9 edits
Originally posted by Rank outsider
You dodged the question.
The Bible accepts the practice of slavery. Every civilised nation on earth now outlaws it.
In this one aspect, has the world become a more or less moral place?
The Bible instructs its followers to execute people simply for being gay. Most nations on earth now consider this to be the crime of murder.
In this one aspect, has the world become a more or less moral place?
The Bible instructs its followers to execute people simply for being gay. Most nations on earth now consider this to be the crime of murder.
I see NO Old Testament law saying to execute a person for being gay per se.
What I have found is a law saying that if a man lies with a man, for sexual purposes, this was an abomination to God. And this action was punishable by death (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13).
If you know of an execution based solely on being gay, PLEASE quote it for me.
Now does your Bible end with the book of Leviticus?
My Bible contains quite a few more books and includes 27 New Testament books which have NO instruction of a death penalty to be practiced by the new covenant disciples what-so-ever.
Does your Bible only have Genesis, Exodus, and Leviticus as books?
I see in the theocratic society of Israel no execution instituted EXCEPT for the action of male on male or female on female sexual lying together. (I'd have to further research the female matter).
Another thing I notice in my Bible is the multitude of atoning offerings, sacrifices provided for the propitiation from sins of all kind by the Israelites. There is the trespass offering for those who are aware of having trespassed.
There is the peace offering for those seeking to restore peace with God and man.
There is the sin offering for those aware that they have sinned.
There is the consecration offering for those realizing that they are not absolute for God.
So I do not understand that the death penalty was the only possible consequence. I see provision for repentence from trespass, repentence from sinning, repentence for not being at peace with God, etc. I see these remedies instituted for the Hebrews.
In your reading of the Bible did you notice some of these things also?
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayDiscrimination is the prejudicial or distinguishing treatment of an individual
"does not discriminate."
This is a loaded statement, where one could claim not getting their way was a
means of discrimination, ...Kelly
based on their actual or perceived membership in a certain group or category,
such as their race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, national origin, or
religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination
Originally posted by wolfgang59I think gender and sexual orientation are legitimate reasons for distinguishing treatment of an individual. 😏
Discrimination is the prejudicial or distinguishing treatment of an individual
based on their actual or perceived membership in a certain group or category,
such as their race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, national origin, or
religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination
Originally posted by vistesdThat the Golden Rule has been recognized through the ages, across many cultures and within both theistic and secular schools of thought seems to indicate a basis in objective fact. From what I can tell, that objective fact is that no individual (or collection of individuals) is the center of the universe - no matter how much his ego might tell him otherwise. The recognition of this fact does not require a theistic world view and can serve as a foundational block in building an obective moral system.
What various groups view to be proper “oughts” can be so determined. But that helps no one in deciding what they ought to believe or do.
I think Rank Outsider’s points are generally correct. The choice of any “standard” cannot be justified by appeal to that standard, certainly, without reasoning in a vicious circle. The meta-question i ...[text shortened]... ’m a Zennist, so I’m used to being heretic nearly eveywhere (even among dogmatic Zen Buddhists).
Not sure why so many theists and atheists alike seem to be so threatened by this idea. Perhaps it is because they have yet to have reconciled themselves to this idea. While they may like to believe that they recognize that they are not the center of the universe, their beliefs and actions indicate that they have not fully accepted the idea.
2 edits
Originally posted by sonshipIn addition to the fact that you've taken some of those verses out of context, you don't seem to be taking into account the fact that there were different rules for actions toward Hebrews vs. non-Hebrews.
[b]You dodged the question.
I don't know what question you say was dodged but I'll comment on your post.
The Bible accepts the practice of slavery.
A full discussion of "slavery" in the Bible will involve more than a few posts in a discussion medium like this. I hope you appreciate that.
We've been through this before. like this that equiped the abolitionists in opposing slavery.
I stop here.[/b]
For example:
Leviticus 25
44‘As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. 45‘Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. 46‘You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.
You also seem to be omitting the fact that the Bibe was also used to perpetuate slavery.
"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl.htm
It's quite easy to find many other such examples.
You also seem to be ignoring the fact that the Bible gives permission to severely beat slaves:
Exodus 21
20“If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. 21“If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.
I (sonship) did not take any passage "out of context". I simply did not quote EACH AND EVERY PASSAGE on the subject.
I (sonship) did not DENY that the Bible mentions slaves and slavery.
Quote me where I DENIED that Israel had slaves.
So then what DID I (sonship) write? I wrote that KIDNAPPING was punishable by the death penalty. And I DID write that refuge for fugitive slaves was instituted.
