The Prefailure Of Apologetics

[bornagainathiest]

Would Wololo agree that there are only three possible positions on the matter of religion being relevant to absolutely everything?

And that religion should only proceed to influence every aspect of human life if # 1 is confirmed?

And that secular, agnostic science is the only means of gathering sufficient evidence to make the choice?

And that religious faith is not the means by which to make this choice?

 

1.

Sufficient evidence for us to conclude that there was a Creator... leading to religion influencing everything.

 

2.

Sufficient evidence for us to conclude that there was not a Creator... leading to religion influencing nothing but itself.

 

3.

Insufficient evidence either way.

 

 

 

[★ Citsonga ★]

Agree with your comments, Citsonga.

.

.

.

Perhaps a simpler way of putting my earlier post to Wololo is this.

 

The Bible represents a case of historical CAUSE and EFFECT.

 

Wololo hasn't addressed the historicity of the Cause (the Fall) at all. 

Instead he's been largely talking about the validity and historicity of the Effect (the Crucifixion).   But because there was a historical Effect, there MUST have been a historical Cause.  The latter demands the former.  He can't have one without the other.  They're joined at the hip and can't be treated separately or in isolation. He can't work backwards from the Gospels and claim that because they are historical, therefore Genesis is historical. 

 

He HAS to establish the historicity of BOTH the cause and the effect.

 

Your thoughts?

 

BAA.

 

I agree completely. My prior comment wasn't challenging your position in the least, but rather I was just showing a side effect that is also problematic for the Christian.

[mymistake]

 

The only reason you think it doesn't match what we observe is because you're looking at the drop of water in the ocean rather than the big picture. The article linked to that gave an overview of RO explained how that works in the context of postmodernism. It replaces nihilism with a teleological purpose.

 

 

You keep talking about my motives and my reasons and every time you do you get it wrong.  Maybe you should ask me about my reasons instead of presuming and dictating them to me.

[Roz]

"What RO is trying to do is overcome the fact that we have relegated religion to a corner and saying that it is only relevant in said corner and nowhere else. By returning to times long before modernity we can see the role that religion used to play (perhaps understanding why it did in the process)."

 

RO's MO:

• Bemoan how religion's (meaning the christian religion) is often relegated into its own corner
• Pine for the days long before modern science and free thought
• Try and substitute the words "pseudo theology" in place of modern science and/or try and equate science with philosophy
• And attempt to have religion (their christian religion) encompass every facet of life again

This is nothing more than another call for christian theocracy.  Different flavor of fundamentalism, but with the same intensity.

[♦ ficino ♦]

I started watching the radical orthodoxy video but I couldn't take any more after about nine minutes. This guy, forget his name, mentions but glosses over what helped the secular sphere to take place. It was how horribly religion had fucked up. He talks about "supposedly religious" causes of the Thirty Years War. His other rhetorical moves cloak over his bald presupposition that Christianity is true and that it should be in control of public as well as private life. Vague terms like "the sacred," intoned in a university accent, have no determinate content apart from religious establishments - i.e. they denote what some authority says it controls. But they make us feel good because of centuries of connotations that come along with the term.

 

He and his chums will get to run the Ministry of Culture and the universities in the new Christian theocracy? Or maybe they'll find their asses getting fried if some other doctrinal slant gets the upper hand.

 

This is very bad.

 

As I said earlier, compare countries and areas dominated by religion with those that allow religion but are basically secular. Where would you rather live? The Bible Belt has more social dysfunction than most of the rest of the US. And on and on.

[bornagainathiest]

 

Agree with your comments, Citsonga.

.

.

.

Perhaps a simpler way of putting my earlier post to Wololo is this.

 

The Bible represents a case of historical CAUSE and EFFECT.

 

Wololo hasn't addressed the historicity of the Cause (the Fall) at all. 

Instead he's been largely talking about the validity and historicity of the Effect (the Crucifixion).   But because there was a historical Effect, there MUST have been a historical Cause.  The latter demands the former.  He can't have one without the other.  They're joined at the hip and can't be treated separately or in isolation. He can't work backwards from the Gospels and claim that because they are historical, therefore Genesis is historical. 

 

He HAS to establish the historicity of BOTH the cause and the effect.

 

Your thoughts?

 

BAA.

 

I agree completely. My prior comment wasn't challenging your position in the least, but rather I was just showing a side effect that is also problematic for the Christian.

 

 

Gotcha!  Thanks.  

[bornagainathiest]

Hey Wololo!

 

Looking back thru the Lion's Den thread, I found this... http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/62389-a-christian-framework/page-6#.VEltJyLF-nI ...where you wrote that you'd be getting back to me on May 13.  

.

.

.

Tell you what.

I'll re-boot that thread into the Den (it's now locked) once you've responded to all the outstanding questions that are stacking up right now in your 'In' tray, ok?  Then you can post that long-overdue response that I never got from you.

 

 

Cheers,

 

BAA.

[sdelsolray]

 

 

Hey Wololo!

 

Looking back thru the Lion's Den thread, I found this... http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/62389-a-christian-framework/page-6#.VEltJyLF-nI ...where you wrote that you'd be getting back to me on May 13.  

.

.

.

Tell you what.

I'll re-boot that thread into the Den (it's now locked) once you've responded to all the outstanding questions that are stacking up right now in your 'In' tray, ok?  Then you can post that long-overdue response that I never got from you.

 

 

Cheers,

 

BAA.

In looking back at that thread, I realized why Wololo and his narcissistic woo woo are not worth any time.

[Wololo]

Hey Wololo!

 

Looking back thru the Lion's Den thread, I found this... http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/62389-a-christian-framework/page-6#.VEltJyLF-nI ...where you wrote that you'd be getting back to me on May 13.  

.

.

.

Tell you what.

I'll re-boot that thread into the Den (it's now locked) once you've responded to all the outstanding questions that are stacking up right now in your 'In' tray, ok?  Then you can post that long-overdue response that I never got from you.

 

 

Cheers,

 

BAA.

 

Yeah, way back in May when I left the rude ad hominem behind. Not everyone was quite so idiotic but stuff like that got left behind unintentionally. I'll see what I can do, but I make no promises.

 

 

 

You, like the fundies, have decided that the Bible needs to always be taken literally instead of with a historical and cultural context taken into account. There are a lot of things that people here assume and it informs their responses. We take so many other historical texts seriously and have no problem with a proper analysis, but with religious ones we have a double standard and feel the need to throw everything out the window.

 

 

A lot of us here do consider historical context, and not all of us consider the Gospels to be intended to be literal history. However, in my sphere of experience, the vast majority of Christians do take it as literal history, so it makes perfect sense to point out the serious problems that arise from that. It is more often the Christian who is avoiding a "proper analysis," because the Christian has the agenda of defending his preconceived belief.

 

 

Not really, because every time I make a historical argument you just wave your hand and dismiss it. There is plenty of literal history in the Bible, but the entire thing is not. Each of the gospels serves its own purpose and is written with its own goals and style. That needs to be taken into account first. For example...I've been questioned about slavery in the Bible. I explained its cultural place and how telling the people to stop would have accomplished nothing (considering how difficult it was to get rid of it so much later). Nope. That obviously wasn't good enough. It's easier just to dismiss.

 

 

What RO is trying to do is overcome the fact that we have relegated religion to a corner and saying that it is only relevant in said corner and nowhere else. By returning to times long before modernity we can see the role that religion used to play (perhaps understanding why it did in the process). Before the rise of modern thinking, religion was all-encompassing. There was not a sphere that it didn't influence. It was relevant to absolutely everything. Logically, this would make sense. If there is a creator, then everything that exists inside the universe would be relevant to it, as it is derived from that creator.

 

If we were to discuss things on that front we would have a long way to go from there being a creator to the creator being a Christian God, but that's not the point at the moment. Essentially though, RO proposes that there is no such thing as secular at all (that being a lack of religion) and instead that everything is related to religion.

 

RO is very diverse, which is why it can be difficult to pinpoint exactly what proponents believe. This is because it's not really a religion so much as it's a 'theological sensibility' (as those who have come up with RO describe it). It's a way of thinking that is shared among people who hold a variety of different beliefs. In fact, there are numerous dialogues going on between Christians who use RO as their philosophical framework, and people from other cultures and religions. Just as an example of dialogue between systems of belief distinctly recall seeing a book about dialogues between Eastern Orthodox Christians and RO Anglicans and I know that there are conversations with Buddhists going on, I just have to find the books. RO is multidisciplinary. If you want to figure out why or how they accomplish such a wide reach, you may want to look into systems theory, which really focuses on multidisciplinary studies and interactions.

Why the fuck would I want EVERYTHING to fall under the purview of religion? That will translate to falling under the control of religious leaders and their allies, who will profit from a new system. I would be put to death under such a system. There are places in the world now where religion dominates everything and people like me are in fact put to death.

 

The best places to live in the world are those where religion plays the smallest role. The worst are where it dominates. That's true even between states in the US.

 

I will need to start assembling an arsenal if RO takes over. I am not joking. I'm not going down with a whimper.

 

 

Ah, but see that's exactly the problem. We're corrupt people. There would be some among us who would abuse the new system. This is why I'm specifically for the separation of church and state. I don't see anything good coming of a combination of the two and we have plenty of historical evidence to back that up. Fortunately, that's not really the goal. As I've explained, if there was indeed a creator, then absolutely everything in the universe would be relevant to him (as it's his creation). All they are trying to do is apply their understanding of the world to their religion. They are not one before the other, but rather a combined exercise. If RO were to take over, you'd probably be fine, because nowhere in the rhetoric do they make death threats to non-believers. In fact the theologians responsible for this work are in discussion with people of other faiths and some of their colleagues are even discussing with people who are nonbelievers. (I recall a very interesting interview that I'll link you to)

 

 

I had half a response out to the prior posts before I got to bed last night so I'll finish that and post it.

[Roz]

The christian hamster wheel running around and around trying to explain why his christian RO theocracy is not like other theocracies before it.

[bornagainathiest]

 

Hey Wololo!

 

Looking back thru the Lion's Den thread, I found this... http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/62389-a-christian-framework/page-6#.VEltJyLF-nI ...where you wrote that you'd be getting back to me on May 13.  

.

.

.

Tell you what.

I'll re-boot that thread into the Den (it's now locked) once you've responded to all the outstanding questions that are stacking up right now in your 'In' tray, ok?  Then you can post that long-overdue response that I never got from you.

 

 

Cheers,

 

BAA.

 

Yeah, way back in May when I left the rude ad hominem behind. Not everyone was quite so idiotic but stuff like that got left behind unintentionally. I'll see what I can do, but I make no promises.

 

 

Please clear your 'In' tray before you honor the promise you haven't made here.

[bornagainathiest]

 

Hey Wololo!

 

Looking back thru the Lion's Den thread, I found this... http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/62389-a-christian-framework/page-6#.VEltJyLF-nI ...where you wrote that you'd be getting back to me on May 13.  

.

.

.

Tell you what.

I'll re-boot that thread into the Den (it's now locked) once you've responded to all the outstanding questions that are stacking up right now in your 'In' tray, ok?  Then you can post that long-overdue response that I never got from you.

 

 

Cheers,

 

BAA.

In looking back at that thread, I realized why Wololo and his narcissistic woo woo are not worth any time.

 

 

Maybe so, S.

 

But it's his understanding of cosmology that I'm interested in - not his narcissistic woo woo.

 

Once he's dealt with the outstanding questions that are waiting for him in this thread, that is.

After all, if I've waited six months to hear his take on cosmology, I can certainly wait until he's responded to the outstanding posts from me (# 45, 49 and 51 in this thread) and from other members.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

[★ Citsonga ★]

 

 

 

You, like the fundies, have decided that the Bible needs to always be taken literally instead of with a historical and cultural context taken into account. There are a lot of things that people here assume and it informs their responses. We take so many other historical texts seriously and have no problem with a proper analysis, but with religious ones we have a double standard and feel the need to throw everything out the window.

 

 

A lot of us here do consider historical context, and not all of us consider the Gospels to be intended to be literal history. However, in my sphere of experience, the vast majority of Christians do take it as literal history, so it makes perfect sense to point out the serious problems that arise from that. It is more often the Christian who is avoiding a "proper analysis," because the Christian has the agenda of defending his preconceived belief.

 

 

Not really, because every time I make a historical argument you just wave your hand and dismiss it.

 

 

Uh, no, that absolutely did not happen. I don't think that I've had any interaction at all with you in any other thread, and I know for a fact that you and I have not discussed this matter before, so you can stop it right now with the false accusations.

 

 

There is plenty of literal history in the Bible, but the entire thing is not. Each of the gospels serves its own purpose and is written with its own goals and style. That needs to be taken into account first.

 

 

How much "literal history" is in the Bible is disputable, but it is widely recognized that the different gospels had different purposes and intended audiences. I seriously doubt that you got a challenge to that from very many (if any) here. Recognizing the various writing styles and agendas does not automatically delete all of the problems in the Bible, though.

 

 

For example...I've been questioned about slavery in the Bible. I explained its cultural place and how telling the people to stop would have accomplished nothing (considering how difficult it was to get rid of it so much later). Nope. That obviously wasn't good enough. It's easier just to dismiss.

 

 

Sure, the Bible comes from a culture where slavery was practiced and accepted, and it may very well have been difficult for certain primitive peoples to have grasped the immorality of it. That's a fine and dandy point if we're dealing with a human-based Bible where "God" was merely a superstition and/or control mechanism used by ignorant humans. However, once you throw an all-powerful deity into the mix, it completely changes the game. It makes slavery a divinely sanctioned institution, and that is where the serious problem is, Wololo. An omnipotent God could have effectively communicated to his people how morally reprehensible slavery is, but that's not what we get with the Bible. Instead, we have a Bible where God endorses slavery. Ignoring the clear ramifications here would indicate to me that you are the one who's doing the "easier just to dismiss" dance.

[mymistake]

 

Not really, because every time I make a historical argument you just wave your hand and dismiss it. There is plenty of literal history in the Bible, but the entire thing is not. Each of the gospels serves its own purpose and is written with its own goals and style. That needs to be taken into account first. For example...I've been questioned about slavery in the Bible. I explained its cultural place and how telling the people to stop would have accomplished nothing (considering how difficult it was to get rid of it so much later). Nope. That obviously wasn't good enough. It's easier just to dismiss.

 

 

 

Yeah, sure.

 

And Yahweh looked down upon the Children of Israel and realized that they had a culture of having other gods before Yahweh, of making graven images, of using the Lord's name for their own vanity and doing whatever they wanted on the Sabbath.  Yahweh realized that telling the people to stop would accomplished nothing so Yahweh said "It's okay.  I understand.  Do whatever works for you.".  Thus Yahweh scraped his plan to issue the 10 Commandments.

 

Special pleading?

 

Your claim has been refuted.  It wasn't dismissed.  It was refuted.

[Wololo]

I've been gone for a couple days. Post incoming. Still not sure I should waste my time with straw man arguments, but some of you are 'somewhat' reasonable. If I don't respond to you, clean up your act. Since I've come back from the long break, I'm going to ignore people who aren't worth the time.

[Wololo]

 

 

 

 

You, like the fundies, have decided that the Bible needs to always be taken literally instead of with a historical and cultural context taken into account. There are a lot of things that people here assume and it informs their responses. We take so many other historical texts seriously and have no problem with a proper analysis, but with religious ones we have a double standard and feel the need to throw everything out the window.

 

 

A lot of us here do consider historical context, and not all of us consider the Gospels to be intended to be literal history. However, in my sphere of experience, the vast majority of Christians do take it as literal history, so it makes perfect sense to point out the serious problems that arise from that. It is more often the Christian who is avoiding a "proper analysis," because the Christian has the agenda of defending his preconceived belief.

 

 

Not really, because every time I make a historical argument you just wave your hand and dismiss it.

 

 

Uh, no, that absolutely did not happen. I don't think that I've had any interaction at all with you in any other thread, and I know for a fact that you and I have not discussed this matter before, so you can stop it right now with the false accusations.

 

 

There is plenty of literal history in the Bible, but the entire thing is not. Each of the gospels serves its own purpose and is written with its own goals and style. That needs to be taken into account first.

 

 

How much "literal history" is in the Bible is disputable, but it is widely recognized that the different gospels had different purposes and intended audiences. I seriously doubt that you got a challenge to that from very many (if any) here. Recognizing the various writing styles and agendas does not automatically delete all of the problems in the Bible, though.

 

 

For example...I've been questioned about slavery in the Bible. I explained its cultural place and how telling the people to stop would have accomplished nothing (considering how difficult it was to get rid of it so much later). Nope. That obviously wasn't good enough. It's easier just to dismiss.

 

 

Sure, the Bible comes from a culture where slavery was practiced and accepted, and it may very well have been difficult for certain primitive peoples to have grasped the immorality of it. That's a fine and dandy point if we're dealing with a human-based Bible where "God" was merely a superstition and/or control mechanism used by ignorant humans. However, once you throw an all-powerful deity into the mix, it completely changes the game. It makes slavery a divinely sanctioned institution, and that is where the serious problem is, Wololo. An omnipotent God could have effectively communicated to his people how morally reprehensible slavery is, but that's not what we get with the Bible. Instead, we have a Bible where God endorses slavery. Ignoring the clear ramifications here would indicate to me that you are the one who's doing the "easier just to dismiss" dance.

 

 

Good. Then you are an exception here. I appreciate that.

 

I definitely can't answer for everything that's in the Bible. If I was a scholar I'd do a much better job, but that's just not the case. There are certainly things I can address though.

 

I do agree with your final point to some extent, but there are a couple things I want to show you that may give the argument a bit more context.

 

"I spread out my hands all the day

        to a rebellious people,

    who walk in a way that is not good,

        following their own devices;"

 

- Isaiah 65:2 ESV

 

"I led them with cords of kindness,

        with the bands of love,

    and I became to them as one who eases the yoke on their jaws,

        and I bent down to them and fed them.......

 My people are bent on turning away from me,

        and though they call out to the Most High,

        he shall not raise them up at all."

 

-Hosea 11:4+7 ESV

 

There is a theme in the Old Testament. God often made himself very clear to his people as is written in their writings. He was perpetually trying to turn them from their wrongdoing and ill will toward other people. It's all over the place. He's constantly angry...constantly reprimanding them and punishing them. Why? They're not listening. He gives them a set of laws that...when compared to other cultures of the era are rather mild and yet they still can't get it right. They couldn't follow a set of laws that was a step in the right direction. They were persistently disobedient. As I noted above, there are several places where this effort is noted. God was constantly making himself clear and his people chose to do things their own way. What this goes to show is that regardless of what God said, they were not going to abide by the laws. It was a hopeless endeavor...and fortunately the law was not what it ended up being all about.

 

I want to clear up a misunderstanding of what omnipotence is. When people ask: "Can God make a mountain so big he can't lift it?" Before we even consider answering it, we need to realize that it's not even a valid question in the first place. If omnipotence means infinite power, can one exceed infinite? No. It's silly to even think about that. In the same way, God expressed himself in different ways over and over again and people (who have free will) chose not to obey. It wouldn't have mattered how God presented the laws, the result would have been the same (aside from perhaps increased or decreased confusion.)

 

The purpose of the law is not really there to condemn us as a standard that we need to follow, but more that we fail before the test even starts. It's supposed to show us that the problem is with our attitudes and with the heart. The Israelites were so stubborn, they wouldn't change at all. They continued to do exactly the same things, and often fell into the idolatry of other cultures. This is not a problem with laws, this is about what they represent: an attempt for God to help people understand what needs to change.

 

Christianity as a whole is about focusing on the building up of society and the building up of others rather than the destruction of it. All of the Israelite problems were in the mind. They didn't see the laws for what they were. When God tells them to treat their slaves well, that's because they were treating them badly! They should have known better, considering that they had to endure slavery in Egypt. If the focus of Christianity is on love, then they could have started by loving their slaves. It's not God condoning slavery. The action itself is not the issue. The problem is that slavery is rooted in the idea that some humans are better than others. We now understand that all people are equal and so slavery is considered wrong. That is actually a moral improvement, partly thanks to the work of Christians.

 

What I'm saying is that the way God made the laws is irrelevant. What matters is the purpose they served. They are there to show us that there is a problem, and it seems that regardless of the cultural medium, the result is the same.

[mymistake]

 

 

 

 

 

You, like the fundies, have decided that the Bible needs to always be taken literally instead of with a historical and cultural context taken into account. There are a lot of things that people here assume and it informs their responses. We take so many other historical texts seriously and have no problem with a proper analysis, but with religious ones we have a double standard and feel the need to throw everything out the window.

 

 

A lot of us here do consider historical context, and not all of us consider the Gospels to be intended to be literal history. However, in my sphere of experience, the vast majority of Christians do take it as literal history, so it makes perfect sense to point out the serious problems that arise from that. It is more often the Christian who is avoiding a "proper analysis," because the Christian has the agenda of defending his preconceived belief.

 

 

Not really, because every time I make a historical argument you just wave your hand and dismiss it.

 

 

Uh, no, that absolutely did not happen. I don't think that I've had any interaction at all with you in any other thread, and I know for a fact that you and I have not discussed this matter before, so you can stop it right now with the false accusations.

 

 

There is plenty of literal history in the Bible, but the entire thing is not. Each of the gospels serves its own purpose and is written with its own goals and style. That needs to be taken into account first.

 

 

How much "literal history" is in the Bible is disputable, but it is widely recognized that the different gospels had different purposes and intended audiences. I seriously doubt that you got a challenge to that from very many (if any) here. Recognizing the various writing styles and agendas does not automatically delete all of the problems in the Bible, though.

 

 

For example...I've been questioned about slavery in the Bible. I explained its cultural place and how telling the people to stop would have accomplished nothing (considering how difficult it was to get rid of it so much later). Nope. That obviously wasn't good enough. It's easier just to dismiss.

 

 

Sure, the Bible comes from a culture where slavery was practiced and accepted, and it may very well have been difficult for certain primitive peoples to have grasped the immorality of it. That's a fine and dandy point if we're dealing with a human-based Bible where "God" was merely a superstition and/or control mechanism used by ignorant humans. However, once you throw an all-powerful deity into the mix, it completely changes the game. It makes slavery a divinely sanctioned institution, and that is where the serious problem is, Wololo. An omnipotent God could have effectively communicated to his people how morally reprehensible slavery is, but that's not what we get with the Bible. Instead, we have a Bible where God endorses slavery. Ignoring the clear ramifications here would indicate to me that you are the one who's doing the "easier just to dismiss" dance.

 

 

Good. Then you are an exception here. I appreciate that.

 

I definitely can't answer for everything that's in the Bible. If I was a scholar I'd do a much better job, but that's just not the case. There are certainly things I can address though.

 

I do agree with your final point to some extent, but there are a couple things I want to show you that may give the argument a bit more context.

 

"I spread out my hands all the day

        to a rebellious people,

    who walk in a way that is not good,

        following their own devices;"

 

- Isaiah 65:2 ESV

 

"I led them with cords of kindness,

        with the bands of love,

    and I became to them as one who eases the yoke on their jaws,

        and I bent down to them and fed them.......

 My people are bent on turning away from me,

        and though they call out to the Most High,

        he shall not raise them up at all."

 

-Hosea 11:4+7 ESV

 

There is a theme in the Old Testament. God often made himself very clear to his people as is written in their writings. He was perpetually trying to turn them from their wrongdoing and ill will toward other people. It's all over the place. He's constantly angry...constantly reprimanding them and punishing them. Why? They're not listening. He gives them a set of laws that...when compared to other cultures of the era are rather mild and yet they still can't get it right. They couldn't follow a set of laws that was a step in the right direction. They were persistently disobedient. As I noted above, there are several places where this effort is noted. God was constantly making himself clear and his people chose to do things their own way. What this goes to show is that regardless of what God said, they were not going to abide by the laws. It was a hopeless endeavor...and fortunately the law was not what it ended up being all about.

 

I want to clear up a misunderstanding of what omnipotence is. When people ask: "Can God make a mountain so big he can't lift it?" Before we even consider answering it, we need to realize that it's not even a valid question in the first place. If omnipotence means infinite power, can one exceed infinite? No. It's silly to even think about that. In the same way, God expressed himself in different ways over and over again and people (who have free will) chose not to obey. It wouldn't have mattered how God presented the laws, the result would have been the same (aside from perhaps increased or decreased confusion.)

 

The purpose of the law is not really there to condemn us as a standard that we need to follow, but more that we fail before the test even starts. It's supposed to show us that the problem is with our attitudes and with the heart. The Israelites were so stubborn, they wouldn't change at all. They continued to do exactly the same things, and often fell into the idolatry of other cultures. This is not a problem with laws, this is about what they represent: an attempt for God to help people understand what needs to change.

 

Christianity as a whole is about focusing on the building up of society and the building up of others rather than the destruction of it. All of the Israelite problems were in the mind. They didn't see the laws for what they were. When God tells them to treat their slaves well, that's because they were treating them badly! They should have known better, considering that they had to endure slavery in Egypt. If the focus of Christianity is on love, then they could have started by loving their slaves. It's not God condoning slavery. The action itself is not the issue. The problem is that slavery is rooted in the idea that some humans are better than others. We now understand that all people are equal and so slavery is considered wrong. That is actually a moral improvement, partly thanks to the work of Christians.

 

What I'm saying is that the way God made the laws is irrelevant. What matters is the purpose they served. They are there to show us that there is a problem, and it seems that regardless of the cultural medium, the result is the same.

 

 

 

When God tells his Chosen People that they can own other people:

 

1)  God is being immoral.

2)  God is responsible for the suffering of those who are owned.

3)  God does not love the whole world.

4)  The Bible is an evil book.

[★ Citsonga ★]

 

There is a theme in the Old Testament. God often made himself very clear to his people as is written in their writings. He was perpetually trying to turn them from their wrongdoing and ill will toward other people. It's all over the place. He's constantly angry...constantly reprimanding them and punishing them. Why? They're not listening. He gives them a set of laws that...when compared to other cultures of the era are rather mild and yet they still can't get it right. They couldn't follow a set of laws that was a step in the right direction. They were persistently disobedient. As I noted above, there are several places where this effort is noted. God was constantly making himself clear and his people chose to do things their own way. What this goes to show is that regardless of what God said, they were not going to abide by the laws. It was a hopeless endeavor...and fortunately the law was not what it ended up being all about.

 

 

Think about it. If this God would give all the other laws even though the people would break them anyway, then why couldn't he find it in himself to prohibit slavery instead of sanctioning it? If he had, then the fault would rest with the people rather than God.

 

 

I want to clear up a misunderstanding of what omnipotence is. When people ask: "Can God make a mountain so big he can't lift it?" Before we even consider answering it, we need to realize that it's not even a valid question in the first place.

 

 

I actually agree with you there. I've always seen that sort of question as silly. However, that is irrelevant to the issue of slavery.

 

 

When God tells them to treat their slaves well, that's because they were treating them badly! They should have known better, considering that they had to endure slavery in Egypt.

 

 

Exodus 21:20-21 has God granting slave-owners permission to abuse their slaves, which is not exactly a way to encourage treating them well.

 

 

It's not God condoning slavery.

 

 

Buzz. Wrong answer. You don't know your Bible very well, at least not on this topic. Allow me to address this false claim by posting an excerpt from a letter I wrote a few years ago detailing a lot of problems in the Bible. This portion is about slavery and contains direct Bible quotations. Here goes:

 

Slavery

 

It is commonly known that the Old Testament indicates that many Hebrews had slaves. Some of them apparently were destitute fellow Hebrews who had sold themselves as bondservants, but others were foreigners who were actually taken captive and forced into slavery.

 

It seems that a common Christian thought on the subject is that God was not really pleased with slavery, but just passively allowed the Hebrews to have slaves. However, with such a thick set of laws (read Exodus through Deuteronomy) dealing with things as trivial as cutting sideburns and beards (Leviticus 19:27) and eating insects (Lev 11:20), why couldn't God find the space and time to condemn slavery?

 

In actuality, the Bible not only does not condemn slavery, but also has God granting permission for the Hebrews to take slaves. In Leviticus we read, "And the Lord spake unto Moses in mount Sinai, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them...'" (Leviticus 25:1-2), "Both thy bondmen, and they bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession" (Lev 25:44-45). These bondmen and bondmaids were slaves.

 

We also read, "When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee" (Deuteronomy 20:10-11). Here it's talking about forced labor, making slaves out of enemies. So, slavery wasn't just a passive allowance, as many Christians claim, but it is an active allowance, an act that they were clearly granted permission to do.

 

Common Christian thought is that God regulated slavery through the Law so that it would not be brutal like the slavery we typically think of. While there are indeed laws in the Old Testament concerning slavery, brutality was actually permissible, as long as the slave didn't die immediately. In Exodus we read, "And the Lord said unto Moses, Thus thou shalt say unto the children of Israel...'" (Exodus 20:22): "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand: he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money" (Ex 21:20-21). Some suggest that this law was simply to give the Hebrew slave-owner the benefit of the doubt. However, how could any honest person actually think that beating someone so badly that he or she could die within a couple days is not brutality? How could an allegedly loving and compassionate God allow for such brutality?

 

Even in the New Testament, slavery is acknowledged but not condemned. We read, "Servants, obey in all things your masters" (Colossians 3:22), "Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters" (Titus 2:9), and, "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters" (Ephesians 6:5). At least that last passage does go on to say, "And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening" (Eph 6:9), thus indicating that masters should treat their slaves well. That is an improvement over the Old Testament treatment of the subject, but is it good enough? Why wouldn't God condemn the practice of owning people as property? Why sit back and allow slavery to continue? How ethical is that?

[★ Citsonga ★]

Wololo, let me ask you a question about another topic. If a man rapes a woman, what would a moral set of laws suggest be done about it?

