You cannot call the bible an "Objective Standard of Morality" and also claim context on the less desirable verses.
The argument of context is used far too liberally, especially considering the nature of the being it's being used to defend. There is an assortment of questions raised when an omni-benevolent being needs to tiptoe around the cultural values of the people he's supposed to rule, especially considering the plethora of punishments he afflicted on the Israelite for disobedience. But that's an argument for another time.
You cannot say that the bible is an objective standard of morality, because saying that several of God's commandments need "context" to make sense is by definition subjective. And it's not even a matter of the old testament vs the new.
Look at these verses.
"Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. "- Objective Morality
" 4 Fathers,[b] do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord."- Objective Morality
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ,doing the will of God from your heart."- Subjective bible verse that should only be considered in the context of the time period.
Despite the fact that these verses come one after another in the same chapter of the bible.
In fact what's considered "contextual" appears to be completely arbitrary, at least if wasn't blatantly obvious that the criteria for context is things where we as a more civilized society realize that are wrong after centuries of logic and debate that challenged our values as society.
I also want to include a thought-provoking video from a youtuber that I've recently discovered.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X05Wn1ZAlfE
I would paraphrase his argument, but paraphrasing wouldn't do it justice.
Board index ‹ Morality
21 posts
• Page 1 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
The Bible cannot be called the ultimate standard of morality
by Joel Blazing Pants » Mon Mar 04, 2019 1:58 pm
- Joel Blazing Pants
Re: The Bible cannot be called the ultimate standard of mora
by jimwalton » Mon Mar 04, 2019 2:30 pm
God's nature is the basis of objective morality, not the Bible. The Bible isn't meant to be a moral guide. The Bible is meant to reveal God, not to teach us right from wrong. It's given to teach us what God is really like in contrast to all the false ideas that are so ubiquitous. So your opening premise is slightly mistaken, and that may possibly affect your whole case.
Therefore context ALWAYS matters. Context is what leads us to proper understanding. If I'm going to the grocery store, and I say to my wife, "I'm leaving," it has a whole different meaning than if we've been fighting for 3 days and I say the exact same thing: "I'm leaving."
> when an omni-benevolent being needs to tiptoe around the cultural values of the people he's supposed to rule
There's a difference between God "tiptoeing," which is not true, and God accommodating the culture to reveal Himself to the people with whom He is communicating, which is true. Anyone interested in communication must accommodate his or her language and concepts to the person or group receiving the communication, otherwise I'm speaking ancient Greek to modern day Africa. It won't make sense if I don't accommodate to the audience. Communication only works if we consider that the message must be tuned to the music of the listener.
> Ephesians 6.3-6
They are the same point: fathers to children, masters to slaves. The point is that those under authority need to recognize the authority over them, and those in authority over them should be nurturing rather abusive. Your concern is probably mostly with the latter, so that's where I'll accommodate my audience to try to communicate.
Masters often complained that slaves were lazy, especially when no one was looking. Paul encourages hard work but gives slaves a new hope and a new motive for their labor: serve your master as if he were Jesus. The same word is used as in the previous section (vv. 1-4), so we can perceive perceive the submission nuance to be similar. In this case the slaves are legally (despite the horror of the laws and the depravity of this part of their social and economic system) under the authority of their masters. Paul is encouraging them to follow Christ’s pattern and to obey and serve their masters with humility, righteousness, and honor as is befitting a follower of God, to treat their earthly masters as they would treat God were he in that same position over them, just as children were to obey their parents "in the Lord."
That was radical enough, but then comes the teaching over the top: "Masters, treat your slaves in the same way" (Eph. 6.9). Treat your slave as if he were Jesus working for you—with honor and respect, in all fairness. Be a boss of integrity and honor, not just of power and the abuses that come with it.
So I guess the question here is, what's the problem with these verses and what is taught in them? It's verses like these that Christians used to eventually bring down the whole social and economic structure of slavery and its horrors.
I watched about 10 minutes of the video. It was atrocious. Such a shameless distortion of the Bible. And this is the kind of trash that influences people who don't know enough to ignore it. The makers of it will have to answer to God (Mt. 18.6-7). Horrible.
Therefore context ALWAYS matters. Context is what leads us to proper understanding. If I'm going to the grocery store, and I say to my wife, "I'm leaving," it has a whole different meaning than if we've been fighting for 3 days and I say the exact same thing: "I'm leaving."
> when an omni-benevolent being needs to tiptoe around the cultural values of the people he's supposed to rule
There's a difference between God "tiptoeing," which is not true, and God accommodating the culture to reveal Himself to the people with whom He is communicating, which is true. Anyone interested in communication must accommodate his or her language and concepts to the person or group receiving the communication, otherwise I'm speaking ancient Greek to modern day Africa. It won't make sense if I don't accommodate to the audience. Communication only works if we consider that the message must be tuned to the music of the listener.
> Ephesians 6.3-6
They are the same point: fathers to children, masters to slaves. The point is that those under authority need to recognize the authority over them, and those in authority over them should be nurturing rather abusive. Your concern is probably mostly with the latter, so that's where I'll accommodate my audience to try to communicate.
Masters often complained that slaves were lazy, especially when no one was looking. Paul encourages hard work but gives slaves a new hope and a new motive for their labor: serve your master as if he were Jesus. The same word is used as in the previous section (vv. 1-4), so we can perceive perceive the submission nuance to be similar. In this case the slaves are legally (despite the horror of the laws and the depravity of this part of their social and economic system) under the authority of their masters. Paul is encouraging them to follow Christ’s pattern and to obey and serve their masters with humility, righteousness, and honor as is befitting a follower of God, to treat their earthly masters as they would treat God were he in that same position over them, just as children were to obey their parents "in the Lord."
That was radical enough, but then comes the teaching over the top: "Masters, treat your slaves in the same way" (Eph. 6.9). Treat your slave as if he were Jesus working for you—with honor and respect, in all fairness. Be a boss of integrity and honor, not just of power and the abuses that come with it.
So I guess the question here is, what's the problem with these verses and what is taught in them? It's verses like these that Christians used to eventually bring down the whole social and economic structure of slavery and its horrors.
I watched about 10 minutes of the video. It was atrocious. Such a shameless distortion of the Bible. And this is the kind of trash that influences people who don't know enough to ignore it. The makers of it will have to answer to God (Mt. 18.6-7). Horrible.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: The Bible cannot be called the ultimate standard of mora
by Synonym » Mon Mar 04, 2019 3:42 pm
How are verses like "treat your slaves well" arguments for abolition? Surely those verses would be used by proponents of slavery?
- Synonym
Re: The Bible cannot be called the ultimate standard of mora
by jimwalton » Mon Mar 04, 2019 3:55 pm
They are arguments for abolition because Paul is advocating that slaves are people, not property. He is saying that slaves have full human dignity (Gal. 3.28; Col. 3.11). He is saying that slaves don't really belong to their owners, even here in ancient Rome—rather, they belonged to God, served God, and had a higher allegiance than to their owners (Col. 3.22-25).
Paul told the slaves that their slavery didn't matter because they were free in Christ, that both slaves and freemen were servants of Jesus, and therefore they shouldn't be slaves of humans (Philemon 16). He encouraged slaves to acquire their freedom whenever possible (1 Cor. 7.20-22).
In 1 Timothy 1.10, Paul advocated against slave trading, considering it to be "ungodly" and "contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God."
In the Bible God does not dictate the shape of society. He does not seek to form a “perfect” society, because no society is perfect (since it is a society of fallen humans). He rather speaks into the shape of society as it exists in those times and encourages his people to live holy lives in that society. He does not dictate an ideal kind of government (monarchy vs. democracy); he does not dictate a system of marriage (arranged vs. love) or even polygamy vs. monogamy; he does not dictate the way that a society is stratified (slaves and free); he does not dictate a certain sort of economy (market economy vs. barter). Every social structure is flawed.
None of the early Christian writers called for an uprising to overthrow slavery in Rome. They didn't want the Christian faith to be confused with political rebellion and opposition to social order. Christian slaves were taught to be honorable people, even if they were mistreated (1 Peter 2.18-20; Eph. 6.5-9). The early Christian church, without staging any actual campaign against slavery, in the course of the centuries weakened it until it all but disappeared from Europe. Slavery was doomed simply because it jarred with Christian teaching—the same basic circumstance that doomed it in the modern West. Abraham Lincoln took the same approach. Though he despised slavery and talked freely about this degrading institution, his first priority was to hold the Union together rather than try to abolish slavery immediately.
Paul told the slaves that their slavery didn't matter because they were free in Christ, that both slaves and freemen were servants of Jesus, and therefore they shouldn't be slaves of humans (Philemon 16). He encouraged slaves to acquire their freedom whenever possible (1 Cor. 7.20-22).
In 1 Timothy 1.10, Paul advocated against slave trading, considering it to be "ungodly" and "contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God."
In the Bible God does not dictate the shape of society. He does not seek to form a “perfect” society, because no society is perfect (since it is a society of fallen humans). He rather speaks into the shape of society as it exists in those times and encourages his people to live holy lives in that society. He does not dictate an ideal kind of government (monarchy vs. democracy); he does not dictate a system of marriage (arranged vs. love) or even polygamy vs. monogamy; he does not dictate the way that a society is stratified (slaves and free); he does not dictate a certain sort of economy (market economy vs. barter). Every social structure is flawed.
