Christian vs. Humanist Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-12-2016, 09:12 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
Rocket - why are you discussing Jewish history in the Christian Morality thread?

I am just joking. Lot Abraham and Sarah were not Christians.

Pretty good analysis though.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2016, 09:15 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(15-12-2016 06:07 PM)Bzltyr Wrote:  
(15-12-2016 05:18 PM)unfogged Wrote:  The problem is that we HAVE read it, including all the bits that you gloss over.

You still haven't explained why it should be considered as anything more than a collection of Hebrew myths and legends.

Hello. I just joined your forum and I am looking for a place to spend my time and energies.
The Bible as a history is very accurate. The Bible has many many prophecies that have been realized.
The Bible was written over a very long period of time and yet has a cohesive message.
With all the writers is does not contradict itself. It is without a doubt the most influential book ever written.

Just a start.

Um.....snort. Where to begin....where to begin. Consider

The bible is a faith document written by people who believed in a god. It is not proof of the Hebrew god anymore than the Vedas is proof of a Hindu god. And it is not particularly accurate history either. Just a few little things: Moses has the Kings of Edom in the wrong order. The book of Daniel has many historical inaccuracies. Many of the stories are just exaggerated myths. Moses didn't exist. His story is based on Sargon of Akkad who predates the Moses myth. The Flood story is based on the Epic of Gilgamesh myth which also predates the bible.

If you hang around here long enough you might learn a few new things. Yes

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2016, 09:19 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(15-12-2016 09:10 PM)adey67 Wrote:  I've heard the indentured servant apologetic before Bzltyr and I'm sure everyone else here has unfortunately that doesn't wash as far as I can see its just an attempt to make the distasteful more palatable. Is there any specific evidence it was indentured servitude and not slavery?

Well I'd have to go back to the Jewish laws. There was slavery among the many different peoples that existed in the day. It was not the Jewish way and Jewish law had a lot to say about it. Jesus addressed it and set the tone for an even better treatment of the servants that were given or sold to cover debts. It was part of the economy of the day.

Remember that the Old Testament was given to the Jews only. (I know they did not call it that.)

It was not kidnapping and forcing them to work for nothing.

It is the truth that is why you have heard it before. It is a settled historic fact that some cannot accept because all they know about is slavery in the south.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2016, 09:22 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(15-12-2016 09:15 PM)dancefortwo Wrote:  
(15-12-2016 06:07 PM)Bzltyr Wrote:  Hello. I just joined your forum and I am looking for a place to spend my time and energies.
The Bible as a history is very accurate. The Bible has many many prophecies that have been realized.
The Bible was written over a very long period of time and yet has a cohesive message.
With all the writers is does not contradict itself. It is without a doubt the most influential book ever written.

Just a start.

Um.....snort. Where to begin....where to begin. Consider

The bible is a faith document written by people who believed in a god. It is not proof of the Hebrew god anymore than the Vedas is proof of a Hindu god. And it is not particularly accurate history either. Just a few little things: Moses has the Kings of Edom in the wrong order. The book of Daniel has many historical inaccuracies. Many of the stories are just exaggerated myths. Moses didn't exist. His story is based on Sargon of Akkad who predates the Moses myth. The Flood story is based on the Epic of Gilgamesh myth which also predates the bible.

If you hang around here long enough you might learn a few new things. Yes

I will definitely learn a few things. I always do when I engage. I usually have to spend time in study to refute the assertions of otherwise intelligent people.

I have been told this is not the place to discuss the inerrancy of the Bible. If you want to dance get in the correct thread.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2016, 09:23 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(15-12-2016 09:02 PM)Bzltyr Wrote:  Yes, there are rules for slavery - slavery was bond servants. The Bible recognizes that it exists and addresses that fact. It states rules for Jews on how to treat their bond-servants. Not slavery for the Jews but a way to pay off debts. That is why you see that after 7 years debts are cancelled.

Yeah, you clearly haven't read the Bible, but only apologists' websites. The 7-year thing (also a longer cycle, called the Jubilee) only applies to indentured servants who were fellow Hebrews.

