Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
John Gray's "The Atheist Delusion" - Irish Times 20th March
Options
Comments
-
Ok this is clearly not the case in most uses of the word. This is obvious from the context at least. Please see:
Exodus 21:7
Leviticus 25:44-46
Deuteronomy 20:10-11
There are plenty others! You've gotten me into a theological debate. Congratulations!
Your welcome for the theological debate, believe it or not that's probably the reason most Christians would venture onto the A&A forum.
1. Exodus 21:7 - There could be several reasons why a female maidservant could be told not to go out as maleservants did. Purely for safety we can think on a number of fronts. In the kind of society prior to the one when this Law was passed, rape was common place. What kind of human being should allow a woman out where there is a high risk of being raped or otherwise?
2. Leviticus 25:44-46 - Hmm, this one is a touch different to the one in Exodus 21, as in this one it is emphasizing the distinction between the Jews and the Gentiles. A distinction which clearly does not exist anymore, if one consult the writings of Paul. Galatians 3:28 in particular, "Jew or Greek, slave or free, male and female, you are all one under Christ Jesus." As such this command isn't compatible with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and we have to be mindful of this. Before anyone goes on about Paul was a false prophet etc etc etc, he was well versed in the Law if you look to the Biblical cross references (if you have a cross reference Bible) in his letters a lot of them go right back to Torah.
3. Deuteronomy 20:10-11 - This doesn't pose much of an issue to me at all really. As in all war situations those in lands which were later annexed were assimilated into the State.
Also in all these verses that you seem to indicate maltreatment, there was actually opportunity for foreigners to be accepted among the Jewish people if they accepted the Jewish faith. In various sections of Torah it warns the Jews to keep a level of good relationship, and remember what had happened to them in Egypt.
Including this treatment food was to be kept for the poor and alien: Leviticus 19:10
Not to ill treat or oppress the foreigner: Leviticus 19:33-34
Notes to the same extent are also in Exodus 23:9, and Exodus 22:21.
Overall the system of treatment of Gentiles in Jewish society was fairly reasonable I would find.0 -
Exodus 21:7 : "If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do.1. Exodus 21:7 - There could be several reasons why a female maidservant could be told not to go out as maleservants did. Purely for safety we can think on a number of fronts. In the kind of society prior to the one when this Law was passed, rape was common place. What kind of human being should allow a woman out where there is a high risk of being raped or otherwise?
huh ? .. point is should it not read .. if its supposed to be morally right ..
If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do, but remember you should not be keeping slaves or unpaid maid servants because its morally aprehensible... yada yada0 -
I think you are really missing the point here. The verse refers to selling your own daughter!Jakkass wrote:1. Exodus 21:7 - There could be several reasons why a female maidservant could be told not to go out as maleservants did. Purely for safety we can think on a number of fronts. In the kind of society prior to the one when this Law was passed, rape was common place. What kind of human being should allow a woman out where there is a high risk of being raped or otherwise?Jakkass wrote:Hmm, this one is a touch different to the one in Exodus 21, as in this one it is emphasizing the distinction between the Jews and the Gentiles. A distinction which clearly does not exist anymore, if one consult the writings of Paul.
Howcome Paul's teachings trump the words of God himself. For that is exactly what those verses in Leviticus are supposed to be. Oh, don't tell me, God changed his mind in the new testament. That troublesome old testament, was never really his best work.
I know you are gonna say, "everything changed with the death of Jesus, blah blah blah", but none of this matters. You can't change the fact that God is apparantely cool with slavery, horrific violence against ones enemies, etc.Jakkass wrote:3. Deuteronomy 20:10-11 - This doesn't pose much of an issue to me at all really. As in all war situations those in lands which were later annexed were assimilated into the State.
Just because something is common practice, this does not indicate moral high-ground!Jakkass wrote:Overall the system of treatment of Gentiles in Jewish society was fairly reasonable I would find.
I really hope you are not in a position of power in any way.0 -
Exodus 21:7 : "If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do.
If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do, but remember you should not be keeping slaves or unpaid maid servants because its morally aprehensible... yada yada
Morally reprehensible in the sense that we refer to workers in a different word and a different sense these days from the times of the Mosaic law.
Sure there is even Law in the Torah to pay workers on time, and even that doesn't happen all the time in the Western world does it?0 -
Are you trying to claim that slaves never existed Jakkass? Or are you just trying to claim that although slaves existed, the same word was used for "slave" and "labourer" in Hebrew?0
-
Advertisement
-
Of course slaves existed, however you have to take into account how high the ethics were in relation to how these workers were to be kept, and more importantly that foreigners in general were to be treated a certain way. This is impressive in my opinion.0
-
They were still slaves.....0
-
Thats all fine and well. But we judge the book by todays standard not those of the distant past and now slavery no matter how well you treat them is still not acceptable.0
-
Rev Hellfire wrote: »Thats all fine and well. But we judge the book by todays standard not those of the distant past and now slavery no matter how well you treat them is still not acceptable.
By todays standards we still fall behind on many of the Torahs standards where Jewish society at that time seems to come ahead of modern society in some respects. Including the sense of paying people on time, not using false scales and measures and for the workplace to be an entirely honest operation.
The slaves of Jewish times, are here right now in Irish societies. Except we call them our lower class and migrant workers. And yet, many of us don't uphold the Law of Moses in relation to treating all of these people with respect.
So yes, I do look to Torah in relation to todays standards as well as the situation of the past.0 -
However superior to the Bible? Definitely not in my opinion.
I know you're a hardcore christian, but how can you justify this stance?
Jakkass, do you honestly believe the bible is the absolute moral highground?
Do you accept that people can lead good lives irrespective of the bible?0 -
Advertisement
-
Hm, yes I believe. As for the Bible being a superior source of morality. I do believe it is the way we are meant to lead our lives yes. I honestly believe it. Yes, I do believe people can do good things without the Bible, however is it for the right motive? The difference is, when I do good things, I feel that it is an act of God moving me to do that act, not an act of my own accord. However yes all good deeds are good deeds irrespective of religious affiliation.0
-
Hm, yes I believe. As for the Bible being a superior source of morality. I do believe it is the way we are meant to lead our lives yes. I honestly believe it. Yes, I do believe people can do good things without the Bible, however is it for the right motive? The difference is, when I do good things, I feel that it is an act of God moving me to do that act, not an act of my own accord. However yes all good deeds are good deeds irrespective of religious affiliation.
Why is the Godly motive/influence so important? Are you trying to say that if tomorrow you found out the God does not exist, you would suddenly start going on a rampage of criminal activity etc.
The fact is that plenty of atheists manage to lead good lives, without anyone looking over their shoulder. (Plenty of others do not, but that does not nullify my point.)0 -
Howcome Paul's teachings trump the words of God himself. For that is exactly what those verses in Leviticus are supposed to be. Oh, don't tell me, God changed his mind in the new testament. That troublesome old testament, was never really his best work.
I know you are gonna say, "everything changed with the death of Jesus, blah blah blah", but none of this matters. You can't change the fact that God is apparantely cool with slavery, horrific violence against ones enemies, etc.
Paul's words trump the word of God Himself? When did I say that? When did any Christian say that?
Surely if you knew the situation behind Paul's letters it would make understanding this a bit easier. Surely you should know that it is Christian belief that Paul as an Apostle received what he taught as a revelation of Jesus Christ?
You are claiming that what Paul spoke is of human origin, you can believe this is you wish. However there is no reason to suggest that this is Christian belief.Galatians 2:11-12 wrote:For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.iUseVi wrote:Just because something is common practice, this does not indicate moral high-ground!
Of course this doesn't make it moral high ground. The passage says, that as they would claim the land of Israel, and as they would fight wars that would be initiated by their neighbours in the period after that they would bring the captives back as slaves to Israel. I still don't see an issue with this.iUseVi wrote:I really hope you are not in a position of power in any way.
Take another look through the way that foreigners were to be treated, there was considerable protection within the Law so that foreigners would not be mistreated in the State of Israel. Many could even convert and accept the faith of Judaism, and continue with a life in faith, something they would not have had outside of Israel.
Edit:iUseVi wrote:Why is the Godly motive/influence so important? Are you trying to say that if tomorrow you found out the God does not exist, you would suddenly start going on a rampage of criminal activity etc.
The fact is that plenty of atheists manage to lead good lives, without anyone looking over their shoulder. (Plenty of others do not, but that does not nullify my point.)
There is a reason why it is important, because faith in God leads to putting the honour and respect for what you have done from yourself and it encourages you to thank who has truly led you to do this. It allows for you to see a cause for the way you have acted, as there is a cause for the way everyone has acted.