[bornagainathiest]

I've been gone for a couple days. Post incoming. Still not sure I should waste my time with straw man arguments, but some of you are 'somewhat' reasonable. If I don't respond to you, clean up your act. Since I've come back from the long break, I'm going to ignore people who aren't worth the time.

 

I look forward to seeing who you consider 'worth' your time, Wololo.

[Joshpantera]

 

 

There is a theme in the Old Testament. God often made himself very clear to his people as is written in their writings. He was perpetually trying to turn them from their wrongdoing and ill will toward other people. It's all over the place. He's constantly angry...constantly reprimanding them and punishing them. Why? They're not listening. He gives them a set of laws that...when compared to other cultures of the era are rather mild and yet they still can't get it right. They couldn't follow a set of laws that was a step in the right direction. They were persistently disobedient. As I noted above, there are several places where this effort is noted. God was constantly making himself clear and his people chose to do things their own way. What this goes to show is that regardless of what God said, they were not going to abide by the laws. It was a hopeless endeavor...and fortunately the law was not what it ended up being all about.

 

 

Think about it. If this God would give all the other laws even though the people would break them anyway, then why couldn't he find it in himself to prohibit slavery instead of sanctioning it? If he had, then the fault would rest with the people rather than God.

 

 

I want to clear up a misunderstanding of what omnipotence is. When people ask: "Can God make a mountain so big he can't lift it?" Before we even consider answering it, we need to realize that it's not even a valid question in the first place.

 

 

I actually agree with you there. I've always seen that sort of question as silly. However, that is irrelevant to the issue of slavery.

 

 

When God tells them to treat their slaves well, that's because they were treating them badly! They should have known better, considering that they had to endure slavery in Egypt.

 

 

Exodus 21:20-21 has God granting slave-owners permission to abuse their slaves, which is not exactly a way to encourage treating them well.

 

 

It's not God condoning slavery.

 

 

Buzz. Wrong answer. You don't know your Bible very well, at least not on this topic. Allow me to address this false claim by posting an excerpt from a letter I wrote a few years ago detailing a lot of problems in the Bible. This portion is about slavery and contains direct Bible quotations. Here goes:

 

Slavery

 

It is commonly known that the Old Testament indicates that many Hebrews had slaves. Some of them apparently were destitute fellow Hebrews who had sold themselves as bondservants, but others were foreigners who were actually taken captive and forced into slavery.

 

It seems that a common Christian thought on the subject is that God was not really pleased with slavery, but just passively allowed the Hebrews to have slaves. However, with such a thick set of laws (read Exodus through Deuteronomy) dealing with things as trivial as cutting sideburns and beards (Leviticus 19:27) and eating insects (Lev 11:20), why couldn't God find the space and time to condemn slavery?

 

In actuality, the Bible not only does not condemn slavery, but also has God granting permission for the Hebrews to take slaves. In Leviticus we read, "And the Lord spake unto Moses in mount Sinai, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them...'" (Leviticus 25:1-2), "Both thy bondmen, and they bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession" (Lev 25:44-45). These bondmen and bondmaids were slaves.

 

We also read, "When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee" (Deuteronomy 20:10-11). Here it's talking about forced labor, making slaves out of enemies. So, slavery wasn't just a passive allowance, as many Christians claim, but it is an active allowance, an act that they were clearly granted permission to do.

 

Common Christian thought is that God regulated slavery through the Law so that it would not be brutal like the slavery we typically think of. While there are indeed laws in the Old Testament concerning slavery, brutality was actually permissible, as long as the slave didn't die immediately. In Exodus we read, "And the Lord said unto Moses, Thus thou shalt say unto the children of Israel...'" (Exodus 20:22): "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand: he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money" (Ex 21:20-21). Some suggest that this law was simply to give the Hebrew slave-owner the benefit of the doubt. However, how could any honest person actually think that beating someone so badly that he or she could die within a couple days is not brutality? How could an allegedly loving and compassionate God allow for such brutality?

 

Even in the New Testament, slavery is acknowledged but not condemned. We read, "Servants, obey in all things your masters" (Colossians 3:22), "Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters" (Titus 2:9), and, "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters" (Ephesians 6:5). At least that last passage does go on to say, "And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening" (Eph 6:9), thus indicating that masters should treat their slaves well. That is an improvement over the Old Testament treatment of the subject, but is it good enough? Why wouldn't God condemn the practice of owning people as property? Why sit back and allow slavery to continue? How ethical is that?

 

Seems I'm late to the party, woo woo... lol

 

I don't see how you could miss the points being made in the above, aside from a very blind eye. You're addressing people who were once as zealous as you, perhaps even more so. People who have seen the world through your blinders and have since opened up to the greater reality surrounding your narrow Christian apologetic thinking process. You probably just think, "these idiots never got it, they weren't real Christians or else they'd understand that no matter how it may seem God is ultimately right." 

 

You're quick to pass all of this off because you want very much not to focus in. It's a defensive reaction that I'm sure we all remember well. Once you do focus in, once you acknowledge within your own mind that these are real inconsistencies that the apologetic's do not justify, your eyes will begin to see around the outside of the narrow vision I'm referring to. 

