Whose Side Are You On, God's Or That Of Morality?

[sojourner]

Making up reasons for why things are what they are, then finding out a few thousand years later that they were wrong in the first place and now we have to literally tear people off of the teat of religion to get them to think for themselves kind of complicated.

I don’t think that religion is the antithesis of thinking for ourselves.

 

[Jollybear]

Chapter and verse please because Exodus 21:20-21 only says:

20 If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. 21If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.
​

Not a thing about not injuring. And all a slave owner has to worry about is if his punished slave can hold out dying from his punishment for "a day or two." AND, all this is just fine with god!

It is moral to beat your slave, just make sure he doesn't die right away.
........................................................................................................Love, God

.​

.

Exodus 21

"18“If people quarrel and one person hits another with a stone or with their fistd and the victim does not die but is confined to bed, 19the one who struck the blow will not be held liable if the other can get up and walk around outside with a staff; however, the guilty party must pay the injured person for any loss of time and see that the victim is completely healed.

And

"26“An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. 27And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth."

In other words the slave owner if he injurs the slave, he MUST let the slave go free BEFORE the 6 year contract is over. He must also make sure he is healed.

THAT is a punishment to the slave owner.

In otherwords, he is not alowed to injure his slave.

I think it is clear here.

Also God says in 15

"12If any of your people—Hebrew men or women—sell themselves to you and serve you six years, in the seventh year you must let them go free. 13And when you release them, do not send them away empty-handed. 14Supply them liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. Give to them as the Lord your God has blessed you.15Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the Lord your God redeemed you. That is why I give you this command today.

In otherwords be kind to your slaves.

The right of the slave owner to lightly beat or punish his slave for breaking a contract, that is merely a right he had. A right is not a command. God does not say beat them or not beat them. He says if you exercise that right, you must not injure. If you do, youl be punished.

 

[sojourner]

Only if he is Hebrew, screw the rest, they don't count as people. I'm willing to wager the 'masters' could beat to death their non Hebrew slaves without fear of any kind of punishment.

That’s the culture; not the God. The culture imposes attributes onto its deities, such that the deities reflect what the culture defines as noble.

 

[Jollybear]

This nitpicking business doesn't mean jack really. It's slavery. Slavery is wrong, I don't give a hoot if they could only be slaves for 7 years. It is still slavery. does the bible say indentured servitude?

No.
It.
Does.
Not.

It says slaves. Slavery.

It blows my mind that people are still defending slavery in the bible. They must think that it's fine in certain situations which can lead me to the conclusion that these apologist Christians are as morally bankrupt as their forebears.

Where's that user that said there is no morality without Christianity? Well there isn't any morality in defending slavery in any form whatsoever!.

Calling it nitpicking is not a refutation.

And im merely pointing out an abvious point in the passage.

All your doing is looking at the word slave and thats enough for you.

Theres more then just words here. Actions speak loader then labels.

The reality of the text is that God gave rights to both slave owner and slave.

Should those who break contracts not be punished?

Im morally bankrupt and you act like its ok to break contracts? Really?

And people that disagree love to shout "apologist, apologist!"

That means absolutely nothing and its also not a refutation.

 

[Skwim]

I disagree with this statement:

Bible scholars would explain that, in the theology of the ancient Hebrews, the father/husband embodied the honor of all his clan or family. Therefore, if the father acted shamefully, his whole family would be in shame. Since the story is a polemic against the shame of inhospitality, it uses the literary device of hyperbole to illustrate the utter destructiveness of inhospitality to the social order. Children are included in that utter destructiveness. The fathers neglected, through their inhospitality, the welfare of their progeny — their future.

And god's decisions rest on a culture's particular mores? REALLY?

With regard to your thoughts on slavery, where slavery is concerned, I agree wholeheartedly. However, with the caveat that the Bible is written within the context of the cultures that created it, and from those cultural contexts. Therefore, the admissibility of slavery isn’t a reflection on the morality of God, but rather a reflection of the cultures that produced the texts — for good or ill.

Therefore, your premise that God, by virtue of these textual examples, is immoral, is incorrect. The texts do not reflect an immoral God, but rather illustrate the importance of hospitality and reflect the cultural mores of the times.

And what is the overarching context of the Hebrew culture that convinced god that slavery was alright? Again, you're saying that god makes moral decisions based on a culture's codes and practices rather than on any absolute. What may be an immoral act in one community can be moral in another community. Is that the way god's morality works?

.

 

[sojourner]

This nitpicking business doesn't mean jack really. It's slavery. Slavery is wrong, I don't give a hoot if they could only be slaves for 7 years. It is still slavery. does the bible say indentured servitude?

No.
It.
Does.
Not.

It says slaves. Slavery.

It blows my mind that people are still defending slavery in the bible. They must think that it's fine in certain situations which can lead me to the conclusion that these apologist Christians are as morally bankrupt as their forebears.

Where's that user that said there is no morality without Christianity? Well there isn't any morality in defending slavery in any form whatsoever!.

I don’t read this “defending slavery,” rather as an attempt to define what’s under scrutiny. Yes, “slavery” generally refers to “bond-slave.” Which is a different dynamic than American slavery we normally think of. Different economic times, different society. We’d be better off almost equating bond-slavery to our modern welfare state. It’s all about context.

 

[Cacotopia]

I don’t think that religion is the antithesis of thinking for ourselves.

Of course it isn't the only thing that prevents people from making their own mind up, I "believe" a chunk of the world population would rather be told how to live than figure out what to do with their lives on their own.

But answering your question: No it's not the only thing retarding self determination, but it certainly plays a large role in it. While it's not the antithesis of thinking for ourselves its the suspension of rational thought I find to be most irksome.

I think religion promotes critical thought, but in the worst way possible. To bob and weave around facts and reality to justify the belief. It's mental gymnastics to the hardcore believer.

 

[sojourner]

This nitpicking business doesn't mean jack really. It's slavery. Slavery is wrong, I don't give a hoot if they could only be slaves for 7 years. It is still slavery. does the bible say indentured servitude?

No.
It.
Does.
Not.

It says slaves. Slavery.

It blows my mind that people are still defending slavery in the bible. They must think that it's fine in certain situations which can lead me to the conclusion that these apologist Christians are as morally bankrupt as their forebears.

Where's that user that said there is no morality without Christianity? Well there isn't any morality in defending slavery in any form whatsoever!.

You’re overreacting to the post.

 

[sojourner]

Tell a fabricated truth for 2000 years, later discovered as a lie.

Get people to disown a 2000 year old established truth as lie.

Tends to make future developments more complicated because people refuse to let go of the past.

What, exactly, is the lie?

 

[Axe Elf]

Last I checked... those types of things are not considered "moral" by human standards. Perhaps they are by God's standards however?

Yeah, that was kind of my original point--that human morality tends to place humans in a position of inordinate importance.

Even if I assume that God exists, there is no proof that God is instructing my every move, that He is aware of my every action and thought, or that He is capable of discerning my future. This thread topic covers none of that.

Yeah, that's why I said that much of your post was off-topic, and I didn't make much of an effort to address those points.

Were the people who invented those things to have just considered the universe to be "the way it is" and figured, as you stated, that is was perfect, then why would they have invented those things in the first place? Because the universe isn't just fine "the way it is", and we are still working toward more and more solutions to the difficult aspects we find ourselves up against.

This too is a bit off-topic, but you seem much closer to being able to understand that the people who invented those things are themselves a part of the universe "as it is" than you are to understanding your lack of free will.

The universe, as it is, creates pressures that motivate changes. The changes are also a part of the universe, as it is. So just because God didn't create cows at the first stage of evolution doesn't mean that He didn't create the process by which cows would eventually evolve. Just because God didn't create light bulbs occurring naturally in meadows doesn't mean He didn't create processes by which light bulbs were eventually conceived and produced. All of those things--and any future changes that we haven't thought of yet but which are just as inevitably coming--are a part of the universe "as it is."

And if you don't like "God" being in that description, just take Him out. It works just as well to consider the processes of evolution and invention as naturalistic--but again, this is a conversation that assumes the existence of God.

You seem to be operating from the perspective that the universe existed in one way, and then along came human beings and started making it better--as if human beings weren't themselves a part of the universe.

Well, that's enough off-topic talk for one thread.

 

[Cacotopia]

I don’t read this “defending slavery,” rather as an attempt to define what’s under scrutiny. Yes, “slavery” generally refers to “bond-slave.” Which is a different dynamic than American slavery we normally think of. Different economic times, different society. We’d be better off almost equating bond-slavery to our modern welfare state. It’s all about context.

It's the justification of slavery using modern current day values. Why do they accept it?

Another common practice during those times (literally everyone did this back then, life spans were less than half of today's average lifespan) was engaging in marital rites as soon as a girl bled, which could be as early as 9 years old. But I don't see people justifying pedophilia like they do slavery.

Or do they justify the raping as well? Consensual sex is not that old.

 

[sojourner]

Belief is a functioning mental illness shared by billions of people. It isn't wrong if everyone is doing it right?

