Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 42

Thread: The Bible is holy and from god. Oh, and also you have to understand the times in which it was written. WUT?

  1. Top | #11
    Senior Member OLDMAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    NB
    Posts
    659
    Archived
    2,107
    Total Posts
    2,766
    Rep Power
    44
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ideologyhunter View Post
    From the 60s onward, Christian writers have railed against situation ethics. What is "God allowed you to do this because your hearts were hard" but situation ethics? I've heard the same horseshit explanation for the Bible on slavery, i.e., that was the way it was, back then, but God's law tried to make it a better world for the slave, and the NT provided for the eventual downfall of slavery. A total crock. The anti-abolitionist clergy of the pre-Civil War days had it absolutely right: the Bible sees it as completely moral to buy and sell people and beat them to the point of death if ya want. God lets ya. Go ahead and don't think twice.
    Why, in your opinion, was it believed for centuries that slavery was against the law of God? Indeed, even during the years of the African slave trade itself; buying and selling of human beings was still illegal in Europe, and for religious reasons. They had merely devised a workaround having to due with the then-recently invented concept of race and some tortured interpretations of some passages in Genesis. You couldn't enslave, say, a white Belgian. Or a Swede. Because that would be un-Christian. You could enslave an Irishman, but only if you pretended they were an indentured servant rather than a slave as such.

    Deeply hypocritical, yes, but a bit odd considering your claim that the Biblical case for the pro-slavery position is airtight. If that is so, why didn't the pro-slavery crowd just say so, and resume open enslavement regardless of race? Are you claiming, like your forebears, that the Bible only clearly advocates the enslavement of people with black skin?
    It was much easier to dehumanize people who didn't speak english, believe in the same god and were black (like apes)....they were clearly sub-human. What most likely happened was the slaves soon learned english, attended church, learned to read, probably became Christians...now how do you dehumanize someone who is just as smart (often smarter) than the people who own them? Much harder to do, and much harder to justify, leaving some whites to question just how moral their position truly was in this regards.

    In short it most likely was the blacks becoming Americanized that lead to a changed attitude....they sort of freed themselves by their abilities. Even for the most ardent slaver, they could no longer say, blacks were sub-human. IMO.

  2. Top | #12
    Gone
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,779
    Archived
    2,812
    Total Posts
    7,591
    Rep Power
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ideologyhunter View Post
    From the 60s onward, Christian writers have railed against situation ethics. What is "God allowed you to do this because your hearts were hard" but situation ethics? I've heard the same horseshit explanation for the Bible on slavery, i.e., that was the way it was, back then, but God's law tried to make it a better world for the slave, and the NT provided for the eventual downfall of slavery. A total crock. The anti-abolitionist clergy of the pre-Civil War days had it absolutely right: the Bible sees it as completely moral to buy and sell people and beat them to the point of death if ya want. God lets ya. Go ahead and don't think twice.
    Why, in your opinion, was it believed for centuries that slavery was against the law of God? Indeed, even during the years of the African slave trade itself; buying and selling of human beings was still illegal in Europe, and for religious reasons. They had merely devised a workaround having to due with the then-recently invented concept of race and some tortured interpretations of some passages in Genesis. You couldn't enslave, say, a white Belgian. Or a Swede. Because that would be un-Christian. You could enslave an Irishman, but only if you pretended they were an indentured servant rather than a slave as such.

    Deeply hypocritical, yes, but a bit odd considering your claim that the Biblical case for the pro-slavery position is airtight. If that is so, why didn't the pro-slavery crowd just say so, and resume open enslavement regardless of race? Are you claiming, like your forebears, that the Bible only clearly advocates the enslavement of people with black skin?
    You write ”for religious reasons”. Can you tell what you believes these religious reason would be?

  3. Top | #13
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    2,336
    Rep Power
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Juma View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ideologyhunter View Post
    From the 60s onward, Christian writers have railed against situation ethics. What is "God allowed you to do this because your hearts were hard" but situation ethics? I've heard the same horseshit explanation for the Bible on slavery, i.e., that was the way it was, back then, but God's law tried to make it a better world for the slave, and the NT provided for the eventual downfall of slavery. A total crock. The anti-abolitionist clergy of the pre-Civil War days had it absolutely right: the Bible sees it as completely moral to buy and sell people and beat them to the point of death if ya want. God lets ya. Go ahead and don't think twice.
    Why, in your opinion, was it believed for centuries that slavery was against the law of God? Indeed, even during the years of the African slave trade itself; buying and selling of human beings was still illegal in Europe, and for religious reasons. They had merely devised a workaround having to due with the then-recently invented concept of race and some tortured interpretations of some passages in Genesis. You couldn't enslave, say, a white Belgian. Or a Swede. Because that would be un-Christian. You could enslave an Irishman, but only if you pretended they were an indentured servant rather than a slave as such.

    Deeply hypocritical, yes, but a bit odd considering your claim that the Biblical case for the pro-slavery position is airtight. If that is so, why didn't the pro-slavery crowd just say so, and resume open enslavement regardless of race? Are you claiming, like your forebears, that the Bible only clearly advocates the enslavement of people with black skin?
    You write ”for religious reasons”. Can you tell what you believes these religious reason would be?
    You can read for yourself; here are some helpful primary documents from over the years:


    Slavery never really ended, but most Christians throughout history have believed, however hypocritically, that the enslavement of a fellow person is normally a sin. You are setting yourself up as the "Master" of someone who has only one true master, and for the sake of your own greed placing yourself in the seat of God. People have been creative in devising excuses and exceptions that supposedly justify their actions, and under many disguises has continued throughout European history well into the present day.