People from other nations were treated differently from the indentured servitude that was the law for fellow Israelites. The Bible is quite explicit about this. After going on for quite a while about Israelite servants, it then moves on to talking about foreign slaves (those of other races, in other words)... Leviticus chapter 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.

(Bold emphasis my own.)

It says treat other races as permanent, heritable property. In those words. But people of your own race ("your countrymen, the sons of Israel") you may not rule with severity over one another. Different rules for different races.

Likewise, based on these Bible verses, we had European indentured servants to come serve for 7 years (where did they get that number?) here in the colonies that became the USA, but people of other races became permanent property. All because the Bible did not say "Thou shalt not own other people."

(15-12-2016 09:02 PM)Bzltyr Wrote:  Does not condone rape. I read the website posted earlier about rape and the Bible recognizes that rape exist but does not condone it.

Then you are indeed a Liar For Jesus™. It does indeed condone it, spelling out how it is to be accomplished in wartime.

The Bible specifically says that men can go into the cities they have conquered, killing everyone who isn't a virgin, and keep the virgin women for themselves. They may then marry them (after a month) if they like them, and the woman has no say in it. The term for forced marriages of women captured in war is rape.

What you are defending is literally no different from what Boko Haram did to all those girls in Nigeria.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/surv...l-stories/

Even in the case of rapes that happen out of wartime, the crime is clearly a property crime against the men who own the women and/or prize her virginity, rather than a crime inflicted against the woman. The Bible could have specifically forbidden al rape and given the death penalty for doing it-- but it does not. Instead, it deals with property values. You could die for picking up sticks on the Sabbath or for "blaspheming", but put your penis in a woman who doesn't want you to, and all you have to do is pay a fine and marry her if the dad insists you do so.

Yeah, gimme THAT old-time religion! Rolleyes

And all because the Bible did not say "Thou shalt never take any woman against her will. No raping, ever. Ever."

(15-12-2016 09:02 PM)Bzltyr Wrote:  Incest - -NOT

Already addressed this.

(15-12-2016 09:02 PM)Bzltyr Wrote:  Genocide. Old Testament.

What does that have to do with anything? Jesus made it quite clear on numerous occasions that he got his moral codes from the Old Testament, though he modified it in places (such as forbidding divorce despite it being okay under the laws of Moses).

(15-12-2016 09:02 PM)Bzltyr Wrote:  Are we talking Christian morality or Jewish law?

This question is toooo ironic from the religious people who keep trying to put the Ten Commandments in my secular courtrooms and calling it the basis of our moral codes. Rolleyes

Your barbaric religious codes, written by ancient desert tribal-warrior priests claiming to be speaking for God, are transparent to anyone who has not blown their brains out by believing first and thinking only after-the-fact, and plainly inferior to modern, human-rights-based, Humanist morality.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
15-12-2016, 09:25 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
If a person is sold then they're a slave not a servant aren't you kind of contradicting yourself there
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2016, 09:27 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(15-12-2016 09:25 PM)adey67 Wrote:  If a person is sold then they're a slave not a servant aren't you kind of contradicting yourself there

Not really. A man could "sell" their kids to settle a debt. The kid would work to settle the debt and then go back home.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2016, 09:29 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
Its still a period of slavery as far as I can see.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2016, 09:30 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(15-12-2016 09:07 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Nevertheless, I wouldn't say this is "condoning" incest in the sense that it clearly condones the other items on your list, and would still not call this a fair use of the term when criticizing the Bible.

Okay. Updated it to reflect this. Thanks!

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fatbaldhobbit's post
15-12-2016, 09:30 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
Don't go there Rocket. I have been through the Bible more than you.

Yeah, you clearly haven't read the Bible, but only apologists' websites. The 7-year thing (also a longer cycle, called the Jubilee) only applies to indentured servants who were fellow Hebrews.


Yes, the year of Jubilee. The Bible at the time was for the Jews alone.

Also we are still not discussing Christian morality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: