Study: Religion is Good for Kids
Here's a study that shows a kids from families that regularly attend worship services have better social and learning skills than those who do not.
It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal
So don't try and make this lame cop-out. In most societies today, we are way better than ideas of that time. The only concern for God was freeing his 'chosen people' from slavery, no concern with saying slavery, owning another person, was wrong in principle.
"may", and "may" are permissive, not mandatory... not nearly as strong as "must" concerning relatives. And even here, they are saying you cannot separate families. Again, you left out John 8 concerning the truth setting one free and Romans 6, the motif of God delivering one from slavery and adopting them as sons and daughters. The attitude is permissible and generally, so it seems, negative...
Also in Leviticus 25 Israelite slaves are to be set free in the year of Jubilee.
And slave trade is condemned in 1 Timothy 1:10
I don't care if you think this is a "Lame cop-out", because the facts are what they are not matter what spin you want to put on
The only part of that response which actually may point to an actual condemnation of slavery is from Timothy, but since the crucial word can mean, from
a slave-dealer, kidnapper, man-stealer
a. of one who unjustly reduces free men to slavery
b. of one who steals the slaves of others and sells them
and b is more consistent with the tone of the passage and with the other references to slavery in the text, I don't think you have proven your case.
And of course, as you would expect, I certainly see you as the one putting a spin on the ambiguous text of the Bible - not 'facts'.
Property - its only a sin in this verse if the 'damsel' is 'betrothed'. Of course they didn't even have a word for 'rape', because they didn't see it as a real sin against a full person. That is part of what makes the Biblical ideas around abuse of woman totally fucked up.
I don't know how familiar you are with Hebrew, but the translation of that to "rape" is dubious at best, as it can take on the meaning of "seduction" among others. That, and given the fact that if they be "discovered" or "found out" in verse 28 would seem to suggest that this was not necessarily forced sex. That, and given that Jesus says to lust after another woman in one's heart is a sin, how much more so would it be for a man to attack and sexually assault her? Given these things, I have not reason to think that this particular text or any other text is encouraging or even allowing for such henious acts. Sure, you can write my understanding of as a "lame cop-out" but you must show that your selective interpretation of these texts is the only or at least the best interpretation of the text.
I have no problem calling the the second scenario (vs 25-27) rape, as it says that the woman is not guilty of any crime. This is somewhat different from the third and first scenario described in Deuteronomy 22. The first and third seem consensual, the second seems to be a violation of the will of the woman.
You are straining at a gnat to show this as condemning forced sex.
And the quote from Jesus does not condemn rape, it is another sick example of Jesus defining a 'thought crime', and is therefore is reason to condemn him.
BTW, who was the mother of the descendants of Cain?? You aren't seriously treating that stuff as historical??
Whether or not it is historical is not the issue... what is teaches is.
And that is the problem. SInce pretty much every reference to women, especially in the OT, all has women being regarded as property, and fails to say anywherr that this is wrong, what it ends up 'teaching' us is that God is ok with that. Sick.
Polygamy is not a problem if the women are openly happy to accept the set-up. True morality is not dependant on the pronouncements of some authority figure, that would be simply a legal system.
Disobedience to an authority figure, per se, is not wrong. Otherwise we would have let Hitler's deputies off when they pleaded that they 'were just following orders'. So the Garden of Eden story is not a worthy 'moral' account. The evil is compounded by visiting the consequences of the 'transgression' on all their descendants.
So if a women were openly happy with rape, would that make it acceptable?
If a woman was openly happy with the act, it would not be rape!!
Sexual activity outside of marriage and/or not for the purposes of procreation is NOT 'misconduct', in a real moral framework. That is part of the sexual hangup of Christianity. As long as the act is consensual, and ideally if precautions against fertilization are taken, where applicable.
So...you're okay with teenagers having sex? Or pedophilia? Or things such as that? Roman society found such things to be quote acceptable. Does that make them right?
Sure, if it is consensual, and they take precautions against having a child or spreading STD's.
Pedophilia is wrong to the extent that the child is not mature enough to be properly considered to have consented to the act.
It means that they are not wrong by my book. IOW if no actual harm is being done and there is no element of force or deception.
Your personal reaction to the acts is not an objective reason to treat it as 'wrong'.
This is clearly the crucial distinction between our perception of morality, and it is recognized in psychology. It is not derived from religion, but it strongly correlates with religious and a general liberal/conservative disposition.
No it is not the reason - versions of such an ethic arose in many, maybe most cultures, way before Christianity.
I'm talking about in Western cultures, not every culture.
So? My point is that it did not come from a 'God' figure, it is something that can occur to anyone giving the matter appropriate thought.
Removed 'religious observance"?? Are you joking??
What religious observances did Jesus institute? Two that I know of -- baptism and the eucharist, and these were symbolic and not necessary for anything other than as reminders. This is a far cry for the religious practices prescribed from the OT Levitical law or any other religion that I know about.
This is just quibbling over semantics.
Have you not heard of the 'problem of evil'. Look it up.
I have read about the problem of evil in depth. What does that have to do with the issue at hand?
Everything, when you are trying to claim that your God has any claim to being 'good' and a 'source' or reference point for morality.
EDIT: Almost forget to mention that the thing about not 'coveting' in the Ten Commandments is a thought crime, as per Orwell's 1984.
Didn't Jesus say something about people having bad thoughts being just as guilty as if they committed the act, at least in some cases?
And of course the big one, damning people for honestly not accepting Him or for hating him makes God a total asshole.
Whatever you feel about him, I don't think it is grounded. Granted, there were a lot of people who were offended by him for one reason or another, but I have no reason to think it was because he did anything wrong.
Of course you don't don't think it is 'grounded' - you come at this stuff from a different angle, different gut reactions to various actions, and a different set of basic assumptions about many things.
Moral issues are inherently subjective to a significant extent, which is why I believe they should be based on something we can actually observe and measure, namely our own inherent reactions and wants and desires, and indicators of personal and societal well-being, not on the fantasies of religion, and its use to encode the moral attitudes of an older and very different culture.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology