Smoking Gun, Oh Atheists?

[JustWondering]

I say rape is inherently bad, not "a societal misdeed" but wrong.

Then I watch as atheists (in error) criticize the Bible for not condemning rape, when it most certainly does (as usual atheists point to the Bible and miss). If two fornicate in the Old Testament, they both receive capital punishment but if a woman cries for help while assaulted, only her rapist is punished . . . by death. Of course both passages regarding consensual sex and rape are collocated in the Bible, but why bother to ask an atheist to actually read more than a verse or two? It's taking for them, poor souls.

I am an atheist and recognize that the bible condemns rape. The prescribed biblical punishment in some cases is death, in other cases the rapist must pay the father of the victim 50 shekels I believe and has to marry the victim whom he can never divorce. What atheists are saying that the bible doesn't condemn rape?

Of course, we would say that the atheists who say on one hand "rape isn't inherently bad" but on the other hand, "the Bible is inherently bad for not condemning rape" are behaving both ignorantly (quick, name every American President and Supreme Court Justice on record for condemning rape--are the ones not on the list bad?) and SELF-RIGHTEOUSLY.

I've never heard ANY sane person say rape wasn't bad, EVER. Regardless of their religious beliefs. This is just a ludicrous strawman argument.

How can an atheist behave self-righteously when they believe neither in righteousness nor its opposite, sinfulness?

This might be hard for you to understand but, you don't need an ancient book of mythology to understand what's right and wrong.

Stop being self-righteous, oh atheists! (At least until such time as you admit to absolute, objective moral codes.)

Perhaps you should take your own advice.

Today's rant is concluded.

Yes, that's all your post was, a self-righteous rant lacking in any well-reasoned points that's only purpose was to insult a group of people that don't believe in your religion. However, since your beliefs lack any reasonable arguments or evidence to support it, ranting is all you've got.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Before we move to abortion and gay rights, why is it that I cannot find one skeptic to agree with these assertions?

Rape is ALWAYS wrong

Rape is OBJECTIVELY, ABSOLUTELY, UNIVERSALLY, evil

Sure, I'll disagree with the assertion.

First of all, if it were universally evil it would also be something non-human animals wouldn't do this isn't true. Its not even universally evil to humans, as not every culture agrees on what is or isnt rape and how, if at all, it shoukd be punished.
And I as a human do not bother condemning animals (including human animals) who do not have the capacity to reason out potential harm (Such as animal rape or children [yes, it happens] or severely mentally handicapped individuals [yes, it happens.] )
Depending on how expansive a definition of rape we're talking about, there are situations of statutory rape which are illegal but not immoral to me, such as a 17 and 18 year old.
Further there are things in the bible condemned by me as immoral instances of rape which are not condemned by the vast majority of Christians.

Once again, as a consequentialist, my evaluation of what is morally incorrect behavior is not based on defining the behavior and labeling it categorically right and wrong, but assessing damage that a behavior causes before determining wrong. Absolutism (Especially based on authoritarianism) is not analytical enough for that, imo.

So far I haven't seen any situations where violence and coersion used to get sex hasn't resulted in unnecessary harm. So those instances of rape offend my moral compass as a consequentialist. But again, that's exactly what Israel did, on Gods instruction, during their conquest of the 'promised land.' So clearly not everyone will agree.

 

[Simurgh]

Oh yes you do. It is the burden of claims to truth that require proofs, my position is the faith position. It's only burden is the lack of a defeater.

So you have a burden to prove the universal negative you claim was a fact, or you can prove that the bible is 100% myth. Until you meet the burden your own claims have I can't justify spending debating you in depth.

Another claim to knowledge. You just don't learn your lessons do you? Prove that everything I said was meaningless.

Good luck, you have all your work yet ahead of you.

ok you believe stuff is real. now prove that it is. i don't have t prove that your god doesn't exist, since there is nothing to prove. and you still don't get the whole myth thing. the bible is part of the xtian mythology. there are some parts of it that reflect some history, but that does not mean that it is anything written by a god or transmitted by one; that is just the mythology. what you say in regard to me having to prove that i'm right? yeah, that is meaningless for sure. where is your your prove that you are right? i only assert that religion is a belief system NOT grounded in empirical facts. just because some people still think that the earth is flat, doesn't make it so either. so you prove to me that your god exists--outside your belief system, like in the real world and then you can take me to task regarding the error of my ways. yep, i'm right here, sipping my coffee and waiting with bated breath that this will ever happen.

 

[Underhill]

But this is a different case. And they didn't have thousands of followers or the right kind of fame. Paul spoke often of being deserted in prison and trial, of being hated, misunderstood, beaten, shipwrecked, imprisoned, sleepless, impoverished.

Yes, the key words being HE spoke. If you want to bring people together one of the best ways to do it is shared misery. We see that today with politicians. A millionaire talking to a bunch of ditch diggers complaining about how bad 'we' have it these days. Muhammed and Joseph Smith both talked about persecution. Both had many followers.

Joseph Smith had forty plus spiritual wives. Muhammed had dozens. I've read their works and the Bible and am convinced the Bible writers were legit. What do you think of the voice of the Bible writers?

What does the number of wives have to do with anything? I have one and wouldn't want more.

As for the writers... it depends on whom you are talking about. Many are decent. A few books are great (Philippians comes to mind.) but I view them skeptically. It's easy to forget how 'doctored' the bible is. You start getting some oddities when you read the bits that weren't included.

 

[1robin]

ok you believe stuff is real. now prove that it is. i don't have t prove that your god doesn't exist, since there is nothing to prove. and you still don't get the whole myth thing. the bible is part of the xtian mythology. there are some parts of it that reflect some history, but that does not mean that it is anything written by a god or transmitted by one; that is just the mythology. what you say in regard to me having to prove that i'm right? yeah, that is meaningless for sure. where is your your prove that you are right? i only assert that religion is a belief system NOT grounded in empirical facts. just because some people still think that the earth is flat, doesn't make it so either. so you prove to me that your god exists--outside your belief system, like in the real world and then you can take me to task regarding the error of my ways. yep, i'm right here, sipping my coffee and waiting with bated breath that this will ever happen.

This is not going to work. I am not going to let you off the hook. You made several claims to knowledge, with each comes the burden of proof. That is how debates work, what your doing is yelling at traffic.

You said God does not exist and that the bible is a myth. Prove either.

Once you do, or admit you can't, I will move on to additional points. If you can't, or won't, back up the claims you have already made, why would I entertain additional claims (which you can't back up either)?

 

[Simurgh]

This is not going to work. I am not going to let you off the hook. You made several claims to knowledge, with each comes the burden of proof. That is how debates work, what your doing is yelling at traffic.

You said God does not exist and that the bible is a myth. Prove either.

Once you do, or admit you can't, I will move on to additional points. If you can't, or won't, back up the claims you have already made, why would I entertain additional claims (which you can't back up either)?

what is there to prove? xtianity is a religion. that means it is a belief system. belief cannot be disproven. you belief the stuff, that's fine, but it does not make your god an actual reality, as in there is proof s/he exists. letting me off the hook? what hook am i on exactly. you bear the burden of proof.

did you miss the part where he who insists that something is real has to show that this is the case and provide irrefutable proof of said godling's existence? me, i don't believe that gods exist and do not need to prove that. you are the one who asserts the existence of a thing that has no existence outside some people's minds. and don't bother telling me how many people believe in gods, just because many do, does not make gods more real.
so, you believe what you want and I don't. when you can prove to me in a scientifically sound manner (empirical evidence) that you are right. then you can tell me about how wrong i am not to believe in the non-existence of gods.

again, since i've only said that a few times now, let me repeat the bible thingy. the bible is a book that is part of the xtian myth. since it was written by men, for men, about men, with the occasional mention of god, and belongs to the aforementioned religious tradition. anything considered sacred writing is part of a religion's mythology, hence it is part of the mythology that constitutes said religion. ergo the appellation of myth = stories about something.
now, start proving that your god exists and get back to us with that one. it would be the first time that ever happens.

