Religion and Morality - Poles apart.

The Mad Hatter

Calibos wrote: »

I'm afraid to go into the Christianity forum in case I am tempted to read a thread and my head explodes or I inadvertently give myself brain-damage from banging my head repeatedly off my desk. But can someone clarify if this slavery sanctioning Jakkass is one of the 'special' contributers to the Creationism thread or one of the 'moderate' posters over there.

Moderate, but (and I mean you no offence here Jakkass, but you really should read over what you've been writing) this is uncharacteristically extreme by his standards.

philologos

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Moderate, but (and I mean you no offence here Jakkass, but you really should read over what you've been writing) this is uncharacteristically extreme by his standards.

I think this is a reasonable understanding of what Torah slavery was, and I'm not going to be guilted into retracting my assessment of it based on the textual evidence that we have of the rights that these people had, and of the circumstances behind it.

I don't agree with the assessment that this is God being horrible, I'm fed up of this distortion of who God is, and what God stands for. It's crystal clear that God was a God of justice in the Old Testament, and still is a God of justice for us today.

Yet, because I disagree with the assessment that God is horrible, I'm somehow not by any means level headed? I'm finding that it is increasingly a tactic in the secular world, to put anyone who confesses that they have a somewhat strong belief in God as people who have lost their mind. I reject that assessment, and I reject the assessment that I have lost my mind just because I disagree with Wicknight and Dave on the Bible, and I say that in all due respect to them both, and was particularly thankful to Wicknight for the discussion that we had. I hadn't read indepth into the Torah in quite a while, i've been dealing more with the Psalms, Proverbs and New Testament writings lately.

Just on a closing note to clarify:

I think that Christians are to be loyal to the laws of whatever country they live in as long as they do not respect their own personal religious freedoms as prescribed by Paul in Romans 13. I don't think that judicial Torah law is binding on modern day Christians. I am discussing about past events in Jewish society, not about anything to do with modern Christianity.

However, I do not think in the framework of the Jewish law that existed at the time that there was anything cruel or "horrible" about the Torah version of slavery and the rights endowed to the citizens of Israel at that time.

The Mad Hatter

Jakkass wrote: »

...there was anything cruel or "horrible" about the Torah version of slavery and the rights endowed to the citizens of Israel at that time.

Slavery is always horrible.

philologos

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Slavery is always horrible.

I disagree that slavery as recorded in the Jewish Torah was or is the same thing as people commonly perceive to be slavery. Most of the posts I have made in this thread aim to explain that.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

I disagree that slavery as recorded in the Jewish Torah was or is the same thing as people commonly perceive to be slavery. Most of the posts I have made in this thread aim to explain that.

You keep talking about Isrealites (male Israelites) deciding to go into servitude to pay of debt, or to simply have food and shelter, and that they are freed from this contract as it were after 7 years. While I strongly disagree with you that this is not slavery (think of trafficked workers who have to pay off debt by working in sweat shops in foreign lands, including Ireland, to "earn" their passports back), I do accept that it is not slavery as bad as slavery in the USA in the 16th and 17th centuries.

But do you accept that women did not have this option, and neither did those captured from wars (non-Israelites) or bought from foreign lands? That these become slaves for life? Which is really slavery. They are not set free.

Do you agree with life time slavery, even if the slaves are treated better than slaves in say the USA (Israelites are discouraged from being mean to them)?

MrPudding

Wicknight wrote: »

Do you agree with life time slavery, even if the slaves are treated better than slaves in say the USA (Israelites are discouraged from being mean to them)?

Surely he has no choice but to agree with it? His god approves of it, he believes his god is infinitely good and always right. Questioning his god or the actions of his god is sinful. As a good christian he is not in a position to question his god. He may think that it does not sound quite right, but this doubt will be rationalised away with the old faithful "god moves in mysterious ways / we cannot question god, we are too puny of mind to know what he knows" excuses.

MrP

philologos

MrP, if you don't mind I'd like to answer for myself.

Wicknight: In terms of lifetime slavery there was still the option of taking refuge should the conditions be unbearable, so I have yet to see your point that this was the exact same as US colonial slavery.

Edit: I don't think there was a distinction between me and women as in Deuteronomy 15:17 it is made clear that the same arrangements were to be in place concerning women. Why if women were meant to be permanent slaves would the Bible make clear that there was an option to choose?

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

MrP, if you don't mind I'd like to answer for myself.

Wicknight: In terms of lifetime slavery there was still the option of taking refuge should the conditions be unbearable, so I have yet to see your point that this was the exact same as US colonial slavery.

I didn't actually say it was exactly the same, I said it was slavery, and pretty bad slavery at that. The fact that US slavery was worse because slaves were returned to their masters is not really a point I see much merit in. The idea that slavery is proper so long as it is a bit better than US slavery seems a bizarre position to take

Jakkass wrote: »

Edit: I don't think there was a distinction between me and women as in Deuteronomy 15:17 it is made clear that the same arrangements were to be in place concerning women. Why if women were meant to be permanent slaves would the Bible make clear that there was an option to choose?

Only for Israelite women who sell themselves into slavery. But then if you read what the Bible says about women this becomes some what a pointless law. Israelite women were sold by their fathers to men for money, so the law didn't apply to them they could not go free after 7 years. Nor did this law apply to children born to slaves, who remained the property of the slave master, not the parents.

So again, is your position that life long forced slavery (a woman sold by her father, or a man or woman captured during a war does not choose to be a slave, particularly not a sex slave, nor at any point are they given the option to leave) is good and proper because they could run away if they managed to escape and other Israelites had to shelter them?

Is being a run away slave as good as being no slave at all?

Would you have held that capturing of African slaves in the 17th century and the shipping and selling of them in the Americas was ok so long as if the slaves managed to escape the slavers didn't go after them and try and bring them back? Would that have made it all ok?

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

Only for Israelite women who sell themselves into slavery. But then if you read what the Bible says about women this becomes some what a pointless law. Israelite women were sold by their fathers to men for money, so the law didn't apply to them they could not go free after 7 years. Nor did this law apply to children born to slaves, who remained the property of the slave master, not the parents.

Where does it say that this refuge is not avaliable to non-Israelites or that it is only to people who sold themselves into slavery. There is nothing in the passage that I cited that suggests that. Adding to the Torah is advised against (Deuteronomy 4) in reasoning the Torah, if you have another citation though I'd be glad to listen to what you have to argue.

Wicknight wrote: »

So again, is your position that life long forced slavery (a woman sold by her father, or a man or woman captured during a war does not choose to be a slave, particularly not a sex slave, nor at any point are they given the option to leave) is good and proper because they could run away if they managed to escape and other Israelites had to shelter them?

No it wasn't wrong in the correct circumstances, of the correct and proper level of respect for the people who were in this situation as commanded in moral Torah.

Wicknight wrote: »

Is being a run away slave as good as being no slave at all?

No that isn't what the passage says:

Deuteronomy 23 wrote:

Slaves who have escaped to you from their owners shall not be given back to them. They shall reside with you, in your midst, in any place they choose in any one of your towns, wherever they please; you shall not oppress them.

Where in that passage does it say that they would be returned to slavery if they do not will to be returned to slavery? Infact it says clearly that they can go to any place of their choosing. It just seems to me that you are attaching things to the text that aren't actually there.

Wicknight wrote: »

Would you have held that capturing of African slaves in the 17th century and the shipping and selling of them in the Americas was ok so long as if the slaves managed to escape the slavers didn't go after them and try and bring them back? Would that have made it all ok?

You act as if this is the only tier to my argument. There are several other circumstances in why the situation of slavery in the USA was wrong, and I could get into it for hours on end if I really wanted to, but I've made my reasoning on the Torah rather clear in this thread.

JC 2K3

For the sake of simplicity and clarity, Jakkass, could you explain exactly what your understanding of a "slave" as described by the Torah actually is? As in, a short definition of not more than 2 or 3 sentences.

PDN

JC 2K3 wrote: »

For the sake of simplicity and clarity, Jakkass, could you explain exactly what your understanding of a "slave" as described by the Torah actually is? As in, a short definition of not more than 2 or 3 sentences.

I think you're asking the impossible there. Such oversimplification cannot adequately address the subject and will only give ammunition for the drama queens to cry, "I can't believe Jakkass is defending slavery! Christians are a threat to society!"

If you're really interested in the subject then you could start reading here: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html

Slavery in the Old Testament was predominantly a voluntary arrangement entered into to avoid poverty (similar to indentured servants http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servant ) or the fate of Prisoners and Captives of War (both military and civilian). This second category, while contrary to our modern standards such as the Geneva Convention, was a marked improvement on what normally happened to those taken captive in wartime in the Ancient Near East.

Zillah

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't agree with the assessment that this is God being horrible, I'm fed up of this distortion of who God is, and what God stands for. It's crystal clear that God was a God of justice in the Old Testament

You sure you want to open that cans of worms? Bear attacks, first born of Egypt, Sodom and Gomorrah...

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

This second category, while contrary to our modern standards such as the Geneva Convention, was a marked improvement on what normally happened to those taken captive in wartime in the Ancient Near East.

Why do you guys keep saying that?

It is like saying water boarding is a marked improvement on electrodes on the testicles.

You make it sound as if the outlawing of faced slavery of prisoners of war (men, women and children alike) is modern society just being wishy washy liberals.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Why do you guys keep saying that?

It is like saying water boarding is a marked improvement on electrodes on the testicles.

