2
   

Why does the god of the Bible consider slavery to be moral??

 
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Sep, 2007 06:28 pm
hankarin wrote:

Does not the fact that so many of us today are totally repulsed by the idea of slavery, and the misery associated with it, give some indication of God's real view of the matter. (Genesis 1:26) He has tolerated many other evils while allowing humankind to chart their own course through history independent from him. (Proverbs 7:29; Romans 9:14-24)

No it does not. It gives us a perspective of how far we have came from when orthodoxy was the rule of the land.

As for your choice of scripture, you only illustrate the holes in continuity of the idea of god as told in the bible.

I'm inclined to believe that as neo has posted in the past, that slavery was once culturally acceptable. It was bible-sound. As times changed, and as power moved around the realization that slavery was bad made it to those in power. Suddenly the practice of slavery was no longer culturally sound, but still biblically sound. Those in charge of the church realized that they have two choices.

1) acknowledge slavery is wrong - edit bible - lose faith with people when they see men editing the book of god.

2) acknowledge slavery is wrong - keep bible the same - lose faith with those who recognize the hypocracy.

Both pathes lose people, and after some risk-gain analysis the choice was to the later of the two. Better to not let the book of god become a book of man. Becides, it was already full of contradictions already. Contradictions only require the right spin-doctor to fix.

T
K
Omnipresent beings give the okay for slavery.

P.s. - and that's not all...
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Sep, 2007 08:16 pm
neologist wrote:
mesquite wrote:
. . . Blah, blah and blah. . .Irrelevant. The question before us in this thread is "Why does the god of the Bible consider slavery to be moral??"
And the answer is . . .

He doesn't.

This is another example of Frank's outstanding ability to construct straw men.

BTW, I miss the old Geezer. I hope he's OK.


It is no such thing.

Stop being intentionally blind and deaf, neo, we have God's own words of permission before us. You certainly aren't going to tell us that God gives humans permission to act immorally are you?

Joe(maybe somebody wrote down the inerrant word incorrectly??)Nation
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Sep, 2007 09:38 pm
He allowed polygamy for a time even though it was against his original intentions. For that matter, he continues to allow war and crime and sickness and death.

The evils for which you are so eager to blame God are not his fault and have never been his intention.

The idea that you might have some obligation to a creator is so frightening to you that you are unable to see the issues posed in Eden. God was represented as a liar. The rebel insinuated that humans would be better off setting standards for themselves. As a result the entire world system has been given over to Satan for him to prove his point.

That he singled out a nation and gave them a law code leading to Jesus was his way of providing direction and redemption for a sick world.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Sep, 2007 04:42 am
The only intentions revealed by Holy Scripture are those of the men who wrote it.

There is not a single doubt in my mind over the origin of the soap opera; the bickering, uncertain, faithless and confused tribes of Israel in the Old Testament aren't any different than characters of "All My Children", although for many years there was more sex in the Bible than on the TV show.

What an odd little powerless, though omnipotent, god you have created, Neo. Oh, and that god didn't just ALLOW slavery, his words commanded that slaves be taken. But, of course, he's not to blame, poor little all-powerful all-seeing deity with good intentions that you think he is, it is the fault, the natural faults, of the men who divined the words.

Funny how men always seem to get the better deal in Bible, isn't it?
Golly, I wonder what the Bible would have been like if all the scribes had been women?
Do you think we would still have the total subjugation of the female sex?

Joe(And the Male shall submit to the better Spirit of His Mistress... .)Nation
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Sep, 2007 07:59 am
Joe Nation wrote:


Funny how men always seem to get the better deal in Bible, isn't it?
Golly, I wonder what the Bible would have been like if all the scribes had been women?
Do you think we would still have the total subjugation of the female sex?

Joe(And the Male shall submit to the better Spirit of His Mistress... .)Nation


In general, the 'Christian nations' of Europe and America have produced more freedom, prosperity and equality for women than any others on Earth.

Do you agree?
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Sep, 2007 08:30 am
real life wrote:
In general, the 'Christian nations' of Europe and America have produced more freedom, prosperity and equality for women than any others on Earth.
Do you agree?


For their nations exclusively... not the general case. In general they have not done anything of the sort.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Sep, 2007 09:36 am
Diest TKO wrote:
real life wrote:
In general, the 'Christian nations' of Europe and America have produced more freedom, prosperity and equality for women than any others on Earth.
Do you agree?


For their nations exclusively... not the general case. In general they have not done anything of the sort.