 

[1robin]

what is there to prove? xtianity is a religion. that means it is a belief system. belief cannot be disproven. you belief the stuff, that's fine, but it does not make your god an actual reality, as in there is proof s/he exists. letting me off the hook? what hook am i on exactly. you bear the burden of proof.

did you miss the part where he who insists that something is real has to show that this is the case and provide irrefutable proof of said godling's existence? me, i don't believe that gods exist and do not need to prove that. you are the one who asserts the existence of a thing that has no existence outside some people's minds. and don't bother telling me how many people believe in gods, just because many do, does not make gods more real.
so, you believe what you want and I don't. when you can prove to me in a scientifically sound manner (empirical evidence) that you are right. then you can tell me about how wrong i am not to believe in the non-existence of gods.

again, since i've only said that a few times now, let me repeat the bible thingy. the bible is a book that is part of the xtian myth. since it was written by men, for men, about men, with the occasional mention of god, and belongs to the aforementioned religious tradition. anything considered sacred writing is part of a religion's mythology, hence it is part of the mythology that constitutes said religion. ergo the appellation of myth = stories about something.
now, start proving that your god exists and get back to us with that one. it would be the first time that ever happens.

I have no problem backing up the burdens my claims come in. However you claimed to know something (actually several things) of which you could not possibly know (even if they were true). So if you agree that you made wreck less claims you could not back up then we can move on to the evidence for my claims to faith, but only once you concede the above. If you can't admit to facts as obvious as your failure to demonstrate your own claims then I can't expect you to acknowledge any inference to be the best conclusion from the evidence and have no justification to spend time debating you.

Also, who is us? Why do non-theists argue from some hypothetical proxy group you invent out of thin air? My arguments stand on their own merits, I have no need to assert some imagined solidarity with some group. The attempt is worse than even the fallacy of appealing to popularity.

So do you agree you failed to demonstrate your claims to knowledge that God does not exist and Christianity is a myth? If so I will start building a positive case for Christ's nature, existence, and message. If not, then why should I bother?

 

[Simurgh]

I have no problem backing up the burdens my claims come in. However you claimed to know something (actually several things) of which you could not possibly know (even if they were true). So if you agree that you made wreck less claims you could not back up then we can move on to the evidence for my claims to faith, but only once you concede the above. If you can't admit to facts as obvious as your failure to demonstrate your own claims then I can't expect you to acknowledge any inference to be the best conclusion from the evidence and have no justification to spend time debating you.

Also, who is us? Why do non-theists argue from some hypothetical proxy group you invent out of thin air? My arguments stand on their own merits, I have no need to assert some imagined solidarity with some group. The attempt is worse than even the fallacy of appealing to popularity.

So do you agree you failed to demonstrate your claims to knowledge that God does not exist and Christianity is a myth? If so I will start building a positive case for Christ's nature, existence, and message. If not, then why should I bother?

the US refers to all those who would like to actually see that proof. it's generic and includes everyone who has any interest in such things. so sorry that i implied that there are others out there who would like to see that.
also, i did not claim there were any "wrecks" around. my driving is not that bad. you still throw around your circular argument about how i have to prove you right before you deign to prove me wrong. one more time, and i'm typing really slow here so you get it.
you assert that something exists, so prove it. don't tell me that since you believe this it ought to be taken as truth. and you start to sound like trumlinger and his minions more and more. twisting words seem to be an art form you thoroughly embrace. xtianity is not a myth, it is a religious tradition, the bible is part of xtian mythology since it is considered to be a sacred text. so if you are all over me for something i never said, then you have a problem. you're either confused or you just rearrange things to fit your ideology. either way, i don't have to prove your assertions; you do.

 

[Polymath257]

In this discussion, it is important to remember that many places today and many more in the past, that rape was not considered a possibility between a man and his wife. Essentially, it was considered that a husband owned his wife and so any sexual use was justified. Today, fortunately, some places realize that husbands having sex with their wives without permission should also be considered to be rape.

Similarly, it was not considered to be rape to have sex with someone 10 years old not all that long ago. Once again, we have come to our senses and realized that this also should be criminalized.

The point is that rape has been considered to be bad in most societies but the specifics of what counts as rape differ from one society to another. The upshot is that it is *society* that defines rape and not some overarching morality.

