Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

generalgrog wrote:As usual context is forgotten.

Where does it say the daughter is a sex slave? In fact it talks about the slave marrying the slave owners son? if you had a sex slave would you want her to marry your son?

If you have a slave, and you take her in marriage, do you really honestly truly believe that there was a proposal, with the boy on bended knee dearly hoping the slave girl would say yes?

I mean seriously dude, the coercion apparent in that situation is hardly subtle. So yeah, when you take a girl as your wife, and because she was your slave you had no right to say no, it's a sex slave.

Look at the context of the punishment for physical harm between two men fighting, and what to do when one or the other recovers or not, to the situation between a master and slave when the master punishes their slave. Using this verse to say that the Bible condones beating slaves is like saying the bible condones fighting and beating each other up.

It says he can beat him and shouldn't be punished as long as the slave recovers within a day or two. It's really very clear.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:I think everyone is being a little unfair to GG. I don't think he's defending slavery, just showing that the moral rules of the bible are based in their time and place.

But he's pretending those morals aren't purely of their time and place, and can be given some kind of context to make them okay today. Which is pretty fethed up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fafnir wrote:Also, if the Bible were supposed to be handed down from God, then it would not contain the imperfections that would bind its relevancy to a specific time period and place.

Where it gets complicated is that much of the Bible remains very powerful, and very insightful today, in a way that very few books written even just a generation ago can retain their value.

But there's also the stuff about beating slaves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

hotsauceman1 wrote:Also. My God, Why would naming 2012 the "Year Of The Bible" get peoples panties in such a twist. Atheists. This may be a nation that lets you practice any faith you want, But we are predominatly christian. This isnt a shock. This isnt like naming it "Year of the Quaran"(i would love to see that passed) its not a shocker.

Because it's naming the source of faith for one group of people above other groups, and it's doing it at a state level. Anyone who was genuinely motivated by a live and let live train of thought, that I'll worship my way and you'll worship yours, would never want such a thing. It wouldn't interest him.

But unfortunately that is not the approach most people take to their faith. Instead their faith must dominate, hold positions of greater importance than others. I don't know why people act like that, I really don't. But there's no point pretending it doesn't happen.

Mr Hyena wrote:

What's more offensive? To remind people about the unpleasant parts of history and religion, or to have a religion promoted by the State, in violation of the principles of Separation specifically intended by Jefferson and the other founders? I agree that the billboard was a dick move, but it made a legitimate point.

When do we get to remind people about the wrongs that Atheism has done?

Do go on...

Fafnir wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

What's more offensive? To remind people about the unpleasant parts of history and religion, or to have a religion promoted by the State, in violation of the principles of Separation specifically intended by Jefferson and the other founders? I agree that the billboard was a dick move, but it made a legitimate point.

When do we get to remind people about the wrongs that Atheism has done?

Do go on...

I mean in the same method as a Billboard. We don't want to be discriminatory now do we?

Polonius wrote:I'm glad that radical atheists are just as annoying as any other form of zealot. It says a lot about athiesism as a religion that it has it's own evangelism and sense of superiority .

Atheisim isn't a Religon.

While I agree that all people of all beliefs make stupid mistakes and moves, people can critisise Religon, however if you must (I have, when people get angry over my beliefs) try and use a proper argument. Not some stupid bill board which will make all Athiests look ridiculous, and racist.

Mr Hyena wrote:

Fafnir wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

What's more offensive? To remind people about the unpleasant parts of history and religion, or to have a religion promoted by the State, in violation of the principles of Separation specifically intended by Jefferson and the other founders? I agree that the billboard was a dick move, but it made a legitimate point.

When do we get to remind people about the wrongs that Atheism has done?

Do go on...

I mean in the same method as a Billboard. We don't want to be discriminatory now do we?

Do. Go. On.

Mannahnin wrote:

Polonius wrote:I think everyone is being a little unfair to GG. I don't think he's defending slavery,

I'm pretty sure that he claimed that the Bible doesn't condone permanent slavery, that it didn't condone beating slaves, that it doesn't condone taking slaves (and implied that the only type of slavery practiced was indentured servitude). All of which are untrue.

...just showing that the moral rules of the bible are based in their time and place.

It's hard to find a ancient civilization that didn't have slavery in some form or another. Few civilizations ended slavery because it was a moral choice, it's just economically better to rely on cheap free labor, especially when encouraging entrepreneurship.

That's legimate, sure. But I don't think that's the kind of historical perspective being asked for by apologists who try to whitewash the content of a Bible they believe is inerrant.

sebster wrote:

Polonius wrote:I think everyone is being a little unfair to GG. I don't think he's defending slavery, just showing that the moral rules of the bible are based in their time and place.

But he's pretending those morals aren't purely of their time and place, and can be given some kind of context to make them okay today. Which is pretty fethed up.

I think you're all missing the bigger point here. GG "defending" slavery is scandalous and fun, but what he's doing in terms of biblical interpretation and playing translation games is the real prize here.

he's arguing that the word "slave" doesn't mean what we think it does. Which is almost certainly somewhat true, but probably still refers to some sort of bound, unfree laborer. Let's see how he reacts to other interpretations. I think in the future, any time he drops the bible in a discussion, we all remember this and try to show how that it doesn't mean what a facial reading says.

In short, once you start explaining away biblical verses, you open the door.

Monster Rain wrote:Why let that get in the way of kicking GG around? Can't wait for the next bullying thread so I can revel in the hypocrisy.

I think I pretty consistently call out people who say utterly ridiculous things in defense of the indefensible, so I don't feel like a hypocrite. If some people are richer sources of pure, uncut foolishness than others, I think that's more of a reflection on them.

Fafnir wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

Fafnir wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

What's more offensive? To remind people about the unpleasant parts of history and religion, or to have a religion promoted by the State, in violation of the principles of Separation specifically intended by Jefferson and the other founders? I agree that the billboard was a dick move, but it made a legitimate point.

When do we get to remind people about the wrongs that Atheism has done?

Do go on...

I mean in the same method as a Billboard. We don't want to be discriminatory now do we?

Do. Go. On.

Indeed. Waiting with interest here.

Mannahnin wrote:... who try to whitewash the content of a Bible they believe is inerrant.

Manny said "inerrant." Nice.

Best,

Mannahnin wrote:

Of course there were a lot of Christian Abolitionists too. But let's not pretend that the texts are silent, or anti-slavery, or that they weren't used in its defense.

You can misread pro-slavery commentaries only if you, not God, are evil. The people you quoted would have read the New Testament as well as the old and turned a blind eye to the whole message.
To get a pattern of life for the time try the Old Testament, frankly its not recommended. The actual contextual message is not revealed until the New Testament, it links to the old but has a completely different outlook.

In a nutshell the Old Testament says: your society is evil so here is how to best organise your society until God gets around to fixing it.
New Testament: this is the promised moral fix.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Fafnir wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

Fafnir wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

What's more offensive? To remind people about the unpleasant parts of history and religion, or to have a religion promoted by the State, in violation of the principles of Separation specifically intended by Jefferson and the other founders? I agree that the billboard was a dick move, but it made a legitimate point.

When do we get to remind people about the wrongs that Atheism has done?

Do go on...

I mean in the same method as a Billboard. We don't want to be discriminatory now do we?

Do. Go. On.

Indeed. Waiting with interest here.

Try atheist Communism. Nice stuff done under Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao, amongst others. In a nutshell attempts to replace the role of religion with the state usually under the guise of 'science' or 'progress'. As to be expected from this sort they didn't do this the nice way either.
Something similar was tried under the French Revolution but couldn't get the peasantry to turn on the church..

DeadlySquirrel wrote:The way a lot of people round where I live see it, is that the Old Testament is the Jewish Holy Book and has some decent bits in it, but the New Testament is the important bit.

The Old Testament has the creation myths in it. The Old Testament supposedly foretold a Messiah's coming. (The Hebrew Messiah)

Regards,



Automatically Appended Next Post:

generalgrog wrote:Manny what you are missing..and I don't think you are being malicious here, what you are missing is that just because God gave instructions on how to handle a thing, that doesn't mean He endorsed that thing. It's similar to divorce. This was allowed by the law but clearly not ideal. Jesus even said that Moses allowed it, because of the hard heartedness of men. (MT 19:1-12)

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
If god created everything, than he endorses everything, including the bad parts. It doesn't do to separate out the parts you don't like, as then none of it would mean anything.

If I recall correctly, yahweh ordered Joshua to conquer the Promised Land, with instructions on how to deal with everything in it. Thus god ordered (and so endorsed)mass murder, rape, pillage, plunder and injustice.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
- Epicurus [341–270 B.C.]

God created Man sick, and commanded him to be well. - Christopher Hitchens

Regards,

Orlanth wrote:

Try atheist Communism. Nice stuff done under Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao, amongst others. In a nutshell attempts to replace the role of religion with the state usually under the guise of 'science' or 'progress'. As to be expected from this sort they didn't do this the nice way either.
Something similar was tried under the French Revolution but couldn't get the peasantry to turn on the church..

Neither Communism or the French Revolution was done in the name of atheism.

Communism certainly was against religion, but only because it was viewed as a tool to keep the working class in place. Same for the French Revolution and how neatly the disgustingly wealthy church fitted into feudal society.

Mannahnin wrote:

generalgrog wrote:

Manchu wrote:Does anyone hear believe that the transatlantic slavetrade was motivated by the Old Testament?

I believe that the old testament was used to justify it, by people who took it out of context...

Of course it wasn't motived by the Old Testament.

But as GG says, most of the people engaged in it were Christians who sincerely believed that slavery was part of the natural order, sanctioned by god, and used the OT to support their position.

I think you're "falling for it" a bit, Mannahnin. After reading this book, I began to wonder about the connection between medieval Christianity and what I practice today. Could a religion that, according to some of its most powerful contemporary adherents, demanded the murder of an entire sub-culture in 1208* be the same one that I profess in 2012? This is certainly the conception of Christianity that the vocal opponents of Christianity employ -- that what blood Christians shed in the middle ages is an undeniable testament to the true character of Christianity as a timeless worldview. And that's the argument that the atheists in this case deployed on their billboard: that the transatlantic slave trade prosecuted by white Christians was, in some part at least, an authentic function of their Christian belief system. But this is only convincing in an ahistorical or even anti-historical sense. Most obviously, human beings don't need the Bible to do really terrible things to one another. Perhaps less obviously to this audience, human beings have regularly done terrible things to one another in spite of the Bible.

The most crushing analysis of the billboard argument, however, is that Christians did hold slaves right from the beginning and yet it took them sixteen centuries to invent the kind of slavery that we now recognize as morally reprehensible. (As I said earlier, modern society is chock full of unquestioned relationships that resemble ancient forms of slavery, which some Christians supported and others opposed.) Maybe, just maybe, other developments -- such as mercantilism -- would help us to explain the development, prosecution, and continued consequences of transatlantic slavery better than an attack on Christianity. Unfortunately, that would call into question the propriety of rationalism. And it's odd to me that we can talk about Christianity "allowing" for this novel invention, a rather ambivalent claim, and also not talk about the Christian origins of the abolitionist movement. But that brings us back to the new atheist conception of Christianity as some kind of timeless mold that presses human beings into the same shape no matter what century they inhabit. That explanation simply cannot account for some Christians plying the slave trade at one point and other Christians passionately working to end that same trade at another point.

Of course, the answer is pretty obvious: things change. That's the phenomenon apprehended by history. And the fact that the Christian slave trader is just as much a Christian as the Christian abolitionist, or indeed the Cathar-murdering Christian crusader, would seem to show that slavery (and murdering Cathars) is not actually a significant principle for Christianity, one way or the other, despite what each of these Christians might have desired or demanded based on their historically contingent cultural, political, and economic contexts. But the new atheist ahistorical/antihistorical perspective obliterates these distinctions in favor of rhetoric -- yet another thing the new atheists have in common with other fundamentalists. If you think back over the last decade, it won't be hard to see how this ahistorical/antihistorical argument has been deployed time and again against Muslims. American liberals, even those who not terribly sensitive to a historical point of view, understood that these arguments were simply thinly-disguised calls to lynching. Like I said, one does not need the Bible to round up a lynch mob. But when this same hate speech is directed against Christianity, whose adherents are not so closely tied to any particular race or culture, the same liberals are slow to acknowledge it for what it is. In the politically-charged atmosphere of American religion, I can understand that -- but I can't excuse it.

* I want to clarify, in case anyone misses the whole point of what I wrote, that it was not a religion that killed the Cathars.

Ouze wrote:I think I pretty consistently call out people who say utterly ridiculous things in defense of the indefensible, so I don't feel like a hypocrite. If some people are richer sources of pure, uncut foolishness than others, I think that's more of a reflection on them.

It simply seems that there's a fair number of people deliberately misreading the posts of others. Either that, or just not thinking about what they are reading.

Acknowledging that slavery was a fact of life for thousands of years =/= defense or approval of the institution.

I just want to chirp in again..

I mean, I know I promised I wouldn't argue anymore, but I don't want anyone thinking I agree with GG or anything.

In short, I am very very glad that only a small percentage of Americans are fully off their tits. As a result, a man like Santorum will never get elected because far too many Americans are switched on.

God bless America indeed. You guys deserve a hearty backslap!

Monster Rain wrote:

Ouze wrote:I think I pretty consistently call out people who say utterly ridiculous things in defense of the indefensible, so I don't feel like a hypocrite. If some people are richer sources of pure, uncut foolishness than others, I think that's more of a reflection on them.

It simply seems that there's a fair number of people deliberately misreading the posts of others. Either that, or just not thinking about what they are reading.

Why would you say that about kittens?

Monster Rain wrote:

Ouze wrote:I think I pretty consistently call out people who say utterly ridiculous things in defense of the indefensible, so I don't feel like a hypocrite. If some people are richer sources of pure, uncut foolishness than others, I think that's more of a reflection on them.

It simply seems that there's a fair number of people deliberately misreading the posts of others. Either that, or just not thinking about what they are reading.

Acknowledging that slavery was a fact of life for thousands of years =/= defense or approval of the institution.

Yes, it does seem there are a fair number of people deliberately misreading the posts of others. For example, claiming someone was "acknowledging that slavery was a fact of life" while neglecting to mention their personal judgement of the morality of such (it was to save them from starvation, so they were being done a solid).

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

Try atheist Communism. Nice stuff done under Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao, amongst others. In a nutshell attempts to replace the role of religion with the state usually under the guise of 'science' or 'progress'. As to be expected from this sort they didn't do this the nice way either.
Something similar was tried under the French Revolution but couldn't get the peasantry to turn on the church..

Neither Communism or the French Revolution was done in the name of atheism.

Communism certainly was against religion, but only because it was viewed as a tool to keep the working class in place. Same for the French Revolution and how neatly the disgustingly wealthy church fitted into feudal society.

And I may be a little rusty on my Russian, but if I remember correctly, didn't Stalin actually end up embracing the influence of the church when it occurred to him that he could use it to his advantage?

Nope.

EDIT: Well, I suppose a more nuanced answer is that Stalin abated his systematic persecution the Orthodox church so it could more effectvely act as a propaganda organ during WWII.

Mannahnin wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:Also. My God, Why would naming 2012 the "Year Of The Bible" get peoples panties in such a twist. Atheists. This may be a nation that lets you practice any faith you want, But we are predominatly christian.

Most people in this country identify as various flavors of Christian, but certainly not all of us. Let me give you a famous Jefferson quote regarding why he would not declare a day of prayer (and a rationale I think also entirely appropriate for not declaring a "Year of the Bible"):

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.

hotsauceman1 wrote:This may be a nation that lets you practice any faith you want, But we are predominatly christian.

The Virginia legislature was predominantly Christian when they wrote the Virginia Act For Religious Freedom, too, and yet Jefferson had this comment in his autobiography:

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.

Being by Christian lights an Infidel of some other denomination, I have always taken comfort in these words.

All im saying is there are better ways to spend time/money then protesting something which doenst harm others.

Manchu wrote:
After reading this book, I began to wonder about the connection between medieval Christianity and what I practice today.

If you have the time I'd encourage you to read Bart Ehrman's Lost Cristianities, and Lost Scriptures books. They are for the most part companion books, if you want analysis Christianties is the book to read, if you want to read raw apocryphal texts Scriptures is your game. If you do choose to read one or both I think you'll find that Christians from the 1st Century CE would find very little in common with medieval Christianity and even less with ours.
Another fascinating read is the Gospel of Mary Magdala.

mattyrm wrote: I just want to chirp in again..

I mean, I know I promised I wouldn't argue anymore, but I don't want anyone thinking I agree with GG or anything.

In short, I am very very glad that only a small percentage of Americans are fully off their tits. As a result, a man like Santorum will never get elected because far too many Americans are switched on.

God bless America indeed. You guys deserve a hearty backslap!

It's probably sad to note that at one time he convinced the state of Pennsylvania to elect him to our highest legislative body, which says bad things about the judgement of (voting) Pennsylvanians. The man is a complete and utter lunatic.

@AustonT: I'd counter recommend Elaine Pagels to you, although I don't find her "the victor's write the history" argument to be a convincing view of Christianity's development. But then again I do believe in the active presence of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church.

Manchu wrote:@AustonT: I'd counter recommend Elaine Pagels to you, although I don't find her "the victor's write the history" argument to be a convincing view of Christianity's development. But then again I do believe in the active presence of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church.

I have Elaine Pagels "Beyond Belief" not 3 feet from me.

These are the two I read:

http://www.amazon.com/Gnostic-Gospels-Elaine-Pagels/dp/0679724532

http://www.amazon.com/Adam-Eve-Serpent-Politics-Christianity/dp/0679722327

As I said, I don't find them terribly convincing.

Manchu wrote:Nope.

EDIT: Well, I suppose a more nuanced answer is that Stalin abated his systematic persecution the Orthodox church so it could more effectvely act as a propaganda organ during WWII.

I think the main issue is not that it was an atheistic state, but rather that Stalin chose to place himself and the state as the god figure. Similar to a less awesome version of Kim Jong Il of Best Korea. Most 'atheistic' regimes tend to simply be as such only for a dictator to attempt take the roll of god, sadly. Whether this is a fault of the people or a fault of the dictator, I can't tell.

Monster Rain wrote:

Ouze wrote:I think I pretty consistently call out people who say utterly ridiculous things in defense of the indefensible, so I don't feel like a hypocrite. If some people are richer sources of pure, uncut foolishness than others, I think that's more of a reflection on them.

It simply seems that there's a fair number of people deliberately misreading the posts of others. Either that, or just not thinking about what they are reading.

Acknowledging that slavery was a fact of life for thousands of years =/= defense or approval of the institution.

People are just pointing out the inherent hypocrisy present when other people, for example, use the bible to defend their homophobia but then turn around and say that the bibles defence of slavery had to be put inside the context of the time it was written...

I can't say this particular book has impressed me that her skills as a writer, nor are her conclusions particularly convincing. I guess you have to go to Princeton to "get it." For my part I would not expand my scholarship in her books.

Manchu wrote:These are the two I read:

http://www.amazon.com/Gnostic-Gospels-Elaine-Pagels/dp/0679724532

http://www.amazon.com/Adam-Eve-Serpent-Politics-Christianity/dp/0679722327

As I said, I don't find them terribly convincing.

I enjoyed this one:
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-perfect-heresy-stephen-oshea/1007598989

I have Pagels book, but stopped reading it after a few chapters. Writing is a talent.

Regards,

@AustonT: In that case, I'd recommend Peter Brown's Rise of Western Christendom ... or really anything by him.

This all begs the question: Why isn't condemning homosexuality considered something from the time when society was evil? Something that 'all' Christians can move past.