RoderickSpode

Are you seriously arguing that gays and women have not suffered religious persecution?

Are you further arguing that at least according to the bible sabbath stick gatherers were not to be stoned to death?

If you don't mind me asking, for the purpose of relevant discussion, are you American?

I don't see how it is pertinent. 

Speculation unless there is a specific verse that makes this distinction and I am unaware of any such passage. That makes all your following points rather besides the point.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. We have really strayed from the point at the point where you bring up self defense however since according to the bible the Yahweh is invincible and so by definition unable to perform an act of self defense. 

Poor analogy. A rocket works how a rocket works. The controls work in the same way for everyone regardless of belief. Conversely even very serious theologians disagree about how to interpret scriptures. This is not only a Christian problem by the way. Seemingly every religion has separate denominations and infighting about the meaning of their holy book.

I agree. So how do we resolve the issue? It would seem that there is no cut and dry method for interpreting the bible and even if the apparent contradictions in the book itself could be resolved the contradictions in interpretation would still be a serious problem. 

An apparent one but that is to be expected in a book written over several hundred years (at least) based on oral tradition written by multiple authors and then poorly translated into English. 

I have already said that I am unconvinced that it is moral to keep indentured servants. Nevertheless this is simply muddying the waters as we (I presume) agree that owning a person as property in perpetuity is a far greater miscarriage of justice and owning people in perpetuity is what the rules laid out in leviticus are concerned with. Any discussion of indentured servitude is therefore besides the point when discussing the laws concerning ownership of peopleas property's outlined in leviticus.

All besides the point when dealing with pur secret unshared thoughts. That is where your argument really falls down. Unless I choose to share my thoughts and do not act on them

then they have no effect on anyone but me.

If there is no god certainly. If however there is an omnipotent invisible bully to harden Pharoah's heart or command the genocide of the hittites and philistines then it could

originate there as well.

Please explain the idea of original sin, if each man is judged by his own actions.  I'd love to hear your answer to the question in that post, but I don't expect one. I can get a lot of what you think about it from context. 

Does the passage SAY she was an indentured servant? Also, what difference does that make? She is GIVEN to the slave, BY the master. Does she have any say in this transactin, according to the passage you quoted? Can she refuse to marry this servant? I think the answer is probably no, because women didn't have a whole lot of say in how they were handled back then. She's not "asked if she'd like to marry" someone. She's given, perhaps as a perk for the male servant being such a good servant. The sexual congress that necessarily precedes a family, if the woman has no say in if she can have it or not, would be rape. Or ae you of the belief (a Christian belief, BTW) that a husband can't rape his wife?

Also there are several instances in the bible where the Israelits have a holy sanction to tkae the spoils of war as "wives." Again, they don't have a choice, and it's not like the soldiers were switching from conquest to speed dating and chivalry. These women were basically sex slaves. But, since they weren't hebrews, it appears to you this doesn't really matter. But if you'd like a specific verse, check out Deuteronomy 21:10-14:

I am not arguing that the bible doesn't make opposite views depending on the verses you choose to focus on. If the verse in question is actually an injunction against slavery rather than simply against kidnapping it doesn't change the moral dictates concerning the owning of people as property set forth in leviticus it just gives abolitionists and slave owners both a verse to quote to show that the bible "supports" their position (owning people is the focus of my argument and I don't care if you want to call it slavery or not. You could call it super

happy and fully justified people owning time it is still wrong in my estimation which stems mostly from my not wanting to be owned by anyone and the excercise of human empathy)

So the creator is at fault for knowing your thoughts?

Only in as much as a peeping tom is at fault for peeking through a window.

Thinking is not acting. If someone were to think about punching you in the face and then someone else actually did it which one would you think more deserving of punishment? Conversly if someone fantasizes about adultery (coveting his neighbors wife) the Yahweh offers equal punishment (eternal torment) as someone who actually does commit adultery.

According to the bible all things come from god. Care to argue that this is not true?

Ah yes let me clarify. I mean the Yahweh is an abuser for making child leukemia an integral part of his plan. If you require further clarification please

just ask.

Again I am unconcerned with the actions of a being I consider to be fictional unless it informs the real world morality of human beings that might then visit equally terrible punishments on other humans. If religion did not cause humans to harm, mistreat or strip freedoms from other humans I would be completely unconcerned. I am not bitter by the way just concerned with the possible consequences of believing in religious dogma that promotes mistreatment of any given humans (say the LGBT community, women and people who pick up sticks on the wrong day of the week.)

Where in the bible, in this book we're talking about, does it say "the indentured servant can take his whole family with him provided he can provide for them"? Not necessarily in those words. Just where in the passage are you getting this meaning? I know you have a habit of adding stuff that isn't there, as you did with Elisha (and the mortal threat to his life, your admitted that's your opinion and not in the book at all), is this a similar case, to make that more moral?

The rest of your post after this is a distraction and irrelevant. You've really never thought about "why would something that's all powerful require ANY human action on its behalf?" THat seems unusually intellectually lazy of you, I don't get the impression that's how you are.

I didn't even ask the harder version:

why would anything go wrong to such a degree that an all powerful, all knowing being would get so upset all the time, when he'd have to have known it would happen? I mean this is the font of all morality and goodness according to you, and the first act in the whole myth is him promising to hold all generations accountable for one person's crime, that he KNEW that person would commit when he made him. How's that moral? And before you go with the whole "you have kids, i'm sure you knew you'd have to discipline them" counter, I wouldn't hold my great grandchildren accountable for something their parent did. Much less the great grandchildren of my great grandchildren. 

Not without the cooperation of all parties involved including the Japanese. Then again I am not an omnipotent god. One would hope that an omnipotent god could achieve any goal without violence or suffering as a result. That said war is not a morally desirable thing to undertake.

Funnily enough I did not use the word slavery. I instead specified the actual moral standard of buying selling and owning people as property. If you define that as slavery then you should take it up with leviticus. Nevertheless kidnapping is not the same as buying selling and owning people. While being sold as property is one possible consequence of kidnapping it is far from the only one and kidnapping is hardly the only way to achieve a situation in which people are bought sold and owned as property. 

Claiming that the victim is actually responsible for the abuse they endure is an abominable thing to do. It enables abusers and perpetuates the cycle of abuse. You asked me

what crime would make striking someone with cancer a moral thing to do and I said there us no such crime. Apparently you disagree so I ask you. What crime did a ten year old child with bone cancer commit that makes it morally correct to consign them to a slow painful death you and I could hardly imagine? Maybe they fantasized about your spouse? You seem to be unreasonably sure that that is an immoral thing to fantasize about. 

I am unconcerned with the actions of a being I consider to be fictional unless ot informs the real world morality of human beings that might then visit equally terrible punishments on other humans.

What does my ability or inability to suggest some alternative have to do with the moral correctness of what actually was undertaken?

This is not what I was referring to. This is a standard that ONLY APPLIES TO HEBREWS. This is the standard I am actually referring to.

Leviticus 25: 44-46

"Both thy bondman and thy bondmaids which thou shalt have, shalt 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. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you to inherit them after you; they shall be your bondmen forever. But over your bretheren, the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigor."

Buy them, they shall be your possession, they shall be your bondsmen forever.

Was I somehow unclear or were you purposefully ignoring what I was actually saying?

Kidnapping and buying and owning are separate issues. Please stop falsely conflating the issues.

I mean convicting someone for their private beliefs and desires. Like coveting or not believing in a particular proposition. 

I am not prepared to day that anyone deserves cancer and yet cancer exists. If the Yahweh were unable to create a world without cancer I don't think much of his omnipotence and if he could I don't think much of his decision to include cancer in his plan.

I am not prepared to day that anyone deserves cancer and yet cancer exists. If the Yahweh were unable to create a world without cancer I don't think much of his omnipotence and if he could I don't think much of his decision to include cancer in his plan.

Roderickspode,

YOUR QUOTE OF NOT UNDERSTANDING: "I wasn't actually planning on it. Why would I in this particular thread?"

I was referring too you NOT agreeing that the Old Testament laws and commands are to be followed today. A lot of pseudo-christians like you do not include the biblical axiom that adulterers are to be put to death when upon this topic, so saith the true words of Jesus the Christ.  

Again this standard applies only to hebrews. Non hebrews were property for life. Please stop trying to conflate the two separate standards. Also it says nothing in leviticus about not being able to buy any person whatever not just theive's and debtors.

This is a huge jump. What does this have to do with thought crime? Serial murder is an actual crime.

And conversely to prevent it and yet innocent people still get cancer.

My belief in the Yahweh is divorced from any such willingness and would need to be discussed separately and yet disbelief according to the bible is enough to convict me. Your statement is demonstrably false.

Please, for the sake of your continued embarrassment, don't give us the old Satanic apologetic ruse that pseudo-christians don't have to follow the Old Testament commands anymore, okay?  I am sure that I am preaching to the choir with you, in that Jesus stated in His Sermon on the Mount that the Old Testament Laws are to be followed then and now in the 21st century, PERIOD!

So, what's the answer, do you think? 

I am not necessarily. You seem to think that the lesser of two evils is not evil. I simply disagree. In any case melting the faces of innocent civilians may have been overdoing it just a tad, no?

Does that mean you would be willing to be one my property? To have mr beat you so long as you don't die? To have your family remain my property even if I did deign to free you?

I could expose you to dangerous substances. Or you could expose yourself to them. I mean if it meant getting stronger. In any case don't you believe that the Yahweh can give people cancer? Is that beyond an omnipotent being? I am unimpressed with any god(s) who are ostensibly less powerful than asbestos. 

If the bible is to be believed life's conditions are a result of the Yahweh's perfect and unalterable plan.

??? How the hell would I even begin to make this calculation? What's the relevance?

Let me try to explain a little better. My read of your invocation of the Hiroshima idea, wherein the US dropped bombs on Japan, is that for humans, often, the ends justify the means. I"m not categorically opposed to the idea as a concept, but it's not at all related to anything to do with the divine. The god you believe in, for example? I've seen explanations that the genocides he orders are because he has to, in order to affect some greater end. This argument is poor as it comes to the morality of the character god in question, because it disregards the fact hat the Amlekites, for example, were by necessity also created by god, and that he had other options available to him besides "Send the hebrews in their to slaughter them to the last lamb." In other words, he didn't have to kill the Amalekites, AT ALL. In fact, he never has to kill anything: he could simply rewind time, delete the faulty line in the program, and rerun it, no one would be the wiser. This option is not available

in the real world, and thus, the ends justify the means is a valid argument in some cases. If there are UNLIMITED means, truly unlimited, would it ever be justified to kill someone else, no matter the reason?

Wow. 

In your Hiroshima analogy, aren't you kind of creating a false dichotomy: either nuclear fire melting the faces of civilians and leadership alike, OR no action at all? Seems to me that there's a lot of intermediate steps one might be able to take in order to check the outcome of the conflict.

And that analogy alone is an interesting thought experiment, but to relate it back to the ropic of a god, Allied Leadership would have had to have the option to simply "delete" the bad actors in Japan, or rewinding time to go back to before Japan even attacked, or to rewind to where the causes that led to their attacking the US could be satisfactorily ameliorated (in other words, they have ALL options, even those that are not available to real world beings, because they are literally all powerful). If the Allies have THIS option...

...is it moral for them to say "Yeah, we could do that, but I'd rather drop two atomic bombs on thousands of residents who have absolutely nothing to do with any of this"?

Yes indentured servitude existed in Hebrew society for other hebrews but non hebrews could be bought, sold, owned and passed down as inheritance. Two different standards existed. One for hebrews and one for everyone else. The morality of keeping indentured hebrew servants, of which I am not necessarily convinced of, aside the ownership of non hebrews is what I'm actually referring to.

Because I'm not of the opinion that two wrongs make a right or that the ends necessarily justify the means and also because melting the faces of civilians with nuclear fire and radiation just doesn't sit right with me.

Not really a fan of the book of Job. Not only does the Yahweh kill Job's children just to test Job he also completely misses the point of why that is an unacceptable thing to do as e evidenced by the fact that he considered replacement children to be  a suitable way to make up for killing the first ones. I understand it was an answer (one of many presented in the old testament) to the problem of suffering even arguably the best one since at least it isn't engaging in outright victim blaming but it isn't really a satisfying answer and it does basically excuse Job's abuser instead denying his right to even question his abuser.

The morality of indentured servitude, which I remain unconvinced of, is not the issue when we discuss owning people as property  buying and selling them as property and passing them down to your children as property. We can discuss indentured servitude next if you like but it is a separate issue. It is though on a side note immoral to have separate standards for different groups of people as this has a tendency to create second class citizens. 

I might and that would be wrong of me. After all you have specifically said he did not act on these fantasies.

Whether the bible is partly or completely fictional I am of the intractable opinion that genocide, the buying and selling of people as property and the convicting people of thought crime are all immoral. Does your opinion on these subjects really differ appreciably from mine?

I am not sure what your point is here. My view is that the bible is written by fallible men but that it is also breathed out by an infallible God.  Like Jesus - it is both divine and human.  The infallible God used fallible men to write his word to us - using their fallible tools and minds but nevertheless speaking the mind and word of God.  

Hence the bible is both infallible and inerrant.  It is divine and totally perfect.  It is its own measuring tool - making it inerrant. 

Great question - I'll try to answer this in your other thread about this topic, in the interests of keeping the discussion here on the subject of controversial biblical stories (and keeping my posts 1 mile long instead of 6 miles long).

Oh. No, I took it more like "This man is blessed and chosen of God. Beware."

I should probably add that I do think tearing dozens of kids apart via bear is a super harsh punishment even for just insulting God.

(Your words.)

I didn't really read any clear mortal danger to Elisha in the text, personally.

It seems at least 42 youths were there, which is rather a lot - I know I would've been worried, if I wasn't a prophet who had God's protection. But they don't appear to do anything more than jeer - in the KJV "Go up, thou bald head!" and in the NIV "Get out of here, baldy!" It sounds to me like they were just trying to run Elisha off.

Out of curiosity, what level of spiritual authority do you ascribe to Paul's epistles?

This is where I would need to defer to experts about the correct translation. "Elohim" has a range of meanings in the Bible and it's for Hebrew translators to figure out which meaning is appropriate in the context.

I know you're comfortable either way, but would you like the story more if it wasn't God who asked Abraham to kill Isaac? How would that change your takeaway?

Aw, come on, Rod. You know Jesus's teachings were better, more effective, and more emotionally resonant than the unenlightened harshness found in the OT. His philosophy of love, compassion, understanding, nonviolence, and forgiveness was a tremendous course correction. He was, to be frank, the spiritual superior of the OT.

Yep. I agree also.

Though I prefer to say that fallible men compiled the Christian biblical hypothesis. over a long period of time.

And as a logical and sensible hypothesis, the "bible" was eventually found to fall way short of the mark.

Nonetheless, old habits of fallible people die hard.

They made fun of him, but again, no mortal danger. Why are you putting that in the text? If it SHOULD be there and was overlooked, then isn't this part of the bible at the very least poorly written, if not plain wrong? The words are the words, they have meaning. If god used the wrong words or inspired some fallible person to write the wrong words, then never inspired any other translator of the many, many, many versions of the bible to fix it, then what authority do you have to add this detail, that Elisha was in mortal danger, or at least about to be mobbed and beaten by children, to the text? Why shouldn't someone read it exactly as purportedly inspired or even DICTATED by god? 

As a rule, I see a problem with looking at any ancient texts without taking into consideration the context of the time, people, language, and culture.

However, I also see a problem with looking at the Bible through the lens of inerrancy, as I believe it was a book written by quite fallible humans from quite a long time ago on the road of moral and intellectual progress.

I confess I have paid little study to the passage of Elisha and the bears in particular. My prima facie read is that the youths' mocking is seen as an insult to God (through his prophet) and it is dealt with as insults to God usually are in the Old Testament. I'm not sure what you mean by a "contemporary interpretation" of the story.

The Binding of Isaac I have paid much more attention to as it is one of the more fascinating passages to me, inspiring such a wealth of interpretations in Jewish, Christian, and even Muslim tradition. I always enjoy exploring these interpretations, but I will address yours.

I assume you are referring to Genesis 21:12.

It is interesting that you think this means Abraham knew God would prevent the sacrifice, as the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews seems to

think it meant Abraham believed God would raise Isaac from the dead after Abraham had gone through with it and sacrificed him (Hebrews 11:17-19). Of course, that is a Christian perspective and I remind myself that Christians did not write Genesis.

So for the sake of argument I will ask this: If Abraham knew God wouldn't let him go through with it, was it really a test? Was the angel really justified in declaring "Now I know you fear God"?

This is indeed interesting. To my knowledge, the text uses the two terms Elohim and Yahweh. Are you then referring to Elohim, which I know was

sometimes used to refer to kings and profits (authorities)?

I admit the Old Testament God does often come across as mean-spirited to me, but this does not strike me as unusual for the period at all. The gods of this time were very often fierce, brutal, and warlike. We are talking about a tribal people living very close to the edge of survival, constantly subjected to violence and warfare with other tribes, totally at the mercy of pestilence and nature. What we go through always shapes what we believe. What else can we realistically expect? They wanted a strong, fierce god who rewarded blind loyalty, favored only them, and rained wrath and destruction upon their enemies. Much later Jews, the ones who became the early Christians, wanted a different sort of

God (a much better one, imo - ahem) and wrote a very different testament (a much better one, imo - ahem).

this sounds like someone who doesn't like the idea of the command coming from God, even though he's willing to take it either way. 