Fortunately again, we have learned to be more compassionate about the effects our actions have on others. We have learned to value the pain and suffering of women whose pain and suffering would have been ignored before. The *reason* we have progressed in this way is that we allowed our humanist impulses expand and have realized that morality comes from compassion and a sense of fairness more than whether some deity approves or not.

But humanist morality, as opposed to theist morality, can take into consideration human pain and suffering and value it over adherence to some scriptures that only serve to increase such pain and suffering. In this way, atheism is a much stronger foundation for morality than theism ever could be.

 

[1robin]

the US refers to all those who would like to actually see that proof. it's generic and includes everyone who has any interest in such things. so sorry that i implied that there are others out there who would like to see that.

It wasn't that important.

also, i did not claim there were any "wrecks" around. my driving is not that bad. you still throw around your circular argument about how i have to prove you right before you deign to prove me wrong. one more time, and i'm typing really slow here so you get it.

Did you intend to respond to me with the above? The word "wreck" does not appear in what you responded to from me.

you assert that something exists, so prove it. don't tell me that since you believe this it ought to be taken as truth. and you start to sound like trumlinger and his minions more and more. twisting words seem to be an art form you thoroughly embrace. xtianity is not a myth, it is a religious tradition, the bible is part of xtian mythology since it is considered to be a sacred text. so if you are all over me for something i never said, then you have a problem. you're either confused or you just rearrange things to fit your ideology. either way, i don't have to prove your assertions; you do.

I have been holding back concerning you because I don't know you and it did not seem like you knew much about debating or theology. I was trying to determine if you would follow logic where ever it lead, follow standard debate requirements, and so were worth the time it would take to make in depth posts. I have concluded you are not. Until you admit your burdens were not met, I will have to leave you to it for now.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Oh, I know them, but I find that many, even professed Christians, simply repeat what they've been told. And, if they have read it, they pick and choose verses.

But really, as is the case with every Bible-related question, the issue of slavery must be considered in context. A careful examination of the Scriptures reveals that God deplores the mistreatment of humans.

Such an examination also reveals that the kind of slavery practiced by God’s people in the Bible is not the cruel and abusive slavery that is envisioned by most people today. (And the Bible shows that God will deliver us from all forms of slavery in due time. Then, all mankind will enjoy true freedom.—Isaiah 65:21, 22.):

Does the Bible Condone Slavery? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

My next post will deal specifically with the treatment of women in ancient Israel.

Take care.

Ah, so there's some context in which slavery is moral. Is that what you're saying? I don't care if it was like the slavery we know today or not - I don't think there's any context in which the ownership of human beings is moral.

And it doesn't really sound like God deplores slavery in the Bible.

 

[David M]

You think god said this?

The bible contradicts itself.

No it doesn't. The Bible is full of occasions when it applies different rules depending on whether the person is one of God's chosen people or not. The rules of Slavery are a prime example.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, I haven't read most of the responses but let me guide you with Hegelian Dialectic. Like most things on the internet, you won't find anything accurate about Hegel on the Internet. So, if you want to better understand him then read his Elements of the Philosophy of the Right and his Introduction to the History of the world. In his time he was called the Protestant Aquinus, Aquinus was a Catholic Philosopher.

There is a difference between Good and Evil and Right and Wrong. OK, you say how does that work. Good and Evil respond to Spiritual matters and matters of the soul. Right and Wrong, like our Rights, respond to the Legal System. So, theoretically in the Western World something can be Good like helping your neighbor, but is not Right there are no laws forcing you to help your neighbor. Or, they can be Right like Trump's Travel Ban, but not in any way Good in the Religious sense. I use Trump as an example because he is now making our laws so there are quite a few things that he is making Right which are Evil.

Now, how does this translate to this discussion. OK we know Rape is both Evil and Wrong (legally actionable) but then people say, "The Bible doesn't condemn Rape." I say you read that on the internet probably coming from Rapists. Why? Because the Roman Empire which controlled all of Europe before Europe was Europe had no laws on Rape or Slavery. We are ancestors of the Roman Empire in the Western World so at what point does Rape and Slavery get outlawed? I'll tell you when Constantine converts the Roman Empire into the Holy Roman Empire based off of Christianity. So, in reality while you may read on the internet that Rape is condoned in the Bible it clearly is not if it was outlawed, like slavery, by the Judeo-Christian framework. Oh, so because internet people who have no education and have an agenda can't see it it must not be true....until History shows you it is true and History is not on the internet.