T
K
O


It's interesting to see how Christians are able to overlook how the bible views women as "subservient" to men, and still make the claim that christianity "produced more freedomk, properity and equality."
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Sep, 2007 09:38 am
Ha, you misspelled freedok.

Laughing
0 Replies
 
hankarin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Sep, 2007 03:35 pm
I read today that a Nebraska lawyer is seeking a permanent injunction against the Almighty. Some very serious charges are included but it didn't specifically include slavery. Evidently He can be sued in Douglas County, the legislator claims, because He's everywhere.

If you folks hurry maybe you can all file a class action lawsuit. Maybe you can collect from world religions and shut them down in the process.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Sep, 2007 07:22 pm
real life wrote:
Joe Nation wrote:

Funny how men always seem to get the better deal in Bible, isn't it?
Golly, I wonder what the Bible would have been like if all the scribes had been women?
Do you think we would still have the total subjugation of the female sex?

Joe(And the Male shall submit to the better Spirit of His Mistress... .)Nation

In general, the 'Christian nations' of Europe and America have produced more freedom, prosperity and equality for women than any others on Earth.

Do you agree?

Real Life:
If the nations of Europe and America have produced more freedom, prosperity and equality for women, and I think they have, it has been in spite of the efforts, most strongly pursued by the Roman Catholic Church and the Presbyterians, to prevent women from voting, owning property, holding public office or, shades of present day Saudi Arabia, driving a car.

If, as someone has said, the two great sources of progress are intellect and wealth, the Christians, male and female, but mostly male, have stood in the way of women's education going back to medieval times.
(Except for those who were allowed to learn enough to become teachers of the young.)
The Church of England vigorously opposed women becoming students at the University level and denied women to opportunity to become ministers until the 1920's. The same was true in Spain except there the opposition was the Roman Church and the Roman Catholics of Mexico kept women in separate schools until the present day.

And it wasn't the churches who led the way for women to earn more for their labor and thus help build stronger economies, it was the economists and the feminists, most notably, Charlotte Gilman of the late nineteenth century whose writings led many in those "Christian" nations to rethink their ideas about child-rearing and women's labor.

And, these things are occurring to me in a flood now, at the very same time as the Churchs were fighting to advance the civil rights of blacks in the United States, those same churchs were fighting tooth and nail to prevent any form of birth control method from being legalized in the US.

The Christians, with their Biblical view of women intact, have opposed the Equal Rights Amendment (which should be a no-brainer for any democracy to have), the placement of women in combat positions of the military (also a no-brainer in this modern world) and, of course, a woman's right to choose whether or not to be pregnant.(Does she possess her own body or not?)

I would wager that without the Christian's opposition to women's progress, we as a civilization would be about a hundred and fifty years more advanced than we are.

Joe(There would be three Generals on Mars named Louise.)Nation
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Sep, 2007 04:57 am
How about someone asking if the "Christian" nations aren't the most advanced in Science?


Joe(winding up)Nation
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Sep, 2007 06:54 pm
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Sep, 2007 01:08 am
Joe Nation wrote:
AND at the risk of beating a dead horse: I read this today and nearly cried for the injustice of it all. . . .

( Quoted text from a story of discrimination against women . . . )

So this is the lesson we learn from Christianity: That even in the midst of oppression, women cannot be treated as equals.

Joe(Christ, what hypocrisy.)Nation
Sorry, Joe, this ain't a gotcha. Just another straw man.

That nominal christianity does not follow the bible should come as no surprise.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Sep, 2007 05:14 am
The above is no strawman. Shame on you for even saying that.
Real Life's proposition was:
Quote:
In general, the 'Christian nations' of Europe and America have produced more freedom, prosperity and equality for women than any others on Earth.

My replies have addressed those words directly pointing out that whatever progress women have made in "Christian nations" has been in the face of Biblically mandated opposition to that progress. If you want to refute the facts, go ahead, tell us how Christianity has led to more freedom, prosperity and, especially, equality for women. Or maybe Real Life can provide us with some examples.

What the above article shows is that, unlike what you say, these men were following the Bible's admonishments that women ought to be held second to men. The Bible is quite clear on that point, wouldn't you say? The men, leaders of the great civil rights movement of the United States, were merely holding to the Word. It's just that the Bible's stance on women is as morally and ethically bankrupt as it's stance on slavery.

And, surely, you are not calling the likes of Martin Luther King and Ralph Abernathy "nominal Christians", are you?

