Do such men exist?

Originally posted by josephw
"Ordinary humans" are the only kind there is. Except in the minds of those who consider themselves above the rest!

The thing is, all humans have their price. Nobody is as high minded as that verse suggests. People like Mother Teresa, when asked why she does what she does, she said, why it was to make for a stronger church, something to that effect. Saying she was goal oriented in her duties. If you want a fair judge who deals by the rules and with compassion, you better be able to build a very perceptive robot....

Originally posted by Rajk999
You have a valid point. But it appears that the translation posted in the opening post is not accurate. Here is the wording from the KJV:

[i]Exo 18:21 Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifti ...[text shortened]... s a very useful medium. It condemns the love of money and what that love can cause people to do.

Thanks, I thought this was only common sense but then I remembered where I had posted this.

My bad. 😞

Originally posted by whodey
“And you shall discern from among the entire people men of accomplishment, God-fearing people, men of truth, people who despise money and you shall appoint them leaders of thousands, leaders of hundreds, leaders of fifties, and leaders of tens. so they shall judge the people at all times.” (Exodus 18:21)

Because of course woman would be completely unsuitable for leadership roles...

Is there anyone here who can honestly claim that the bible isn't sexist without feeling really stupid doing so?

Originally posted by googlefudge
Because of course woman would be completely unsuitable for leadership roles...

Is there anyone here who can honestly claim that the bible isn't sexist without feeling really stupid doing so?

The Bible is sexist ... so? 😀

Originally posted by Rajk999
The Bible is sexist ... so? 😀

So... this.

Sexism is morally bad.

The bible is sexist.

The bible is morally bad.

Originally posted by Rajk999
He did not ask a rhetorical question. Mainstream Christians have difficulty in finding people of high moral fibre as described in Exodus.

Still not following Christ's commandment to "love your Christian brothers", are you?

The problem here isn't "mainstream Christians". It's the people who criticize "mainstream Christians" as somehow being less "Christian" than they consider themselves to be.

Not exactly "loving your neighbor as yourself", now, is it?

If, as you maintain, that "works" save us when "grace" does not, then you're apparently in some serious trouble here.

You know, even the Emperor stopped parading himself around town when the child made it clear that he was wearing no clothes. Like the townspeople could see right through the Emperor's new clothes, so we, too, see through your hypocrisy. And yet you still parade around in your hypocrisy like it shields you from derision.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Because of course woman would be completely unsuitable for leadership roles...

Is there anyone here who can honestly claim that the bible isn't sexist without feeling really stupid doing so?

The Bible probably correctly records the mores of the time. Sexism was so rampant in the ancient world, that it became like a self-fulfilling prophecy. There were few women indeed who stood out in the Bible as having roles to be hoped-for among the women of the time. Society in general also acted as the main operator keeping women down. "Barefoot and pregnant" was considered the best any woman of the time could hope for. But it was because society in general was the way it was, it wasn't merely the Bible's invention.

Originally posted by Suzianne
The Bible probably correctly records the mores of the time. Sexism was so rampant in the ancient world, that it became like a self-fulfilling prophecy. There were few women indeed who stood out in the Bible as having roles to be hoped-for among the women of the time. Society in general also acted as the main operator keeping women down. "Barefoot and pr ...[text shortened]... ut it was because society in general was the way it was, it wasn't merely the Bible's invention.

I'm not claiming it to be the bibles invention.

Although I will note that there were societies at the time [and before and since] which
were much less patriarchal than 'Christian' societies have typically been.

However, your justification makes perfect sense if you view the bible as the thoughts and ideas
of ancient people struggling to understand the world.
It doesn't make any sense at all if you believe the bible to record the words and commands of
an all powerful universe creating god... Particularly one that is claimed to be ultimately moral and
just.

I am fully with the idea that the bible is often metaphor and mystery and ancient primitive attempts
at morality. But that's because I know it was written by regular people.

What I take issue with is people claiming it as the word of god and then trying to disown the moral
abominations that are clearly there if you actually read it like it was inspired by a god and not primitive
tribes people.