None of the early Christian writers called for an uprising to overthrow slavery in Rome. They didn't want the Christian faith to be confused with political rebellion and opposition to social order. Christian slaves were taught to be honorable people, even if they were mistreated (1 Peter 2.18-20; Eph. 6.5-9). The early Christian church, without staging any actual campaign against slavery, in the course of the centuries weakened it until it all but disappeared from Europe. Slavery was doomed simply because it jarred with Christian teaching—the same basic circumstance that doomed it in the modern West. Abraham Lincoln took the same approach. Though he despised slavery and talked freely about this degrading institution, his first priority was to hold the Union together rather than try to abolish slavery immediately.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: The Bible cannot be called the ultimate standard of mora
by Joel Blazing Pants » Mon Mar 04, 2019 4:18 pm
> The Bible is meant to reveal God, not to teach us right from wrong. It's given to teach us what God is really like in contrast to all the false ideas that are so ubiquitous.
So every single commandment in the bible should be ignored and we should stop quoting Bible verses as moral justification? So we shouldn't consider it God's will to accept Jesus? If the bible is not mean to teach us anything, why do we even read it if we can know what God is with just the very first verse?
> Therefore context ALWAYS matters. Context is what leads us to proper understanding. If I'm going to the grocery store, and I say to my wife, "I'm leaving," it has a whole different meaning than if we've been fighting for 3 days and I say the exact same thing: "I'm leaving."
Then it's not an objective standard, just like that phrase is not an objective phrase. The definition of objective is
" a: relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence —used chiefly in medieval philosophy
b: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observer"
So if you have to consider context to understand it, it's a SUBJECTIVE standard.
> There's a difference between God "tiptoeing," which is not true, and God accommodating the culture to reveal Himself to the people with whom He is communicating, which is true. Anyone interested in communication must accommodate his or her language and concepts to the person or group receiving the communication, otherwise I'm speaking ancient Greek to modern day Africa.
Not if you are an omni-powerful being who supposedly created the concept of different languages to begin with. And since when was God "accommodating? Accommodating when the Israelite wanted meat so he force-fed them until "it came out of their noses". Accommodating when they worshiped other Gods so he unleashed a mass plague against them? Accommodating when the Israelites were scared of the inhabitants of the promised land so he decreed that none of them would ever see it at all?
> The point is that those under authority need to recognize the authority over them, and those in authority over them should be nurturing rather abusive.
So obviously God is willing to sacrifice his own morality (since God disdains an act as immoral as slavery right?) in favor of respecting authority. It's obvious that rulers in a society would never have an ulterior motive for sponsoring a deity that favors obedience over all else. Being a slave is by nature abuse, a slave has no free will, and if God is willing to let all sorts of horrors continue on this planet in favor of "Free Will" the least that any sort of "Just" God would do is take a firm stance against it. But not a single verse does.
In fact, verses like these do nothing but legitimize taking a person's free will, that's why it's wrong. You say that christians fought against slavery, but that was in SPITE of scripture, not because of it. Which is why actual slave-owners were able to quote ACTUAL scriptures such as this one in defense of slavery.
> I watched about 10 minutes of the video. It was atrocious
It was atrocious because the verses it is based on are atrocious. But you take it as a personal attack because you do not wish to see the reality of the situation. I'd like to point out another story he talked about, the story of Samson. Who is celebrated for killing 3000 religious enemies by toppling a building in a suicide attack.
Can you think of any other religious suicide attack by collapsing building that ended with the deaths of 3000 people? But it wasn't the same of course, the people Samson killed were just philistines.
Just like if Al-Qaeda ever took over, the people they killed would just be americans.
So every single commandment in the bible should be ignored and we should stop quoting Bible verses as moral justification? So we shouldn't consider it God's will to accept Jesus? If the bible is not mean to teach us anything, why do we even read it if we can know what God is with just the very first verse?
> Therefore context ALWAYS matters. Context is what leads us to proper understanding. If I'm going to the grocery store, and I say to my wife, "I'm leaving," it has a whole different meaning than if we've been fighting for 3 days and I say the exact same thing: "I'm leaving."
Then it's not an objective standard, just like that phrase is not an objective phrase. The definition of objective is
" a: relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence —used chiefly in medieval philosophy
b: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observer"
So if you have to consider context to understand it, it's a SUBJECTIVE standard.
> There's a difference between God "tiptoeing," which is not true, and God accommodating the culture to reveal Himself to the people with whom He is communicating, which is true. Anyone interested in communication must accommodate his or her language and concepts to the person or group receiving the communication, otherwise I'm speaking ancient Greek to modern day Africa.
Not if you are an omni-powerful being who supposedly created the concept of different languages to begin with. And since when was God "accommodating? Accommodating when the Israelite wanted meat so he force-fed them until "it came out of their noses". Accommodating when they worshiped other Gods so he unleashed a mass plague against them? Accommodating when the Israelites were scared of the inhabitants of the promised land so he decreed that none of them would ever see it at all?