So, then you say what of the Curse of Ham? I say what of the Great Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King? The Christian has always had evil people since Simon the Sorcerer trying to upend it but what has happened so far? Christianity, Faith, Courage has won. I'm a Liberal and I say we now live in a time when Atheists pretending to be Pastor are teaching the Faith and Pilates like Trump eat it up while doing licentious things because it gets them votes and now the internet misguides and rewrites history all while you sit there and consume it and say, "this is how it always has been," I tell you one generations Propaganda (Internet) becomes the Next Generations sense of History and, man, do we have a huge Russian Propaganda machine.

Now for Atheists to be sincere you have to admit, "Christianity was a net good in History because we have all these laws derived from it," but you can also add, "it is no longer good and it has had it's place and we need something better." If you say that, I hope you get a really, really good education because look at Russia, China, North Korea because it is happening here. You live under the illusion you are free but everything you are presented is censored and controlled. Just like John Lennon said in Working Class Hero, "And you think you're so clever and classless and free But you're still f***ing peasants as far as I can see."

The sad conclusion? You will never have music like that ever again so how enlightened are you?

You think that Constantine founded the Holy Roman Empire?

Edit: ... and ended slavery by Christians?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Ah, so there's some context in which slavery is moral. Is that what you're saying?

No....it was; society's structure has changed. But in ancient times, it was accepted practice. So guidelines were given for Israelites (and 1st-cent. Christians) to follow.

The article linked above, says this (in case you didn't read it):

The Bible’s Viewpoint

Does the Bible Condone Slavery?

LOVE of neighbor is one of the fundamental teachings of the Bible. Love, however, is diametrically opposed to the concept of oppressive slavery. Hence, some people are puzzled by the mention of slavery in the Bible.

In ancient times God allowed his people to own slaves. (Genesis 14:14, 15) Even in the days of the apostles, some Christians were slave owners and some were slaves. (Philemon 15, 16) Does this mean that the Bible condones oppressive slavery?

Social Structures in Conflict With Bible Principles

By the time the Bible began to be written, humans had already established social structures and economic systems that conflicted with godly principles. While some of the practices involved were condemned in his written Law, God chose to tolerate others, such as slavery.

Regarding the social structure of the ancient nation of Israel, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia states: “It was meant to function as a brotherhood in which, ideally, there were no poor [and there was] no exploitation of widows, waifs, or orphans.” Hence, more than simply allowing an already established social and economic structure, God’s Law regulated slavery so that, if practiced, slaves would be treated in a humane and loving manner.

Slavery in Bible History

Consider the following regulations included in the Law given through Moses:

● Kidnapping a man and then selling him was punishable by death. (Exodus 21:16) However, if despite all the provisions made to prevent poverty, an Israelite found himself deeply in debt, perhaps as a result of poor management, he could sell himself as a slave. In some cases he might even be able to earn a surplus by which he could redeem himself.—Leviticus 25:47-52.

● This was not the oppressive kind of slavery that has been common in many lands through the ages. Leviticus 25:39, 40 says: “In case your brother grows poor alongside you and he has to sell himself to you, you must not use him as a worker in slavish service. He should prove to be with you like a hired laborer, like a settler.” So this was a loving provision to care for Israel’s poorest.

● A person found guilty of stealing who was unable to make full restitution according to the Law could be sold as a slave and in this way pay off his debt. (Exodus 22:3) When he had worked off the debt, he could go free.

● Cruel and abusive slavery was not allowed under God’s Law to Israel. While masters were allowed to discipline their slaves, excesses were forbidden. A slave killed by his master was to be avenged. (Exodus 21:20) If the slave was maimed, losing a tooth or an eye, he was set free.—Exodus 21:26, 27.

● The maximum time that any Israelite would have to serve as a slave was six years. (Exodus 21:2) Hebrew slaves were set free in the seventh year of their service. The Law demanded that every 50 years all Israelite slaves were to be set free nationwide, regardless of how long the individual had been a slave.—Leviticus 25:40, 41.

● When a slave was released, the master was required to be generous toward him. Deuteronomy 15:13, 14 says: “In case you should send him out from you as one set free, you must not send him out empty-handed. You should surely equip him with something from your flock and your threshing floor and your oil and winepress.”

Later, in the days of Jesus and his apostles, slavery was an entrenched practice in the Roman Empire. As Christianity spread, it was inevitable that individuals who were slaves and others who were slave owners would come in contact with the good news and become Christians. Neither Jesus Christ himself nor his apostles preached a gospel of social liberation, as if trying to reform the existing system. Rather, both slaves and slave owners were admonished to love one another as spiritual brothers.—Colossians 4:1; 1 Timothy 6:2.

The End of Slavery

As is the case with every Bible-related question, the issue of slavery must be considered in context. A careful examination of the Scriptures reveals that God deplores the mistreatment of humans.

Such an examination also reveals that the kind of slavery practiced by God’s people in the Bible is not the cruel and abusive slavery that is envisioned by most people today. And the Bible shows that God will deliver us from all forms of slavery in due time. Then, all mankind will enjoy true freedom.—Isaiah 65:21, 22.

Does the Bible Condone Slavery? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No....it was; society's structure has changed. But in ancient times, it was accepted practice. So guidelines were given for Israelites (and 1st-cent. Christians) to follow.

The article linked above, says this (in case you didn't read it):

The Bible’s Viewpoint

Does the Bible Condone Slavery?

LOVE of neighbor is one of the fundamental teachings of the Bible. Love, however, is diametrically opposed to the concept of oppressive slavery. Hence, some people are puzzled by the mention of slavery in the Bible.

In ancient times God allowed his people to own slaves. (Genesis 14:14, 15) Even in the days of the apostles, some Christians were slave owners and some were slaves. (Philemon 15, 16) Does this mean that the Bible condones oppressive slavery?

Social Structures in Conflict With Bible Principles

By the time the Bible began to be written, humans had already established social structures and economic systems that conflicted with godly principles. While some of the practices involved were condemned in his written Law, God chose to tolerate others, such as slavery.

Regarding the social structure of the ancient nation of Israel, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia states: “It was meant to function as a brotherhood in which, ideally, there were no poor [and there was] no exploitation of widows, waifs, or orphans.” Hence, more than simply allowing an already established social and economic structure, God’s Law regulated slavery so that, if practiced, slaves would be treated in a humane and loving manner.

Slavery in Bible History

Consider the following regulations included in the Law given through Moses:

● Kidnapping a man and then selling him was punishable by death. (Exodus 21:16) However, if despite all the provisions made to prevent poverty, an Israelite found himself deeply in debt, perhaps as a result of poor management, he could sell himself as a slave. In some cases he might even be able to earn a surplus by which he could redeem himself.—Leviticus 25:47-52.

● This was not the oppressive kind of slavery that has been common in many lands through the ages. Leviticus 25:39, 40 says: “In case your brother grows poor alongside you and he has to sell himself to you, you must not use him as a worker in slavish service. He should prove to be with you like a hired laborer, like a settler.” So this was a loving provision to care for Israel’s poorest.

● A person found guilty of stealing who was unable to make full restitution according to the Law could be sold as a slave and in this way pay off his debt. (Exodus 22:3) When he had worked off the debt, he could go free.

● Cruel and abusive slavery was not allowed under God’s Law to Israel. While masters were allowed to discipline their slaves, excesses were forbidden. A slave killed by his master was to be avenged. (Exodus 21:20) If the slave was maimed, losing a tooth or an eye, he was set free.—Exodus 21:26, 27.

● The maximum time that any Israelite would have to serve as a slave was six years. (Exodus 21:2) Hebrew slaves were set free in the seventh year of their service. The Law demanded that every 50 years all Israelite slaves were to be set free nationwide, regardless of how long the individual had been a slave.—Leviticus 25:40, 41.

● When a slave was released, the master was required to be generous toward him. Deuteronomy 15:13, 14 says: “In case you should send him out from you as one set free, you must not send him out empty-handed. You should surely equip him with something from your flock and your threshing floor and your oil and winepress.”