I also wrote that the subject of SLAVERY in the Bible was one which required considerable more discussion then a few chat like exchanges, as so far we have hear.
Indentured Servitude was a practice in the Ancient Near East.
People sold themselves to be servants to pay back depts in Israel and in other ancient nations. This is not to say Indentured Servitude was always a picnic itself. Even in the US indentured servants could have a bad existence.
Does ThinkOfone DENY that KIDNAPPING was outlawed by the law of Moses?
Does ThinkOfone DENY that OVER Punishment of the slave was a punishable offense?
Does ThinkofOne DENY that Moses made provision for fugitive slaves?
I don't mind if you want to site passages which speak to practicing slavery.
How about we consider ALL angles of the matter in the Bible?
God made provision for DIVORCE. Yet He hated DIVORCE and Jesus taught that the provision was there because of the hardness of men's hearts.
God made provision of POWs, especially female ones. The overall characteristic of these laws was to protect the woman from excessive abuse.
God made laws for Israel, which practiced things customary to many surrounding societies. Yet in most cases the overall characteristic of these laws was a general improvement of social equity.
Suggested Reading Is God A Moral Monster ?- Making Sense of the Old Testament God by Paul Copan.
Originally posted by sonshipWell, most gay men I have met do indeed lie with other men. If you want to argue that the Bible is moral because it only requires that you stone to death those that act upon their god given sexuality, please go ahead.The Bible instructs its followers to execute people simply for being gay. Most nations on earth now consider this to be the crime of murder.
I see NO Old Testament law saying to execute a person for [b] being gay per se.
What I have found is a law saying that if a man lies with a man, for sexual purposes, this was an abomina ...[text shortened]... for the Hebrews.
In your reading of the Bible did you notice some of these things also?[/b]
The fact that many Bible books do not instruct you to execute gay men in these circumstances, does not make up for the one that clearly does.
When I read the Bible, at no point did I understand that there was anyway a person could use some form of offering to avoid the death penalty for homosexual acts.
Originally posted by sonshipWell, I think TOO has dealt with this one better than I could in Biblical terms.
[b]You dodged the question.
I don't know what question you say was dodged but I'll comment on your post.
The Bible accepts the practice of slavery.
A full discussion of "slavery" in the Bible will involve more than a few posts in a discussion medium like this. I hope you appreciate that.
We've been through this before. ...[text shortened]... like this that equiped the abolitionists in opposing slavery.
I stop here.[/b]
I never sought to compare in relative terms different types of slavery. The Romans often treated their slaves well. I said that the Bible accepted the practice of slavery. It does.
Today, those same practices are outlawed by almost all nations. The world is a more moral place as a result.
Originally posted by RJHindsYou support the death penalty and have used the OT to justify this position. You believe that women who have abortions should also be executed.
I think gender and sexual orientation are legitimate reasons for distinguishing treatment of an individual. 😏
Would you also support the execution of people who commit homosexual acts?
You have refused to answer this question at least three times so far.
Originally posted by avalanchethecatYes, just like abortion is today, however, to make it palatable enough to allow it to continue in society is another matter.
In fact Whodey there's plenty of documentary evidence to show that slavery was abhorred by many, if not most people back in the 1800s, and even back in ancient times. It doesn't take a 'skewed' morality to see that ownership of human beings by other human beings is a bad thing.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneToO! Hope you are well!
That the Golden Rule has been recognized through the ages, across many cultures and within both theistic and secular schools of thought seems to indicate a basis in objective fact. From what I can tell, that objective fact is that no individual (or collection of individuals) is the center of the universe - no matter how much his ego might tell him otherwi ...[text shortened]... of the universe, their beliefs and actions indicate that they have not fully accepted the idea.
I don’t want to argue over whether that is evidence of an objective morality (exogenous moral facts), or of a collectively subjective one. Ethics (morality) is a quintessentially human venture, so I’m not sure that it matters. (The existence of exogenous moral facts is surely not illogical.)
With that said, I didn’t realize that the so-called “golden rule” was as cross-culturally predominant (with as wide a variety of formulations) as your research shows—I was really only aware of Lao Tzu and Hillel. I do think you have provided evidence of a commonality that seems to transcend individual subjectivity or just “morality by majority”. It seems to me to go a long way toward addressing, for I instance, sonhouse’s empirical question though he would want to see a statistical presentation.
Originally posted by Rank outsiderNo, not normally, unless the act caused the death of someone. 😏
You support the death penalty and have used the OT to justify this position. You believe that women who have abortions should also be executed.
Would you also support the execution of people who commit homosexual acts?
You have refused to answer this question at least three times so far.
