slavery?
Try not to be dishonest and defensive.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)"The servant who knows the masters will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked." - Luke 12:47-48
I'm sure you will try to dissemble this as with everything else.
rug
(82,333 posts)Here's Luke 12 with the six prior verses you left out.
41 And Peter said, Lord, speakest thou this parable unto us, or even unto all?
42 And the Lord said, Who then is the faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall set over his household, to give them their portion of food in due season?
43 Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.
44 Of a truth I say unto you, that he will set him over all that he hath.
45 But if that servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and the maidservants, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken;
46 the lord of that servant shall come in a day when he expecteth not, and in an hour when he knoweth not, and shall cut him asunder, and appoint his portion with the unfaithful.
Someone here is dissembling and it's not me.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)I really don't understand how someone can defend this type of evil.
rug
(82,333 posts)In this case, that a parable by Jesus about first century servants equates to his endorsement of slavery.
The adjective only scratches the surface.
Response to rug (Reply #68)
Post removed
rug
(82,333 posts)Are you saying that I, personally "defend evil, every fucking day" or that every member of the Catholic Church "defend evil, every fucking day"?
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)etc. is defending evil. I don't see how else it can be termed.
rug
(82,333 posts)John 4:21
"And this commandment have we from him, that he who loveth God love his brother also"
Are you deranged?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Not always, but usually. Slavery was pervasive. It was a ubiquitous fact of live in the ancient world.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)...but they are encouraging slaves to remain slaves.
LARED
(11,735 posts)laconicsax
(14,860 posts)Truly astounding.
LARED
(11,735 posts)My point (although subtle) was that there are lots of things we find distasteful that are not forbidden in the bible.
More to the point, historical and theological context is important if one desires an honest attempt to understand what is in the bible. Slogans like the OP are about as useful as what I posted. Meaning not at all
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)is that it is "distasteful"? You are one sick person. But hey, as long as you can claim to be "subtle", I guess everything's hunky-dory in your moral universe.
And "context" only matters if you are claiming that gawd doesn't actually exist, and if all of the rules and moral pronouncements in the Bible were invented by humans living at a particular time. Because the gawd that most Xstians fawn over is not a product of any "time". If he actually did exist as anything like described and worshipped, he would have known that slavery was a horrible moral evil 3000 years ago just as well as he would today (assuming of course that he would ever know it).
LARED
(11,735 posts)people think I did. It seems to be the thing to do around here.
But if it makes you feel better slavery is unconscionable, disgusting, deplorable, etc?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)"My point (although subtle) was that there are lots of things we find distasteful that are not forbidden in the bible." You can lie and say that slavery was not part of what you were referring to there, but that's all it would be. Otherwise that statement would have had no relevance to the topic at all. No one here needs to be told what you meant, despite your dissembling.
But nice backpedal. Shame that your Christian gawd has never felt the need for similar backpedaling any time in the last few millennia. If someone like you can learn it you'd think he/she/it would have no problem annunciating the concept.
LARED
(11,735 posts)Yes, the word distasteful did refer to slavery among many other things that are distasteful, but that was not really the point of my post.
I see how you may have misunderstood my words, but why did you try to frame my words as "my strongest condemnation of slavery"?
You attacked me instead of what I was trying to say. Again ad hominem attacks are sadly practically expected.
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)OP: Slavery isn't explicitly condemned in the Bible.
You: Neither is nose-picking.
If you weren't comparing slavery to nose-picking, then why did you feel that the absence of a Biblical prohibition on nose-picking was an appropriate counter example?
LARED
(11,735 posts)in the way you want it to be. I was a example of a similar type emotional appeal. (not a very good one I admit)
The OP make the appeal that the bible does not condemn slavery so we are to draw negative conclusions presumably about God
Me; Nose picking is not condemned either so we can draw another (although far less negative) conclusion presumably about God
In short neither posts has any real substance. The point of my post.
Of course it is much more fun to claim that I somehow equate nose picking with slavery.
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)The OP merely states that the Bible doesn't condemn slavery. Anything beyond that is the product of your imagination.
You, on the other hand did indirectly compare slavery to nose-picking. It's fun to watch you run away from your own words when they're so readily available for everyone to read. Did you not think anyone would read what you wrote?
Let's see the entirety of what you replied to again:
Found this on FB.
And you decided that "Thou shalt not pick your nose in public places (notfoundanywhereeither 4:22)" was a good, relevant response.
LARED
(11,735 posts)"More to the point, historical and theological context is important if one desires an honest attempt to understand what is in the bible. Slogans like the OP are about as useful as what I posted. Meaning not at all"
Products of imagination works both ways. Yes?
muriel_volestrangler
(101,152 posts)The OP make the appeal that the bible does not condemn slavery so we are to draw negative conclusions about the bible. It has plenty of outdated moral claims that are complete crap, and condemned by any thinking modern day person.
It should be jettisoned as a reliable guide to ethics. It's no better than Aesop's Fables. Yet conservatives cling on to it. They call it 'holy', or 'sacred'. Some even claim it is 'inspired', or 'the Word of God'.
If Christianity let go of the bible, it could start progressing.
LARED
(11,735 posts)What was meant by "historical context", is that interpretation of the bible requires one to view it within the culture and times it was written.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,152 posts)and thus of marginal relevance to today. But it gets quoted and used as justification for someone's morals far more than Plato or Marcus Aurelius.
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)At least it shows that you regret writing it.
LARED
(11,735 posts)It is plain to see.
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)That's good to know.
Watch me distort the facts again!
The OP reads:
You replied:
It's so much fun to distort facts!
LARED
(11,735 posts)Cherry picking? Or completely ignores what was said in order to make a specious argument?
Is it deceit, sophistry, or something else.
Or perhaps that's an alternate definition of "fun".
Either way your act is not fooling anyone.
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)You offered nose-picking as a counter example to slavery. Keep trying to claim that moral high ground.
LARED
(11,735 posts)I'm sure that won't stop you from making your own definition anyway.
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)I can quote you again if you like.
LARED
(11,735 posts)I was expecting the usual where you try to create a new definition for yourself.
It's a pretty stupid game you're playing that I will not continue. Everyone can see what I said for themselves and can figure it out without your help in constraining my words to fit in the little box that allows you to claim some sort of sophomoric victory.
So please post what I said again (please don't bother with context) as I'm sure everyone will be impressed. I know I am.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)coun·ter·ex·am·ple (kountr-g-zmpl)
n.
An example that refutes or disproves a hypothesis, proposition, or theorem.
Are you honestly attempting to say that it was not your intention to do this very thing when making your original post? While it is true that there was no clearly stated proposition made in the OP, it was clear from a common sense standpoint, as was your attempted refutation.
LARED
(11,735 posts).
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Looked for it in the Periodic Table of Elements, too. Still no dice...
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Plenty of people claim that about the bible.
Care to try another non sequitur?
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)You just try living your life without The Elements!
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)were written and lived out, there is an acceptance of slavery. The Hebrews had in their midst, when they had settled in Canaan "sojourners" who had become part of their families. The word "slave" and the word "servant" or "sojourner" are from the same roots in Greek and in Hebrew. To understand this arrangement as either the American experience with slavery or slaves in the Roman context is to be unaware of the meaning of the words and the social reality. Nevertheless, to insist that the Bible condemns slavery in any form is impossible.
These ancient people were citizens of their times. They accepted the social norms around them, and the differentiation in social classes was iron clad. One could not make the argument that the pure secularists of the era also condemned slavery. They were all in the same boat.
There is, however, in the Biblical ethic a sub-thread that is not just conditioned by society, but has profound implications underlying a basic sets of ethical notions. It was these notions which escape social customs that Jesus emphasized when he held the humanity of slaves, Samaritans, women, lepers, Romans, tax-collectors and any other group that society called sub-human.
The basic Christian ethic is not captive to any social custom, but offers a perspective far above what is going on at the moment. So Jesus was an ethical revolutionary who laid out a higher and deeper way to live, even while the religion around him was trapped in its own cultural patterns.
This hold true today. It is useless to point to texts which arose within a cultural setting to prove anything, except that is what the culture was doing and thinking at the moment.
It is curious to listen to people who have no use for the Bible citing verses that prove this or that.That is how fundamentalists of all sorts use the Bible. It is not how progressives that see underlying ethical models use it.
LARED
(11,735 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)"just a product of its times" is total bullshit in response to this argument, and why it is has been explained multiple times on this board, so why you continue to repeat it? That argument is only viable if the Bible and everything in it is entirely a human invention, and if the "god" that over a billion Xstians ans Jews believe in fervently doesn't exist (since that god is most definitely NOT a product of those or any other "times" . Is that really your position? If so, have the courage to step right up and say so. Otherwise, take your argument and trash it.
LARED
(11,735 posts)(Perhaps someone did and I missed it) but what is the argument being made in the OP?
""Thou shalt not enslave your fellow human beings." ~ Absolutelyfuckingnowhere 3:16" is a statement that makes leaves one to interpret for themselves what the OP's point may be.
You seem to know so I am asking you.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that you are completely clueless about the very simple and obvious points of the OP, which are connected to many, many previous threads here.
LARED
(11,735 posts)I was simply making the observation that if there was one argument in particular the OP had in mind it remains unknown.
Are you always this unpleasant?
Response to LARED (Reply #111)
cbayer This message was self-deleted by its author.
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)Last edited Tue May 15, 2012, 06:15 PM - Edit history (1)
Talk about unpleasant!