By appending the honour to yourself, it is dangerous as it can lead to arrogance as if you are better than your fellow man. Which is never true. We have all been equal regardless of our deeds.
As for your point that atheists have led life without anyone looking over their shoulder, the conclusion I would say to you is this, even for atheists there is God looking over their shoulders in our belief anyway. That is down for you to decide. I still think God is here for you.0 -
Depends on the country. Around 90% of my company's business happens outside of Ireland and to order countries by payment speed, the godless Swedes and Danes are way out in front -- typically, 15 days from submission of invoice. Right at the bottom are the heavily religious Americans (mostly from the bible belt) and the heavily religious Saudis, neither of whom pay on time, and frequently string things out beyond six months.Sure there is even Law in the Torah to pay workers on time, and even that doesn't happen all the time in the Western world does it?
That's my $0.02, or .10 riyals, as the case may be.0 -
Jakkass wrote:There is a reason why it is important, because faith in God leads to putting the honour and respect for what you have done from yourself and it encourages you to thank who has truly led you to do this. It allows for you to see a cause for the way you have acted, as there is a cause for the way everyone has acted.
By appending the honour to yourself, it is dangerous as it can lead to arrogance as if you are better than your fellow man. Which is never true. We have all been equal regardless of our deeds.
As for your point that atheists have led life without anyone looking over their shoulder, the conclusion I would say to you is this, even for atheists there is God looking over their shoulders in our belief anyway. That is down for you to decide. I still think God is here for you.
What has treating your fellow humans as humans, got to do with prescribing "honour to yourself" as you put it?
I really don't want to get into a debate about free will and such, but why cannot humans be decent to other humans without God. Was not Jesus in human form? Or perhaps he only looked human, but still somehow retained his Godliness so could resist sinning. If that was the case that would be cheating, how hard would it be for a God not to sin?
Another option is that he was human and it is possible not to sin!
Of course the third option that I choose is that Jesus was a normal human who told stories about himself being God. (If he even existed, but thats another topic.:D)0 -
The fact is that plenty of atheists manage to lead good lives, without anyone looking over their shoulder. (Plenty of others do not, but that does not nullify my point.)
Infact, Atheists can act on their own accord and make decisions based on whats right or wrong, and assuiming the context is appropiate, the Atheist can make a rational decision based on their own moral beliefs.
Even when I had some affiliation with the church(as a child no less:rolleyes:) I don't remember looking at the bible for moral lessons. Upbringing and common sense go a long way. People don't need an ancient book when searching for morality.
Considering animals simply die following death, where do the morals of say a pack of wolves operating in a group come from?
Certainly not an omnipresent being? Religion may believe humans need laws from a tablet to lead a good life.
I don't agree.0 -
I really don't want to get into a debate about free will and such, but why cannot humans be decent to other humans without God. Was not Jesus in human form? Or perhaps he only looked human, but still somehow retained his Godliness so could resist sinning. If that was the case that would be cheating, how hard would it be for a God not to sin?
Another option is that he was human and it is possible not to sin!
Of course the third option that I choose is that Jesus was a normal human who told stories about himself being God. (If he even existed, but thats another topic.:D)
You have seen yourself through the scheme of history, that most of the time humans fall short of this for whatever reason it may be. I'm not denying that those who claim religion also fall short from ways of human treatment also through serving two masters if you will. For example I think Hitler putting race before all other led him to the Holocaust, and the Crusaders hungry for land and control in the Middle East led them away from honest treatment of others. You know and I know we could be until the end of time discussing why humans do evil things.
As for Jesus, yes He took human flesh for 30 years. As for only looking human, that is docetism which is considered heretical by most churches. However after Jesus had ascended to be with the Father, He also revealed himself to Paul the Apostle, also to the other Apostles also. Remember in the Letters of Paul there is a doctrine, that the Christian people are all a part of the body of Christ through baptism. Another thing that would encourage us to think about our deeds would be doing onto others not only what we would do onto ourselves, but what we would do onto Christ. To deal with your question, Jesus was both human and divine, so this is the reason why we see Jesus as the way to the Father, as He experienced human life.
Of course you would choose that, and not only did you choose it you are free to choose it also.0 -
By todays standards we still fall behind on many of the Torahs standards where Jewish society at that time seems to come ahead of modern society in some respects. Including the sense of paying people on time, not using false scales and measures and for the workplace to be an entirely honest operation.
The slaves of Jewish times, are here right now in Irish societies. Except we call them our lower class and migrant workers. And yet, many of us don't uphold the Law of Moses in relation to treating all of these people with respect.
So yes, I do look to Torah in relation to todays standards as well as the situation of the past.
Wow, i think you are actually trying to defend someone selling their daughter.0 -
daithifleming wrote: »Wow, i think you are actually trying to defend someone selling their daughter.
Slaves at the time of the writing of the Torah were equivilent to the lower class workers we would have today.
As for the sale of daughter, no I wouldn't agree with it necessarily. However Torah makes the provision of selling a daughter into slavery in desperate situations. Even without Torah this happens.0 -
Slaves at the time of the writing of the Torah were equivilent to the lower class workers we would have today.
As for the sale of daughter, no I wouldn't agree with it necessarily. However Torah makes the provision of selling a daughter into slavery in desperate situations. Even without Torah this happens.
Hmm, im afraid you can't compare lower-class workers and slaves. There is a fundamental difference between the two, by any standards. There were lower-class workers back then too, you know.
So in desperate times of need, God (or Jesus/Holy Spirit, all the one guy, right?) says it is ok to sell your daughter.0 -
Advertisement
-
daithifleming wrote: »Hmm, im afraid you can't compare lower-class workers and slaves. There is a fundamental difference between the two, by any standards. There were lower-class workers back then too, you know.
So in desperate times of need, God (or Jesus/Holy Spirit, all the one guy, right?) says it is ok to sell your daughter.
Bear in mind, the Torah also makes another provision to free slaves during the year of the Jubilee as far as I remember. You actually aren't really taking into account the rules that they had to apply to those who were working as slaves, so generally they had to be kept and allowed to live a certain way.0 -
Bear in mind, the Torah also makes another provision to free slaves during the year of the Jubilee as far as I remember. You actually aren't really taking into account the rules that they had to apply to those who were working as slaves, so generally they had to be kept and allowed to live a certain way.
If the Torah (Bible) is the word of God, does God condone keeping slaves or not. I thought this thing was the truth, so what is his position on slavery?0 -
I've already told you, however you refuse to believe that slaves were really used as we would use lower class labour today, and as you have seen they had considerable rights.
Also the New Testament position on slavery, is that if you are a slave you should do your work to God's glory. Admittedly slavery isn't an indepth topic of mine due to the status of work in the modern world. But yes, it's an interesting point of discussion. I'm not 100% on what to make of it myself.
I'm not sure slavery is really compatible with the Gospels mind, due to Christ suggesting that we should serve one another equally. Christians always have to look to Torah with respect to the teachings of Christ.0 -
I've already told you, however you refuse to believe that slaves were really used as we would use lower class labour today, and as you have seen they had considerable rights.
Also the New Testament position on slavery, is that if you are a slave you should do your work to God's glory. Admittedly slavery isn't an indepth topic of mine due to the status of work in the modern world. But yes, it's an interesting point of discussion. I'm not 100% on what to make of it myself.
I'm not sure slavery is really compatible with the Gospels mind, due to Christ suggesting that we should serve one another equally. Christians always have to look to Torah with respect to the teachings of Christ.
Right, but God=Jesus=Holy Spirit, right?
So we need to view the holy bible, through Jesus' eyes and not God's? I mean, that was God saying you can sell your own daughter, right?
By the way, a slave is a slave, even if it has lots of 'rights', he/she is still someones property.0 -
Jesus is not seperate from God, however Jesus completed the revelation of God. The Bible is a dynamic revelation from the start with the Law of Moses, to the finish with the Revelation of John. Elements of Torah were no longer considered necessary since the walls of division had fallen between Jews and Gentiles, and slaves and free, and male and female according to Galatians 3:28. Christians are urged to look at the Law with respect to what happened in relation to Jesus Christ and the Gospel. One has to take the Gospel into account as things are not the same after the coming of the Messiah. After the Messiah's coming the Gospel became availiable to all not just Jews, or converts to Judaism. Therefore yes, arguably we have to look to the Torah in respect to this period of divine revelation. It's not that it was changed, it was that a time that was planned since the beginning of time completed the Jewish faith, as we know today as Christianity.0
-
Jesus is not seperate from God, however Jesus completed the revelation of God. The Bible is a dynamic revelation from the start with the Law of Moses, to the finish with the Revelation of John. Elements of Torah were no longer considered necessary since the walls of division had fallen between Jews and Gentiles, and slaves and free, and male and female according to Galatians 3:28. Christians are urged to look at the Law with respect to what happened in relation to Jesus Christ and the Gospel. One has to take the Gospel into account as things are not the same after the coming of the Messiah. After the Messiah's coming the Gospel became availiable to all not just Jews, or converts to Judaism. Therefore yes, arguably we have to look to the Torah in respect to this period of divine revelation. It's not that it was changed, it was that a time that was planned since the beginning of time completed the Jewish faith, as we know today as Christianity.
So according to God, slavery was ok at the time. But changed his mind a thousand years later?0 -
He had planned it from the beginning of time, but the Torah was the first stage in the plan if you will. Some parts of Torah were no longer deemed necessary by the time of Christ. That's the best explanation I can give.0
-
Whoa... wait a second. How the hell can you simply come to this conclusion?Slaves at the time of the writing of the Torah were equivilent to the lower class workers we would have today.
Slaves are fundamentally different to modern lower class workers. It's quite an assumption you're making here.
It seems that you endevour to interpret what's said in the bible as inherently benevolent, making unfounded assumptions where necessary. You explained Exodus 21:7 in this thread as probably being a precaution so women wouldn't get raped, despite the fact that this is not explained in the bible. IIRC,you explained in an older thread that the reason why disabled people are forbidden from approaching the alter in a church(Leviticus I think?) was because the person would have difficulty walking all the way up to the alter and should get a seat at the back.(If I've remembered this incorrectly please call me on it). And now you claim that the rules for slaves in the bible are simply the rules for treating the lowest class of workers in a society.
It seems you can see no opression, no malevolency, no wrong in the bible. However, has it not occurred to you that if the bible is supposed to be a moral guide that it would explain clearly what it meant by the rules and the reasons for these rules? If it is such a great moral guide then why do you have to make this assumptions and come to these conclusions about the rules yourself? And in coming to these conclusions about the rules and each of these conclusions having the common theme of benevolency and caring, are you not expressing an inherent, fixed morality of your own? A morality which you already possess as opposed to one you derived from a book?0 -
Jakkass wrote:He had planned it from the beginning of time, but the Torah was the first stage in the plan if you will. Some parts of Torah were no longer deemed necessary by the time of Christ. That's the best explanation I can give.
What utter rubbish. How could you possibly serve a God that changed his mind constantly.
"What's that Lord? We all have to be homosexual now?...but....you said...I remember it clearly.....but...OK God whatever you say. I am but your humble unthinking servant."0 -
Advertisement
-
You can regard it as rubbish if you wish. How I have come to see it is that the Torah was the first step towards the outcome that we call Christianity. Infact most of Torah still stands.
iUseVi: If you feel you wish you want to personally attack me as "unthinking" go ahead. However I have spent a lot of time thinking about whether adopting Christianity was the correct decision for me. (formerly agnostic by the by). But as I say, if you want to have preconcieved notions of me, go ahead, I'm merely explaining the Bible as I see it.JC2K3 wrote:It seems that you endevour to interpret what's said in the bible as inherently benevolent, making unfounded assumptions where necessary. You explained Exodus 21:7 in this thread as probably being a precaution so women wouldn't get raped, despite the fact that this is not explained in the bible. IIRC,you explained in an older thread that the reason why disabled people are forbidden from approaching the alter in a church(Leviticus I think?) was because the person would have difficulty walking all the way up to the alter and should get a seat at the back.(If I've remembered this incorrectly please call me on it). And now you claim that the rules for slaves in the bible are simply the rules for treating the lowest class of workers in a society.
Really, in my opinion it seems that you seem to interpret the Bible as the most atrocious thing that has ever come to man. Personally I find that you make a consistent effort to find the worst in those passages, where in reality there could be numerous reasons to why say, disabled people are forbidden to come to the altar. No, I did not say that the rules for slaves are the rules for treating the lowest class of workers in a society, I said that slaves as in the groupings of slaves in early Jewish society, were similar to the lower classes we would have today in our society. I don't find that so absurd.0
Advertisement