Joe(If Martin and Ralph weren't Christians, then who is?)Nation
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Sep, 2007 09:20 am
Joe Nation wrote:
The above is no strawman. Shame on you for even saying that.
Real Life's proposition was:
Quote:
In general, the 'Christian nations' of Europe and America have produced more freedom, prosperity and equality for women than any others on Earth.

My replies have addressed those words directly pointing out that whatever progress women have made in "Christian nations" has been in the face of Biblically mandated opposition to that progress. If you want to refute the facts, go ahead, tell us how Christianity has led to more freedom, prosperity and, especially, equality for women. Or maybe Real Life can provide us with some examples.

What the above article shows is that, unlike what you say, these men were following the Bible's admonishments that women ought to be held second to men. The Bible is quite clear on that point, wouldn't you say? The men, leaders of the great civil rights movement of the United States, were merely holding to the Word. It's just that the Bible's stance on women is as morally and ethically bankrupt as it's stance on slavery.

And, surely, you are not calling the likes of Martin Luther King and Ralph Abernathy "nominal Christians", are you?

Joe(If Martin and Ralph weren't Christians, then who is?)Nation
Sorry, I forgot you and RL were in a digression of sorts. However, I am comfortable in "calling the likes of Martin Luther King and Ralph Abernathy "nominal Christians"". I don't question their good deeds, mind you. Perhaps this should be another topic.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Sep, 2007 02:51 pm
Neo: You didn't answer part two of the question:

If Martin Luther King and Ralph Abernathy aren't any more then nominal Christians, then who is?

And no, it shouldn't be a thread of it's own because your answer "I am comfortable..." speaks with the same smugness that all true believers use, especially when they are too comfortable in the mindset.

Comfortable, as in, able to ignore, dissemble or otherwise shut their eyes to deepest flaws of the beliefs.

Joe(and don't cheat. Name names.)Nation
0 Replies
 
hankarin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Sep, 2007 05:39 pm
Diest TKO wrote:

Two choices:
1) acknowledge slavery is wrong - edit bible - lose faith with people when they see men editing the book of god.
2) acknowledge slavery is wrong - keep bible the same - lose faith with those who recognize the hypocrisy.[/quote]

Two comments:
Bible societies are well known for editing the Bible. God's name Jehovah has been removed from most modern translations in English. (~7000X)
The churches of Christendom are well known for their hypocrisy no matter what stand they take on slavery. (Matthew 23)
0 Replies
 
hankarin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Sep, 2007 05:51 pm
Joe Nation wrote:
The above is no strawman. Shame on you for even saying that.
Real Life's proposition was:
Quote:
In general, the 'Christian nations' of Europe and America have produced more freedom, prosperity and equality for women than any others on Earth.

My replies have addressed those words directly pointing out that whatever progress women have made in "Christian nations" has been in the face of Biblically mandated opposition to that progress. If you want to refute the facts, go ahead, tell us how Christianity has led to more freedom, prosperity and, especially, equality for women. Or maybe Real Life can provide us with some examples.

What the above article shows is that, unlike what you say, these men were following the Bible's admonishments that women ought to be held second to men. The Bible is quite clear on that point, wouldn't you say? The men, leaders of the great civil rights movement of the United States, were merely holding to the Word. It's just that the Bible's stance on women is as morally and ethically bankrupt as it's stance on slavery.

And, surely, you are not calling the likes of Martin Luther King and Ralph Abernathy "nominal Christians", are you?

Joe(If Martin and Ralph weren't Christians, then who is?)Nation


The Bible primarily focuses on spiritual freedom today. This freedom is not available to those who discredit the Bible and discount God. This includes those who claim to be followers of Christ but prove otherwise by their actions, making those individuals most reprehensible. This has lead many to turn away from God.
0 Replies
 
hankarin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Sep, 2007 06:09 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:

Quote:
It's interesting to see how Christians are able to overlook how the bible views women as "subservient" to men, and still make the claim that christianity "produced more freedom, prosperity and equality."


Is there any indication(s) in the Gospel accounts of Jesus treatment of women that he looked upon them unfavorably or treated them as second class citizens? Perhaps it's a case of Ecclesiastes 8:9 all over again despite national claims of "Christianity."
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Sep, 2007 06:10 pm
Hank, can I call you Hank? If that is supposed to be response, it's a poor one. Remember the individuals in the present conversation were not discrediting God or the Bible, they were following it. Their actions were regrettable but they were Biblical. No doubt about that.

And please, don't give us that guff about spiritual freedom as if it's a substitute for actual freedom.

Martin Luther King would say different.

Joe(And he'd be right.)Nation
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/19/2024 at 01:16:24