You make it sound as if the outlawing of faced slavery of prisoners of war (men, women and children alike) is modern society just being wishy washy liberals.

Maybe you could address what we actually do say instead of making stuff up? Nobody is saying any such thing.

The Old Testament gave directions to the Israelites which were an improvement on what went on elsewhere. It was for a specific historic situation, not for today.

philologos

Zillah wrote: »

You sure you want to open that cans of worms? Bear attacks, first born of Egypt, Sodom and Gomorrah...

It's not a can of worms. I consider God's acts to be just. Elisha and the two bears amongst other things have been clarified before on the Christianity forum, and a mere search on Google will provide Christian explanations, I don't consider it necessary for me to go over these things.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Where does it say that this refuge is not avaliable to non-Israelites or that it is only to people who sold themselves into slavery. There is nothing in the passage that I cited that suggests that.

Er, the passages you mentioned is Deuteronomy 15:17, which deals with Israelite slaves being set free after 7 years, or choosing to stay slaves for life. The refuge clause is another passage

Jakkass wrote: »

No it wasn't wrong in the correct circumstances, of the correct and proper level of respect for the people who were in this situation as commanded in moral Torah.

You don't do yourself any favours by throwing around words like "respect" when discussing the forced slavery of the "spoils of war".

Jakkass wrote: »

Where in that passage does it say that they would be returned to slavery if they do not will to be returned to slavery? Infact it says clearly that they can go to any place of their choosing. It just seems to me that you are attaching things to the text that aren't actually there.

No, I am asking you that, not stating it.

You are asserting that all this is ok because the slaves could simply run away if they didn't like it any more

Leaving aside that the most common interpretation of that law is that foreign slaves who escape their foreign masters can reside with the Israelites and not be returned to their foreign lands (the law makes little sense otherwise, why would there be clauses that slaves had to be freed after 7 years if a slave could walk away at any time, such a law would contradict like 6 other laws detailing slaves as property and the time that they must serve, and while I'm a big believer in the Bible being full of contradictions, that is pushing it some what), even if that law is to be taken to apply to slaves of Israelites, surely not being a slave at all is better than being a slave who has to escape their master?

Jakkass wrote: »

You act as if this is the only tier to my argument. There are several other circumstances in why the situation of slavery in the USA was wrong, and I could get into it for hours on end if I really wanted to, but I've made my reasoning on the Torah rather clear in this thread.

Your reasoning is that it wasn't really slavery, unlike slavery in the USA.

I'm not following what aspect of slavery in the USA you think was wrong but slavery in Israel was ok?

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

I consider God's acts to be just

Yes but do you consider them just on their own, or do you simply consider them just because you believe God did them and you believe God must be just so these acts must be just?

Zillah

Jakkass wrote: »

It's not a can of worms. I consider God's acts to be just. Elisha and the two bears amongst other things have been clarified before on the Christianity forum

Hahaha, oh dear. I do hope these "explanations"* are better than PDN's** previous attempts at dismissing a bear attack as a mere disney-like cuffing around the ears.

Anyway, if these explanations displease me I suppose I'll just drown all life on earth and consider the matter dealt with.


*Contortionistic mindbending reinterpretations
**I think it was PDN, apoligies if not

PDN

Zillah wrote: »

Hahaha, oh dear. I do hope these "explanations"* are better than PDN's** previous attempts at dismissing a bear attack as a mere disney-like cuffing around the ears.

.......


*Contortionistic mindbending reinterpretations
**I think it was PDN, apoligies if not

Why the dishonesty, Zillah?

It was me who posted on the subject, but all I said was that a gang of youths who had ganged up on an old man were 'mauled' (with no mention of fatalities) by two bears.

If you want to address that, then do so. If you want to waffle about "disney-like cuffing" then you simply undermine your own credibility. After all, weren't you the one who tried to argue that two bears somehow managed to kill 42 people in one attack?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Leaving aside that the most common interpretation of that law is that foreign slaves who escape their foreign masters can reside with the Israelites and not be returned to their foreign lands (the law makes little sense otherwise, why would there be clauses that slaves had to be freed after 7 years if a slave could walk away at any time, such a law would contradict like 6 other laws detailing slaves as property and the time that they must serve, and while I'm a big believer in the Bible being full of contradictions, that is pushing it some what), even if that law is to be taken to apply to slaves of Israelites, surely not being a slave at all is better than being a slave who has to escape their master?

Are there two posters called Wicknight on this board?

Wicknight #1 believes and argues that exegesis (determining how the writers of Scripture actually intended their writings to be understood) is nonsense and rubbish.

Wicknight #2 wants to argue with Jakkass on the basis of what he believes to be the intended meaning of the Old Testament (ie exegesis).

Now, is that something nasty I can smell stuck to my shoe, or is it the whiff of hypocrisy?

Zillah

I distinctly remember you saying something along the lines of the kids getting the equivalent of a slap on the ass and running home to their parents. I can go digging through the posts to find it if you like. I was never proposing that they all died, what I'm saying is that two things imply that a significant number of children were mangled or killed; the fact that the word "tare" is used (which is an archaic past tense of the word 'tear/torn'), and the fact that bears are not known for using an open palm when they attack people, they in fact use claws and teeth to tear off faces.

Also once again you use the phrase "ganged up on" to imply a rather intimidating or violent gang. I do believe that all is stated that they called him "bald head".

But apparently you're conceding that God sent bears to maul children, so the argument is fairly moot.

Zillah

Er, yes, here is the part I was thinking of:

PDN wrote: »

Now, as we listen to the story, all of us who have ever been bullied or intimidated by a mob can't help smiling at the thought of these 42 young hoodlums squealing with fear as, scratched and bleeding, they run away from the bears.

Which is not, in fairness, dishonestly paraphrased as a "disney-like-cuffing".

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Are there two posters called Wicknight on this board?

Wicknight #1 believes and argues that exegesis (determining how the writers of Scripture actually intended their writings to be understood) is nonsense and rubbish.

Wicknight #2 wants to argue with Jakkass on the basis of what he believes to be the intended meaning of the Old Testament (ie exegesis).

Now, is that something nasty I can smell stuck to my shoe, or is it the whiff of hypocrisy?

I think there might be since I didn't say either of those things :rolleyes:

But I better be careful, you might just ban me again for disagreeing with you again. Which would be a shame.

Zombrex

Zillah wrote: »

Er, yes, here is the part I was thinking of:



Which is not, in fairness, dishonestly paraphrased as a "disney-like-cuffing".

Well you have to admit the Bible is a lot like a Disney cartoon ... what with all the genocide, rape, slavery ...

PDN

Zillah wrote: »

Er, yes, here is the part I was thinking of:



Which is not, in fairness, dishonestly paraphrased as a "disney-like-cuffing".

Please let me know which Disney Park of which you speak. I don't want to encourage any children to go and witness people left scratched and bleeding after a bear attack. :rolleyes:

Zillah

You've seen Bambi, right? That <edit>biological waste product</edit> is more traumatic than any horror film.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Please let me know which Disney Park of which you speak. I don't want to encourage any children to go and witness people left scratched and bleeding after a bear attack. :rolleyes:

Yes most bear attacks on children result in mild bleeding and scratches ...

Naz_st

Jakkass wrote: »

In the counter-case, as has been pointed out ad-infinitum, the Bible as a text is a rather strong source of morals, much stronger than anything I've ever heard an atheist base their lives on.

It seems to me the aim of this is actually to impart morality.

Leaving aside the slavery aspect for a moment (and surely any post on morals in the bible that has to begin with that statement is an indictment in itself), is it morally ok to "put to death" someone for working on the Sabbath (Exodus 35:2)?

With an example of the Israelites stoning to death someone found gathering wood in a forest on the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-36)

And where's the morality in this:

If a man rapes a woman in a rural setting then he is to pay her father and marry the woman as his punishment, Deuteronomy 22:28. (it's different rules in the city, as in a city if the woman doesn't scream loud enough then it's her fault too and she is to be put to death, Deuteronomy 22:23).

Or how about God's morals as evinced by the book of Job??? (see here)

And of course, children should be put to death for swearing at their parents (Exodus 21:15, Leviticus 20:9, Deuteronomy 21:18—21, Mark 7:9—13, and Matthew 15:4—7)

That's not to mention the genocide, human sacrifice and misogyny that is throughout. The notion that the bible is a guide to morality is at best laughable, but mostly delusional.

No it does not permit incest. This is ridiculous and clearly shows that you take what you please from the Bible.

Who did Adam and Eve's children procreate with?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes most bear attacks on children result in mild bleeding and scratches ...

90% of bear attacks are non-fatal. So, Grizzly Wicknight Adams, besides trying to sneak the word 'mild' in when you know fine well I haven't used it, maybe you could explain what is unreasonable in thinking that these non-fatal attacks leave people scratched and bleeding?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

90% of bear attacks are non-fatal. So, Grizzly Wicknight Adams, besides trying to sneak the word 'mild' in when you know fine well I haven't used it, maybe you could explain what is unreasonable in thinking that these non-fatal attacks leave people scratched and bleeding?

That is because the vast majority of bear attacks the bear either runs away or is chased away by other humans.

Unfinished bear attacks leave a person with gashes and bleeding (my cat gives you "scratches", a bears claws can be the size of your hand, they don't scratch they tear and gash your skin appart)



Type "bear attack" into Google Images (perhaps after dinner) too see the "scratches" you think it is good that misbehaving children receive.