The DSM and the mental health community disagree with this.

 

[Cacotopia]

What, exactly, is the lie?

Example of a lie: When it thunders Zeus is talking to us.

Every religion has theories on why things happen. But they call those untested hypothesis fact and reality. That's my problem with it.

 

[Axe Elf]

This only works if you’re asserting that God condoned slavery in the first place. Which is only possible if you treat the texts literalistically. Which pure reason suggests is nonsense.

I'm not sure what you mean by "works."

I can say that God created slavery, although He created a great number of things that I suspect only exist because they are necessary to the best of all possible universes. in that other things can exist in contrast to them. Of all the evil and atrocities that God created, it's hard to say which He "condones" beyond the mere assertion of their existence.

 

[sojourner]

"Sell yourselves, and be jolly good slaves because you were slaves in Egypt." What you posted sounds absolutely appalling. There is no moral justification for owning another human being, and no amount of apologetic can ever fix it.
And that is nothing like a job. I can tell my boss to **** off today and leave it, without any requirement of six years of service. My boss also can't beat me, regardless, period, dot, end of discussion, no matter how long it takes me to recover. They also can't pass me around like property, because I am not their property.
We sell our labor, not our selves.

Not necessarily. Some jobs come with contracts. For example, in my hometown, if you go to nursing school, you are bound to work for the hospital attached to that school for five years, or you will be billed for the education you received. You can’t just “walk away.”

While I agree that bond-slavery isn’t a moral choice and could not work here and now, we need to think context. In that time and place, the practice was mitigatory. At least more so than the alternative.

 

[sojourner]

It's the justification of slavery using modern current day values. Why do they accept it?

Another common practice during those times (literally everyone did this back then, life spans were less than half of today's average lifespan) was engaging in marital rites as soon as a girl bled, which could be as early as 9 years old. But I don't see people justifying pedophilia like they do slavery.

Or do they justify the raping as well? Consensual sex is not that old.

Yes, the justification against differing cultures is wrong. What may have been the better choice back then may not be the better choice today. And trying to beat that square peg into that round hole is futile.

 

[Skwim]

Exodus 21

"18“If people quarrel and one person hits another with a stone or with their fistd and the victim does not die but is confined to bed, 19the one who struck the blow will not be held liable if the other can get up and walk around outside with a staff; however, the guilty party must pay the injured person for any loss of time and see that the victim is completely healed.

Irrelevant, and you know it. Or should.,

"26“An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. 27And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth."

In other words the slave owner if he injurs the slave, he MUST let the slave go free BEFORE the 6 year contract is over. He must also make sure he is healed.

And six year contracts only applied to Hebrew slaves. Other slaves could be held for life and even passed down to the next generation.

"12If any of your people—Hebrew men or women—sell themselves to you and serve you six years, in the seventh year you must let them go free. 13And when you release them, do not send them away empty-handed. 14Supply them liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. Give to them as the Lord your God has blessed you.15Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the Lord your God redeemed you. That is why I give you this command today.

In otherwords be kind to your slaves.

Nice words of advise to be sure, but in no way do they absolve god of his immoral stance on slavery in general, or on his permissive attitude toward beating slaves. "If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. 21If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.

The right of the slave owner to lightly beat or punish his slave for breaking a contract, that is merely a right he had. A right is not a command. God does not say beat them or not beat them. He says if you exercise that right, you must not injure. If you do, youl be punished.

Your ridiculous, self serving rephrasing here and absurd logic hasn't gone unnoticed. Try it on someone who doesn't know the English language. Believe me, apologetics isn't your forte.

Have a good day.

.

 

[sojourner]

Example of a lie: When it thunders Zeus is talking to us.

Every religion has theories on why things happen. But they call those untested hypothesis fact and reality. That's my problem with it.

Haven’t you ever heard of metaphor? Application of metaphor isn’t a “lie,” it’s the application of a metaphor. We run into trouble when we treat the metaphor as empirical fact.

 

[sojourner]

I'm not sure what you mean by "works."

I can say that God created slavery, although He created a great number of things that I suspect only exist because they are necessary to the best of all possible universes. in that other things can exist in contrast to them. Of all the evil and atrocities that God created, it's hard to say which He "condones" beyond the mere assertion of their existence.

You can say that, but that’s only your opinion, and it doesn’t follow from any legitimate theological construction I’m aware of.

 

[Axe Elf]

You can say that, but that’s only your opinion, and it doesn’t follow from any legitimate theological construction I’m aware of.

Yeah, well, I thought that's why we were here, to share our opinions.

And where do you think you get legitimate theological constructions, if not from us prophets?