  4. Top | #14
    Contributor repoman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    6,376
    Archived
    2,280
    Total Posts
    8,656
    Rep Power
    73
    I am not sure that engaging in the debunking of God on moral and hypocrisy grounds is a good idea. Even if the Bible was mostly full of many more helpful suggestions and harmless bromides god would still not be real. Even the best possible god is still not real.

    Us engaging in this debunking too much makes it look like we are sweating it, though we are not.

    Also even without the concept of god there still would have been slavery, but maybe with more violent slave revolts since no promise of reward in the afterlife for being a good doggy.

    But, it is a weird sell to tell a theist "even the good stuff in your in book is bullshit or if not it is just common sense anyway. There is no god and no god's mercy since he does not exist."

  5. Top | #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Cascadia
    Posts
    1,128
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhea View Post
    These two things are incompatible and also frequently used by christians who don’t see the contradiction.

    Talking today with a Christian trying to justify the cruelty of having to marry your rapist - so that he can rape you for the rest of your life. But! But! You have to understand the times, she was now an outcast and he had to take care of her to keep her alive!

    Dude. So maybe the bible should say, “if you rape, you have to pay for her needs for the rest of her life, and you have to stay away from her, oh and also, all you other people, don’t be dicks to her, it’s not her fault.”

    But apparently the god of the times couldn’t manage that kind of foresight.

    Also it admits that the god of the times had no control over the mores of the times. Sad!
    There's a third option. An all powerful entity could continually update all Bibles to fit the times. The fact that the Bible stays the same and doesn't magically keep changing I think is evidence against the existience of God.
    Ah....But if you talk to biblical scholars, you will find that the Bible has been changing over time. Bart Ehrman has built an entire career out of interpreting the changes and their implications. See: The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effects of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament. Oxford University Press, 1993.

    Be careful with your suppositions.

  6. Top | #16
    Zen Hedonist Jobar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    1,097
    Archived
    9,525
    Total Posts
    10,622
    Rep Power
    68
    http://www.evilbible.com/

    Marrying your rapist is far from the worst thing God instructs us to do, or does Himself, in the Bible.

  7. Top | #17
    Veteran Member phands's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    New York, Manhattan, Upper West Side
    Posts
    1,976
    Archived
    1
    Total Posts
    1,977
    Rep Power
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by Jobar View Post
    http://www.evilbible.com/

    Marrying your rapist is far from the worst thing God instructs us to do, or does Himself, in the Bible.
    Castrating yourself for one thing....
    “Light thinks it travels faster than anything but it is wrong. No matter how fast light travels, it finds the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it.” Terry Pratchett

  8. Top | #18
    Veteran Member Lion IRC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,486
    Rep Power
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhea View Post
    These two things are incompatible and also frequently used by christians who don’t see the contradiction.

    Talking today with a Christian trying to justify the cruelty of having to marry your rapist - so that he can rape you for the rest of your life. But! But! You have to understand the times, she was now an outcast and he had to take care of her to keep her alive!

    Dude. So maybe the bible should say, “if you rape, you have to pay for her needs for the rest of her life, and you have to stay away from her, oh and also, all you other people, don’t be dicks to her, it’s not her fault.”

    But apparently the god of the times couldn’t manage that kind of foresight.

    Also it admits that the god of the times had no control over the mores of the times. Sad!

    That rule benefitted rape victims and the deterrent prevented potential rapes.

    Nobody would ever marry a woman who claimed to have been raped. So what else was she to do?

    And what better way to punish a rapist than to make them pay lifelong alimony/maintenance and a dowry.

    And let's not forget..."only the man who lay with her shall die. You shall do nothing to the young woman; the young woman has not committed an offense punishable by death"

    Seems they took #MeToo allegations a lot more seriously back then. So yeah, you gotta understand the time it was written.
    Last edited by Lion IRC; 09-26-2018 at 02:06 PM.

  9. Top | #19
    Veteran Member Sarpedon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    MN, US
    Posts
    2,953
    Archived
    8,446
    Total Posts
    11,399
    Rep Power
    66
    So, you torture the victim in order to punish the rapist. Her suffering is irrelevant to 'deterring' future rape from the rapist.

    Hey Lion, here's an idea: why not punish the rapist without making it any worse for the victim?

    Or is that just un-biblical?

  10. Top | #20
    Veteran Member Lion IRC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,486
    Rep Power
    17
    Punish the rapist and ignore the plight of the victim?
    The victim would have found it hard to marry - that meant poverty.
    Think of it as a shotgun wedding.
    Nobody is saying it was a win win win, happily ever after scenario.

    I actually think the Israelite biblical punishment of male sex crimes against women was much harsher than neighboring societies. Considered from a secular point of view, a Hebrew woman was much safer than her counterparts in other patriarchal male-dominated societies.

Similar Threads

  1. Interpret this sci fi script written by an AI
    By Angry Floof in forum Media & Culture Gallery
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-15-2017, 05:33 PM
  2. Replies: 20
    Last Post: 08-24-2017, 12:08 AM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-01-2015, 03:28 PM
  4. Wikipedia Stubs Written By Bots
    By Under the Rose in forum General World History
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 07-21-2014, 01:00 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •