god and human rights, are they compatible?

[waitasec]

it is bewildering to me how any devout religious person (christian/muslim/jew) can see the obvious blunders like slavery, rape, sexism, the selling of children etc..in the bible but choose to ignore the reality of it. none of those things are in line with supposed free will god has given man because it condones one person having dominion over another person. never has jesus or the OT god ever say dominion over another person is wrong. it was enforced. the bible was written in a time where human rights were not even a consideration. and the son of god was on earth not even mentioning it once.

in the OT, god gave man dominion over women, but the believer will say, 'it was the result of the fall...' since it was a result of the fall, why then are we NOW living in a world were equality is acknowledged? certainly not because of the bible.
the idea of god and the reality of human rights, are they compatible?

 

[Gunfingers]

One does not exclude the other, no, but most of our idea of human rights came during the enlightenment era when Europeans were first getting over the whole "god" thing.

 

[Copernicus]

The Bible is contains a massive amount of history, fable, and conflicting ideas. I think that you are missing the boat when you buy into the assumption that the Bible actually drives religious values. It is the religious community that sets those values through doctrinal interpretation of scripture. The scripture itself is little better than a Ouija board. It gives you whatever you want to get out of it.

 

[Willamena]

The scripture itself is little better than a Ouija board. It gives you whatever you want to get out of it.

If you're trying to drag something kicking and screaming out of it, then indeed.

 

[Copernicus]

If you're trying to drag something kicking and screaming out of it, then indeed.

Yes, indeed. It's easy to drag those ugly things out of it, too.

 

[waitasec]

I think that you are missing the boat when you buy into the assumption that the Bible actually drives religious values.

what are religious values?
and not only the bible the koran as well. any religion with an imperial authority.

It is the religious community that sets those values through doctrinal interpretation of scripture.

the doctrinal interpretations of scripture by the devout religious community choose to ignore the barbaric treatment of people which was condoned by their god

 

[waitasec]

One does not exclude the other, no, but most of our idea of human rights came during the enlightenment era when Europeans were first getting over the whole "god" thing.

interesting point

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

it is bewildering to me how any devout religious person (christian/muslim/jew) can see the obvious blunders like slavery, rape, sexism, the selling of children etc..in the bible but choose to ignore the reality of it. none of those things are in line with supposed free will god has given man because it condones one person having dominion over another person. never has jesus or the OT god ever say dominion over another person is wrong. it was enforced. the bible was written in a time where human rights were not even a consideration. and the son of god was on earth not even mentioning it once.

in the OT, god gave man dominion over women, but the believer will say, 'it was the result of the fall...' since it was a result of the fall, why then are we NOW living in a world were equality is acknowledged? certainly not because of the bible.
the idea of god and the reality of human rights, are they compatible?

The Quakers have a great history of ethical behavior over a long period. I believe that this shows you can be moral and religious at the same time.

 

[Levite]

it is bewildering to me how any devout religious person (christian/muslim/jew) can see the obvious blunders like slavery, rape, sexism, the selling of children etc..in the bible but choose to ignore the reality of it. none of those things are in line with supposed free will god has given man because it condones one person having dominion over another person. never has jesus or the OT god ever say dominion over another person is wrong. it was enforced. the bible was written in a time where human rights were not even a consideration. and the son of god was on earth not even mentioning it once.

in the OT, god gave man dominion over women, but the believer will say, 'it was the result of the fall...' since it was a result of the fall, why then are we NOW living in a world were equality is acknowledged? certainly not because of the bible.
the idea of god and the reality of human rights, are they compatible?

This is why in Judaism we understand that the Written Torah (the Hebrew Scriptures, sometimes referred to by non-Jews as the Old Testament) is designed to be understood in tandem with the Oral Torah (an oral tradition of interpretation that eventually became written down as the Talmud and the following body of Rabbinic legal, midrashic, and philosophical works). Halakhah (sometimes called Jewish Law, though it includes exegetical and cultural materials also) permits us to reinterpret-- even radically reinterpret-- our understanding of the commandments, and even to forbid those things which may be deemed permitted in the Torah (and on much rarer occasions, to permit those things deemed forbidden in the Torah). We believe this interpretive authority and jurisdiction was given to the prophets at Sinai, and handed to down to their eventual successors, the Rabbis of the Talmud, who handed them down to later rabbis.

We believe that each word of the Torah contains limitless potential meanings and interpretations, meaning in the end that what appears to be the plain sense of a given phrase or verse may not, in fact, be the meaning that we are supposed to follow. The rabbis are empowered to look for those different meanings, and to reinterpret the text based on them. We also believe that not every word was intended to be taken literally, either at the plain text level, or sometimes at all.

Thus, we can now hold and teach that though the Torah appears to permit slavery and selling children and so forth, those things are forbidden to us, and are not acceptable.

Of course, in a less traditional phrasing, what we can also say is that the Torah was written by prophets. Not God, but His human, flawed messengers. What God communicated and what the prophets understood may not be the same thing. When the finite, limited minds of humans attempt to sort out, organize, and put into words the vision of revelation that is a direct experience of God's presence, the comprehension of the human will inevitably be limited, biased by their cultural and historical context, and even by their personal limitations. This is why the authority to reinterpret by succeeding generations is key: so that we can maintain a tradition through the ages of ever refining Torah and finding new levels of truth.

 

[waitasec]

The Quakers have a great history of ethical behavior over a long period. I believe that this shows you can be moral and religious at the same time.

i am not implying that being religious takes away morals

i am saying that the judeo/christian/islamic god never acknowledged our human rights and condoned having a person take dominion over the other

 

[waitasec]

We believe that each word of the Torah contains limitless potential meanings and interpretations, meaning in the end that what appears to be the plain sense of a given phrase or verse may not, in fact, be the meaning that we are supposed to follow. The rabbis are empowered to look for those different meanings, and to reinterpret the text based on them. We also believe that not every word was intended to be taken literally, either at the plain text level, or sometimes at all.

can you point these out...

the condoning of such behavior is repeated in numerous times in the scriptures, therefore everyone of those passages need to be reinterpreted...

Thus, we can now hold and teach that though the Torah appears to permit slavery and selling children and so forth, those things are forbidden to us, and are not acceptable.

but why are they acceptable to the god of the bible and the koran?

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

i am not implying that being religious takes away morals

i am saying that the judeo/christian/islamic god never acknowledged our human rights and condoned having a person take dominion over the other

They are Christians.

 

[waitasec]

They are Christians.

so, it doesn't explain the fact that the god in their bible does not acknowledge human rights

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

so, it doesn't explain the fact that the god in their bible does not acknowledge human rights

But you could make the argument that because of their belief system that is biblically oriented they have been able to keep a very high standard of ethics. So much so that many other groups including atheist groups have not been able to compare to their moral practice.

To say they do not have the concept of human rights is true this idea was developed much later. Christians for the first two centuries of their existence were much different then in later times. They refused to join the Army and practiced nonviolence. They sold all that they owned and took the money to feed the poor. Real christians were expected to live a life of poverty.
They clearly had much respect for human life this changed in later times.

 

[Levite]

can you point these out...
the condoning of such behavior is repeated in numerous times in the scriptures, therefore everyone of those passages need to be reinterpreted...

It would take too long to explain each and every one. What you need to do, really, is learn Talmud and the Rabbinic responsa literature, if you want all of that.

But one example of how the plain meaning of the text says one thing, but the applied interpretation is quite different would be the (in)famous Lex Talionis. Where the plain reading of the text is "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a leg for a leg, a life for a life...." The Rabbis explain to us that this is not meant literally, as in if a person loses an eye in a fight, his attacker should be blinded in one eye, but rather that the attacker owes him financial reparations and compensation for the value of his eye; and the Rabbis then give us a long, detailed set of instructions for how such value is to be calculated-- which, I have to say, often works out to better compensation than the average plaintiff in a damages case wins in American courts, not including punitive damages awarded.

Another example might be the interpretation that, for example, the laws of the captive woman whose husband wishes to make her a wife or concubine (Deut. 21:10-14) as plainly read in the Torah merely state that a man who captures a woman in war and wishes to have sex with her must take her home with him, let her mourn first, and then he can have sex with her; and if he gets tired of her he has to give her a little something to get her back home or to make a life for herself. Still problematic, yes? But the Rabbis of the Talmud explain that, additionally, he must marry her legally before having sex with her, and thus, she must convert to Judaism first. Since no one can convert to Judaism under duress (promises made under duress are not binding in Jewish Law), this means by definition that she must consent to the marriage and the sex, otherwise, he cannot touch her.

As I said, those are only examples of many such interpretations.

but why are they acceptable to the god of the bible and the koran?

What I'm saying is that God's true and full existence is not the same thing as the theology and anthropomorphic language of God as understood by the authors of the Tanakh. That when the authors of the Torah tell us that God condones slavery or whatnot, that is what they have understood God to mean-- they, as members of a society and inhabitants of a time when slavery was universal, and the total absence of it inconceivable. That is not necessarily what God was telling them, but it was what they believed they had heard.

Prophecy is not like taking dictation, or having a phone call. It is visions, dreams, a whirl of sensory input and meta-information. That must be sorted out by the prophet, who can make errors. Not only that, but context is provided by the Oral Torah, which may render things narrower or differently than they appear at the surface level. And that's why interpretation is so necessary, as is the freedom for theology to evolve.

 

[no-body]

Religion was a quaint way to get everyone to follow certain morals, but morals are ever changing and evolving and are not black and white.

Of course with this comes certain arguments that you can't have an ever changing, common sense look at things because morals are set in stone and any variation will lead to people doing whatever they want.

Following the customs and superstitions of 2,000 year old shepherds as the best possible way to live is bound to cause problems.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Religion was a quaint way to get everyone to follow certain morals, but morals are ever changing and evolving and are not black and white.

Of course with this comes certain arguments that you can't have an ever changing, common sense look at things because morals are set in stone and any variation will lead to people doing whatever they want.

Following the customs and superstitions of 2,000 year old shepherds as the best possible way to live is bound to cause problems.

I think you hit the nail on the head. If a language stops growing and changing it becomes a dead language. If a system of philosophy stops growing and changing it fails to be workable in our day to day live, Its system of ethics become obsolete and corrupt. Each individual believer needs to reinterpret the mythology to the times they live in.

 

[waitasec]

But you could make the argument that because of their belief system that is biblically oriented they have been able to keep a very high standard of ethics. So much so that many other groups including atheist groups have not been able to compare to their moral practice.

i disagree.
"In early Summer of 2005, Charles Krauthammer quipped on the Fox News Network, "the abolition movement began in the churches". What he doesn't tell you is that almost every major denomination in the USA supported slavery and railed against those that deemed it immoral. Abolitionists were enemies of God. The fact is that small black churches and other places like Quaker meeting houses were the only people that would allow abolitionists to speak out. This was also true of the Civil Rights movement of the late 1950s on and the 1960s. Like the opponents of women's suffrage, interracial marriages, desegregation, civil rights acts, the equal rights amendment and gay rights, the anti-abolitionists screeched about violating God's order and the natural laws decreed in no uncertain terms in the Bible."

abolition

if anything, the religious right (the most vocal religious voice), has put speed bumps on the road to tolerance.

To say they do not have the concept of human rights is true this idea was developed much later. Christians for the first two centuries of their existence were much different then in later times. They refused to join the Army and practiced nonviolence. They sold all that they owned and took the money to feed the poor. Real christians were expected to live a life of poverty.
They clearly had much respect for human life this changed in later times.

agreed.

 

[waitasec]

Religion was a quaint way to get everyone to follow certain morals, but morals are ever changing and evolving and are not black and white.

Of course with this comes certain arguments that you can't have an ever changing, common sense look at things because morals are set in stone and any variation will lead to people doing whatever they want.

Following the customs and superstitions of 2,000 year old shepherds as the best possible way to live is bound to cause problems.

I think you hit the nail on the head. If a language stops growing and changing it becomes a dead language. If a system of philosophy stops growing and changing it fails to be workable in our day to day live, Its system of ethics become obsolete and corrupt. Each individual believer needs to reinterpret the mythology to the times they live in.

the both of you are saying very cool and interesting things here...

but the problem i have, i guess is, why does the language of god have to change?
for argument sake, the people living back then were "closer" to the divine than we are today. so why is it that we are evolving in our understanding of human rights rather then having our understanding diminish.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

the both of you are saying very cool and interesting things here...

but the problem i have, i guess is, why does the language of god have to change?
for argument sake, the people living back then were "closer" to the divine than we are today. so why is it that we are evolving in our understanding of human rights rather then having our understanding diminish.

I have a hard time with the old man in a white beard dictating verbatim the exact scripture word for word to human beings to make a bible out of. At the same time I like to believe that any book used by humans for 1000's of years must have some value to it.