Later, in the days of Jesus and his apostles, slavery was an entrenched practice in the Roman Empire. As Christianity spread, it was inevitable that individuals who were slaves and others who were slave owners would come in contact with the good news and become Christians. Neither Jesus Christ himself nor his apostles preached a gospel of social liberation, as if trying to reform the existing system. Rather, both slaves and slave owners were admonished to love one another as spiritual brothers.—Colossians 4:1; 1 Timothy 6:2.

The End of Slavery

As is the case with every Bible-related question, the issue of slavery must be considered in context. A careful examination of the Scriptures reveals that God deplores the mistreatment of humans.

Such an examination also reveals that the kind of slavery practiced by God’s people in the Bible is not the cruel and abusive slavery that is envisioned by most people today. And the Bible shows that God will deliver us from all forms of slavery in due time. Then, all mankind will enjoy true freedom.—Isaiah 65:21, 22.

Does the Bible Condone Slavery? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

I think you're ignoring something important: the Christianity of the Gospels is a radical faith that assumes that its adherents will be poor outcasts.

The Gospels quote Jesus as saying "sell your possessions and follow me." Acts says that the early Christians kept no individual property, but gave everything to the church, which saw to it that their needs were met.

IMO, slavery would have been a moot point for the early Christians, because if they had kept enough money for themselves to buy a slave, they would have been doing something wrong. If you've been sent out into the world with nothing but a begging bowl and the clothes on your back, you won't be in a position to buy a slave, regardless of your feelings about the morality of slavery.

 

[Pudding]

So what you meant was "rape is always wrong for you personally, but could be right for someone else."

Under what circumstance would you acquit someone guilty of rape, therefore? When would rape be right for someone else?

Why do i have to acquit some rapists guilty of rape if they do condone rape? I cannot think of such circumstance.

If some rapists think it's right for them to condone rape, it's their own opinion.

To me, in my opinion, their behaviour is always wrong, i'll never say that their behaviour is right.

Rape is indeed bad.
Consequences of rape can be:
- victim will mentally hurt and/or bodily hurt
- unwanted pregnancies

- the rapist might spreading std to the victim

- if capture, the rapist will be punish by law in most country
- most people will despise and not welcome the rapist's existence

Is rape inherently bad, as in rape is bad in a permanent, essential, or characteristic way?

A group of rapists might enjoy non consensual sex and think it's good for them, but i think it's selfish and unhealthy and bad for them and also harmful for the victim.

So is rape inherently bad?
I think rape is inherently bad but there could be a minority of people who don't think so.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The Gospels quote Jesus as saying "sell your possessions and follow me."

He was speaking to a rich individual, who apparently had an attachment to his many possessions. He wasn't telling everyone to do that.

Acts says that the early Christians kept no individual property, but gave everything to the church, which saw to it that their needs were met.

Were they ordered to do that? No, it was a willing act, showing love to their less-fortunate brothers.
Besides, the Bible reveals that in the First Century, there were slaves and slave-owners who were both Christian. The owners, who must have been wealthy, weren't belittled for it....as long as they treated them well.

Take care.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

He was speaking to a rich individual, who apparently had an attachment to his many possessions. He wasn't telling everyone to do that.

He used that event as a lesson he told everyone ("it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter Heaven"). I'm also keeping in mind other passages where he told his followers to go out into the world with nothing but a begging bowl, and the part in the Sermon on the Mount where he chastised people who could afford to eat every day, telling that they would suffer "woe" because of it.

Were they ordered to do that? No, it was a willing act, showing love to their less-fortunate brothers.

I question how voluntary it was when Ananais and Sapphira (at least) were killed for holding something back for themselves.

Besides, the Bible reveals that in the First Century, there were slaves and slave-owners who were both Christian. The owners, who must have been wealthy, weren't belittled for it....as long as they treated them well.

Reference?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Reference?

The book of Philemon, for one.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The book of Philemon, for one.

I'd be interested to hear how you reconcile that with the passages that criticize the acquisition of wealth, like Matthew 6:24-34, Matthew 10:9-10, Luke 6:24-25, etc., etc.