 

Hit the nail on the head here.

 

Why would an all-knowing God, knowing good and well how the future would unfold, and condemning the religious authorities and their customs to no end making a huge stink and pissing everyone off at the time, NOT say a dam thing about the immorality of slavery while condemning all variety of other issues?

 

Think about it.

 

This God is setting forward the way of the future via his own son with the intention, obviously, of future generations like our own to read about in these scriptures that he's allegedly inspired and preserved for the purpose of the churches yet to come, and then can only manage to muster up inspiring men to write down that slaves not rebel but instead obey their masters.

 

Slavery ended DESPITE scripture, not because of it.

 

A case could be made that any Christians involved in the abolition of slavery were in fact heretical towards scripture rather than closely following it. Sure it speaks of love, and on the same breathe it speaks of preserving the institution of slavery none the less. One was never asserted to overcome the other. As far as scripture is concerned slavery would persist until the end. Christians have contradicted that by using their good senses and fighting to end slavery, an act contrary to scripture.

 

I'll go out on limb here and suggest that the Bible is a product of men's thoughts and desires relative to the time period in which they were writing. Period. It's immoral some of the time because the men in question were immoral some of the time in that regard. Why does YHWH give orders about who can be a slave and how they can be treated? Well because YHWH is simply a creation of the priesthood and the way in which they desired to order the people around via an imaginary God figure placed up in the sky.

 

Common sense leads to this conclusion, not away from it. You can argue any number of ways against this conclusion but at the end of the day it's the more probable.....

[Roz]

Regarding slavery...  And yes my view on this is 'colored.'  I'm a descendant of slaves.

 

Let's go to Lev. 25, the heart of the matter. 

The following verses are concerned with buying and selling land.  This is important to note.  It's talking about how farmable land is NOT to be permanent but instead to be given back at the year of Jubilee.  Also note that these are very specific and detailed instructions.  Given by god himself.

¹⁴ “‘If you sell land to any of your own people or buy land from them, do not take advantage of each other. ¹⁵ You are to buy from your own people on the basis of the number of years since the Jubilee. And they are to sell to you on the basis of the number of years left for harvesting crops. ¹⁶ When the years are many, you are to increase the price, and when the years are few, you are to decrease the price, because what is really being sold to you is the number of crops. ¹⁷ Do not take advantage of each other, but fear your God. I am the Lord your God.

¹⁸ “‘Follow my decrees and be careful to obey my laws, and you will live safely in the land. ¹⁹ Then the land will yield its fruit, and you will eat your fill and live there in safety. ²⁰ You may ask, “What will we eat in the seventh year if we do not plant or harvest our crops?” ²¹ I will send you such a blessing in the sixth year that the land will yield enough for three years. ²² While you plant during the eighth year, you will eat from the old crop and will continue to eat from it until the harvest of the ninth year comes in.

²³ “‘The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you reside in my land as foreigners and strangers. ²⁴ Throughout the land that you hold as a possession, you must provide for the redemption of the land.

 

These next passages (same chapter) are also very specific instructions differentiating the property rights of city houses and country homes. 

²⁹ “‘Anyone who sells a house in a walled city retains the right of redemption a full year after its sale. During that time the seller may redeem it. ³⁰ If it is not redeemed before a full year has passed, the house in the walled city shall belong permanently to the buyer and the buyer’s descendants. It is not to be returned in the Jubilee. ³¹ But houses in villages without walls around them are to be considered as belonging to the open country. They can be redeemed, and they are to be returned in the Jubilee.

 

Here we see that male and female PERMANENT slaves are to be bought from surrounding nations, Israelites (male ones at least) are NOT to be made permanent slaves.

⁴⁴ “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. ⁴⁵ You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. ⁴⁶ You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

 

Wololo is arguing that since slavery was so commonplace, god allowed it since people don't change.  But realize that Christians believe these Israelites were once slaves in Egypt.  Egypt had no laws like these pertaining to property rights.  Egyptians have NO concept of "Jubilee"  but yet these Israelites are made aware of this and are now being instructed in great detail as to what specific types of land property are subject to Jubilee return.

 

Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy all have very specific laws regarding:

• the rites of the tabernacle (Egyptian slaves have to learn this since they weren't practiced for years)
• the ritual sacrifices (again, see above)
• very specific dietary laws (remember those passages where Israelites complained and wanted the food they ate in Egypt?  Had to relearn those too)
• attire (no jewelry, no clothes made with mixed fabrics, they had to learn that too)

Now, Wololo and other christians arguing that "those Israelites were so set in their ways that slavery wasn't abolished by god (instead he instituted it) because they were just going to do it anyways..."  That excuse is a load of bullshit.  Christian hamster wheel running on overdrive.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Spot on, guys. Yahweh FREAKS OUT at wrong ritual and cult practices, but is down with slavery, beating slaves ... I could go on to other inhumanities that Yahweh is down with. He had the power to freak out over slavery but decided not to. Some dude who tries to keep Yahweh's Ark of the Covenant from falling over, on the other hand, gets snuffed.

[mymistake]