It depends on the text, why I was reading it, what I planned to do with it.  What sort of text is it? Why wouldn't I understand it after reading it the first time? I understand a lot of Roman and Greek mythology stories after reading them the first time, for example, and I don't speak either Greek or Latin, and they're older than Jesus. I understand Aesop's Fables, and I don't speak whatever language he spoke. 

I don't think this at all. 

Elisha and the bears: a myth intended to strike some fear in the hearts of those who would mock people preaching a minority religious position in the ancient world, and an empty promise to said believers that their persecutors would suffer bodily harm as directed by the almighty himself. Nothing in it supports that it is a factual account. On thinking about it, however, the moral becomes incompatible with an all powerful all loving just god: there are significantly more humane and effective ways for such a being to handle these disputes, and if it were a real entity and chose bears mauling either children or adults, over, say, showing up and proving Elisha correct in his faith and killing no one, instead winning 40 something new converts...well choosing the bears technique seems not only stupidly ineffective, but immoral and cruel. I don't think what Jesus said was literal...I think it gives people permission to cut off their closes friends, or family, for not believing in the same magic they do, and to dedicate more resources to some idea rather than earthly concerns like "can my kids eat at night, because my wife keeps yelling at me to stop sacrificing perfectly good meat to Jesus when we can eat it right here."

On thinking about it, however, the moral becomes incompatible with an all powerful all loving just god: there are significantly more humane and effective ways for such a being to handle these disputes, and if it were a real entity and chose bears mauling either children or adults, over, say, showing up and proving Elisha correct in his faith and killing no one, instead winning 40 something new converts

And truthfully I'm just trying to liven up the place, it's the same two topics here for months and months until it devloves into Tradeecret and Stephen having one of their tiffs. 

Again, no. It is not religion that is dangerous, but a dogmatic adherence to a strict literal interpretation of some religious texts.

Eh? I'm not sure what you're referencing. An ideological product of humanity wouldn't have human traits, and I've not suggested otherwise.

Unless you're suggesting their bias was unlawful, I don't see the point here.

No. Intelligent design is a product of humanity built from bias and science/scientism. 

If you begin from the position of God's infallibility and the Bible's inerrancy as the inspired word of God, then it seems to me that no story in the Bible can be wrong enough that it is acceptable to hate or dislike it. If it seems wrong to you or to others, you will believe you or they have misunderstood it, that there is some deeper meaning you or they do not yet understand, or even refuse to believe (in the case of atheists/skeptics) - and your faith will drive you to find a meaning that is compatible with your faith. That is just what it means to look at the Bible through the lens of inerrancy, and it seems rather to me that you are asking if there are any Christians who don't look at the Bible through that lens.

Yeah, so it's not really the same: Jesus is god, right? I'm not. When I 'know' someone will do something, it's as you say, based on my experience with that person. When a proclaimed all -knowing superbeing knows someone will do something, he's not guessing. He knows. Unless...did Jesus not know Judas would betray him? He knew Peter would, according to the story, right? Why is Judas different? 

The rest depends on your answers above. If there's a plan, then Judas was made to do exactly what he did, otherwise god would be surprised (less than omniscient). There's no way around it. In a plan for all time for all things, there simply isn't free will. The illusion of it yes, but not the real thing. If this was SATAN's plan, then it either superceded god's plan (and therefore god isn't omniscient, or omnipotent), or god's plan was to let

satan's plan work out, basically making it god's plan. In any case, if there's a truly omniscient god who has a plan for all things for all times and knows all things at all times, Judas can't be held in contempt for doing exactly what this farcical passion drama required him to do from the very beginning. 

This seems cruel: he plans for you to commit whatever acts you're going to commit, then holds you responsible for committing them? An immutable plan means you have no choice but to follow the plan (think of a rat locked in a maze: there's only one way out, the rat can't CHOOSE how to get out).  Either it's a plan, or it isn't. Unless you mean we can depart from said plan, which...challenges both omnipotence and omniscience, but allows for free will. In the end, I guess what difference does it make, as religion is completely irrelevant, so long as you're a decent person, even if you denounce Jesus, you're probably going to heaven, according to what you've said. So Judas has to be there. He was a follower of Christ and was only doing as he was made to do.