The bible and slavery - please post direct passages from the bible that you believe support slavery.

[Kathryn]

No, you asked where the trickery was. I thought that it was rather obvious when I posted the verses. Now you seem to be claiming that you were on to the trickery from the start. Which one is it?

Neither one. And there you go again. Sorry, doesn't work on me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is it right to judge past societies by 21st century standards?

No one is judging societies. We are judging God. God supposedly regularly intervened for or even against the Hebrews in the Old Testament. He could have simply said: "Don't own other people." And reinforced that law. He did not do so. It is almost as if those stories were just myths.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Neither one. And there you go again. Sorry, doesn't work on me.

That does not leave many options. Why did you complain when an explanation was given for what it seemed that you did not understand?

 

[Kathryn]

That does not leave many options. Why did you complain when an explanation was given for what it seemed that you did not understand?

It's called a discussion. I was discussing your point and I disagree with it. That's not "complaining." It's also not "misunderstanding" your point. It's disagreeing with and discussing your point.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Is it right to judge past societies by 21st century standards?

Yes, it is. Understanding is needed, but owning a human being as property is never right.
And judging yesterday by today also opens up some fun observations, such as how American Christians today have went backwards from some such as the Christians of Wessex during the time of Alfred the Great over 1000 years ago. He was big into learning and literacy to degrees American Christians traditionally find offputting, useless and unnecessary, to the point not many members of the larger collective group of American Clergy would be considered worthy debate opponents for Alfred and his flock of priests.

 

[F1fan]

Is it right to judge past societies by 21st century standards?

Not from a scientific approach. But when we have theists who base their morals on a religious book written at a time where slavery was acceptable, and all as authorized by an absolute God, then yes we can. Shouldn't we expect an absolute God to get morals correct in a timeless sense?

Look at the dilemma with Baha'i who want us to accept their claims that their messenger represents God, but has anti-gay attitudes. That doesn't appeal in the 21st century and those attitudes are obsolete. I ask why their God didn't know any better.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's called a discussion. I was discussing your point and I disagree with it. That's not "complaining." It's also not "misunderstanding" your point. It's disagreeing with and discussing your point.

You hardly discussed. That was the problem. You could not see the trickery,I made it more clear.

 

[Left Coast]

LOL it's not my first rodeo either and no I definitely did not say anything like what you said I said - LOL.

And you didn't answer the basic question I asked. Standard.

 

[Kathryn]

And you didn't answer the basic question I asked. Standard.

What? Sorry, been sort of busy.

 

[Kathryn]

You hardly discussed. That was the problem. You could not see the trickery,I made it more clear.

I disagreed that it was trickery though, so there's that. I made that clear. I mean, I got your point but I disagreed with it.

 

[Kathryn]

Not from a scientific approach. But when we have theists who base their morals on a religious book written at a time where slavery was acceptable, and all as authorized by an absolute God, then yes we can. Shouldn't we expect an absolute God to get morals correct in a timeless sense?

Look at the dilemma with Baha'i who want us to accept their claims that their messenger represents God, but has anti-gay attitudes. That doesn't appeal in the 21st century and those attitudes are obsolete. I ask why their God didn't know any better.

Well, there are all sorts of theists, so I guess in a sense you're right. However, not all theists are cut from the same bolt of cloth. For instance, I believe that Jesus said that the greatest commandment was to love God, and that the second one was to love your neighbor as yourself. So that's what I try to do and believe me, it keeps me plenty busy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I disagreed that it was trickery though, so there's that. I made that clear. I mean, I got your point but I disagreed with it.

No, you claimed an inability to see the trickery there. That was not a statement that you disagreed. I explained for you and then you pretended to know that. That was not disagreeing either.

 

[Kathryn]

No, you claimed an inability to see the trickery there. That was not a statement that you disagreed. I explained for you and then you pretended to know that. That was not disagreeing either.

Oh hogwash. But let's make this very clear - I disagree with your statement that trickery was involved. I feel like you are underselling what people knew and didn't know about the law as it pertained directly to them. I mean, I guess some people didn't know it but I would bet most did. You didn't prove the point to me at all.

 

[Kathryn]

No, you claimed an inability to see the trickery there. That was not a statement that you disagreed. I explained for you and then you pretended to know that. That was not disagreeing either.

And I didn't say I made any sort of statement. I said I disagreed with your point and I did and still do.

 

[Father Heathen]

Is it right to judge past societies by 21st century standards?

It is when a past society's standards are also presented as god's standards. Why would god permit what he doesn't approve? If he made cultural concessions, why then and not now?
How do we separate what's antiquated cultural baggage from what's supposed to be god's timeless will if they're packaged together with no differentiation?

 

[F1fan]

Well, there are all sorts of theists, so I guess in a sense you're right. However, not all theists are cut from the same bolt of cloth. For instance, I believe that Jesus said that the greatest commandment was to love God,

Right. But Jews and Muslims disagree, so how does all this "truth" get resolved, except to admit it is all relative and subjective, and free of absolute authority. Oddly it's all the same God.

and that the second one was to love your neighbor as yourself.

the dilemma here is that this assumes all people are mature and love themselves. The angry, immature, and self-loathing will treat others the same way, and still be in accordance to what Jesus said.

So that's what I try to do and believe me, it keeps me plenty busy.

I think most religions realy heavily on the natural goodness of people to work. What we see of a religion tends to be representative of the natural person. Bad theists tend to give rtheir religions a bad name.

My grandmother was presbyterian and she asked me to volunteer in her church's food kitchen. they served meals twice a week to the needy, and they would feed maybe 200 - 300 people, often families. None of the women doing this service ever said anything about religion. No prayers, no requirements, just service to their fellow citizens. That really made an impression on me. To my mind this is what Jesus meant by his church, not the ornate buildings with boring sermons telling us what kind of no good scubmbags we are not deserving of God's grace. The simplest truths tend to be correct.

 

[Kathryn]

Right. But Jews and Muslims disagree, so how does all this "truth" get resolved, except to admit it is all relative and subjective, and free of absolute authority. Oddly it's all the same God.


the dilemma here is that this assumes all people are mature and love themselves. The angry, immature, and self-loathing will treat others the same way, and still be in accordance to what Jesus said.


I think most religions realy heavily on the natural goodness of people to work. What we see of a religion tends to be representative of the natural person. Bad theists tend to give rtheir religions a bad name.

My grandmother was presbyterian and she asked me to volunteer in her church's food kitchen. they served meals twice a week to the needy, and they would feed maybe 200 - 300 people, often families. None of the women doing this service ever said anything about religion. No prayers, not requirements, just service to their fellow citizens. That really made an impression on me. To my mind this is what Jesus meant by his church, not the ornate buildings with boring sermons telling us what kind of no good scubmbags we are not deserving of God's grace. The simplest truths tend to be correct.

Well, I agree with some of this and disagree with some of it. (By the way, I volunteer at a church food kitchen - and like you pointed out, I don't recall EVER hearing about religion,)

 

[Kathryn]

It is when a past society's standards are also presented as god's standards. Why would god permit what he doesn't approve? If he made cultural concessions, why then and not now?
How do we separate what's antiquated cultural baggage from what's supposed to be god's timeless will if they're packaged together with no differentiation?

I guess that's a question you'll have to ask yourself. I don't have any issue with differentiating. It's pretty clear to me when God is making a concession and when He's not but that's just my perspective from my life and studies over time.

For instance, God PERMITTED divorce via the law but that doesn't mean He wants people to get a divorce. It was a cultural concession.

 

[Father Heathen]

I guess that's a question you'll have to ask yourself. I don't have any issue with differentiating. It's pretty clear to me when God is making a concession and when He's not but that's just my perspective from my life and studies over time.

I.E. cherry pick whatever's personally convenient.
"I like pork and shrimp, so we'll dismiss that as ancient culture, but homosexuality on the other hand..."

And again I ask, why would god make concessions back then for things that were horrid injustices, but not make concessions for things today that are benign?

 

[Kathryn]

I.E. cherry pick whatever's personally convenient.
"I like pork and shrimp, so we'll dismiss that as ancient culture, but homosexuality on the other hand..."

And again I ask, why would god make concessions back then for things that were horrid injustices, but not make concession for things today that are benign?

LOL I am not sure you know me well enough to state so emphatically that I am cherry picking.

I already discussed your question by the way. So I won't repeat myself, even if you didn't like the first time I answered your question.