Originally posted by whodey
Thanks, I thought this was only common sense but then I remembered where I had posted this.

My bad. 😞

Was the title of this thread meant as a rhetorical question, or was Rajk999 correct in assuming it wasn't? Inquiring minds want to know... or it could be that it's just me who wants to know.

Originally posted by whodey
Thanks, I thought this was only common sense but then I remembered where I had posted this.

My bad. 😞

Seems peculiar for something as perfect as God to decide to have his words written in such a way that it would get mistranslated 1000s of years later, isn't it?

Gee wiz, that almost sounds like the kind of illogical decision that is often made by... you know... ordinary humans.

Also, if you knew (?) that this was badly translated, why did you post it? Why not post something that actually makes sense? How many more bad translations are you going to post, where everyone just needs to assume that "probably something different was meant"?

Originally posted by googlefudge
I'm not claiming it to be the bibles invention.

Although I will note that there were societies at the time [and before and since] which
were much less patriarchal than 'Christian' societies have typically been.

However, your justification makes perfect sense if you view the bible as the thoughts and ideas
of ancient people struggling to underst ...[text shortened]... y there if you actually read it like it was inspired by a god and not primitive
tribes people.

It has always been my contention that God moved man to write the Bible in words and thoughts that they understood, and he knew that those same words would resonate down through the ages as man's knowledge became more refined. We have no problem understanding motivations and prophecies and the "way things were" through the lens of their understanding, but they probably could not understand the scriptures had they been written for modern man. In this way, the Bible speaks to all men for all time.

Originally posted by googlefudge
So... this.

Sexism is morally bad.

The bible is sexist.

The bible is morally bad.

Sexism is morally bad by standards now.
Its was not morally bad then.

The standards of men change over time. Sometimes for better and sometimes for worse.
The standards of God do not change.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Sexism is morally bad by standards now.
Its was not morally bad then.

The standards of men change over time. Sometimes for better and sometimes for worse.
The standards of God do not change.

No it's always been morally bad, the fact that in the past most people didn't know better
doesn't mean it was morally right then any more than people not knowing better today
doesn't make it morally right today.

What is morally right is not subjective but objective, and what changes is not what is or is
not morally correct. But what we know about what is or is not morally correct.

Originally posted by Suzianne
It has always been my contention that God moved man to write the Bible in words and thoughts that they understood, and he knew that those same words would resonate down through the ages as man's knowledge became more refined. We have no problem understanding motivations and prophecies and the "way things were" through the lens of their understanding, but t ...[text shortened]... es had they been written for modern man. In this way, the Bible speaks to all men for all time.

That must be why there are thousands of 'Christian' denominations who disagree with
each other about just about every possible point of scripture and who have frequently
and sometimes even to this day tried to persecute and even kill each other.

Because the meaning is so clear. Reveal Hidden Content

What is written in the bible is not even as moral or accurate as other contemporary writings
from other more advanced cultures.

And the idea that that was the best a god could do is laughable.

I could do better, WAY better.

I could do better simply by writing exactly the same book but altering it to take out the stuff about
how to beat your slaves and who you can and cannot own and replacing it with a single command
saying "THOU SHALT NOT OWN PEOPLE OR KEEP SLAVES EVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES"

There I just wrote a better holy book than your god supposedly did.

Rinse repeat a few hundred times for all the other c**p in that book and maybe we could be getting somewhere.

Originally posted by googlefudge
No it's always been morally bad, the fact that in the past most people didn't know better
doesn't mean it was morally right then any more than people not knowing better today
doesn't make it morally right today.

What is morally right is not subjective but objective, and what changes is not what is or is
not morally correct. But what we know about what is or is not morally correct.

What is considered morally right must change over time since it depends on the state of the society... eg lets assume that the creation story is correct, the in order for the species to proliferate there cannot be restrictions on sex as this would slow down the birth rate. It was expedient and necessary at that time since the aim is reproduction. In this time man has introduced laws to control and restrict sexual intercourse.