> The point is that those under authority need to recognize the authority over them, and those in authority over them should be nurturing rather abusive.
So obviously God is willing to sacrifice his own morality (since God disdains an act as immoral as slavery right?) in favor of respecting authority. It's obvious that rulers in a society would never have an ulterior motive for sponsoring a deity that favors obedience over all else. Being a slave is by nature abuse, a slave has no free will, and if God is willing to let all sorts of horrors continue on this planet in favor of "Free Will" the least that any sort of "Just" God would do is take a firm stance against it. But not a single verse does.
In fact, verses like these do nothing but legitimize taking a person's free will, that's why it's wrong. You say that christians fought against slavery, but that was in SPITE of scripture, not because of it. Which is why actual slave-owners were able to quote ACTUAL scriptures such as this one in defense of slavery.
> I watched about 10 minutes of the video. It was atrocious
It was atrocious because the verses it is based on are atrocious. But you take it as a personal attack because you do not wish to see the reality of the situation. I'd like to point out another story he talked about, the story of Samson. Who is celebrated for killing 3000 religious enemies by toppling a building in a suicide attack.
Can you think of any other religious suicide attack by collapsing building that ended with the deaths of 3000 people? But it wasn't the same of course, the people Samson killed were just philistines.
Just like if Al-Qaeda ever took over, the people they killed would just be americans.
- Joel Blazing Pants
Re: The Bible cannot be called the ultimate standard of mora
by jimwalton » Mon Mar 04, 2019 4:18 pm
> So every single commandment in the bible should be ignored and we should stop quoting Bible verses as moral justification?
Of course not. This is an obvious misconstrual to create a straw man to make what I alleged said to look ridiculous. I didn't say that the Bible didn't have any moral value in its teachings, that we can ignore every commandment, and that no morality is taught. That's absurd. What I said was that the point of the Bible is to reveal God, and to show us how to be godly. That's different than saying that "the Bible is the objective standard of morality."
> If the bible is not mean to teach us anything...
See how far off the cliff you've jumped? Since when did I suggest the Bible is not meant to teach us anything?
> Then it's not an objective standard, just like that phrase is not an objective phrase. The definition of objective is...
I agreed that the Bible is not an objective standard of morality. God is the objective standard of morality, and the Bible is one of the primary ways that God has revealed Himself to us. The Bible is an objective revelation of God—independent of individual thought or the subjectivities of readers.
> So if you have to consider context to understand it, it's a SUBJECTIVE standard.
This is a misdirection. Context is how we understand the text. All communication, whether oral, written, or body-language, is subject to interpretation. All communication.
> Not if you are an omni-powerful being who supposedly created the concept of different languages to begin with.
Then you misunderstand omnipotence. Omnipotence has nothing to do with the fact that communication has three parts: the communicator, the message, and the receiver. Those realities have nothing to do with God being omnipotent.
> And since when was God "accommodating?
God often accommodated their cultural or scientific understandings for the sake of communication. For instance, in Genesis 1.6, they believed that the sky was a solid dome. God doesn't bother to tell them it's really a combination of oxygen, nitrogen, argon, carbon dioxide, methane, etc. He doesn't bother to tell them it's a gas, not a solid. He just reveals himself as the one who establishes weather patterns and lets it go at that. God as the one who orders the cosmos is the point, not the scientific analysis of the atmosphere.
There are many other such examples.
> Accommodating when the Israelite wanted meat so he force-fed them until "it came out of their noses".
???????
First of all, I don't know what you're talking about. Second, that's not an example of accommodation, but apparently some craw in your gut.
> Accommodating when they worshiped other Gods so he unleashed a mass plague against them?
Sin is the greatest evil in the world. Sin is the cause of all the world's problem. Sin is the entity that has to be dealt with.
God unleashing a mass plague is not an accommodation, but rather a judgment for sin.
> Accommodating when the Israelites were scared of the inhabitants of the promised land so he decreed that none of them would ever see it at all?
Another distortion. They were not kept from the land because of their fear, but because of their lack of faith indicated by their rebellion against God.
> So obviously God is willing to sacrifice his own morality (since God disdains an act as immoral as slavery right?) in favor of respecting authority.
Another distortion. God didn't sacrifice his own morality in favor of respecting authority.
In the Bible God does not dictate the shape of society. He does not seek to form a “perfect” society, because no society is perfect (since it is a society of fallen humans). He rather speaks into the shape of society as it exists in those times and encourages his people to live holy lives in that society. He does not dictate an ideal kind of government (monarchy vs. democracy); he does not dictate a system of marriage (arranged vs. love) or even polygamy vs. monogamy; he does not dictate the way that a society is stratified (slaves and free); he does not dictate a certain sort of economy (market economy vs. barter). Every social structure is flawed.
Paul advocates (as does Moses) that slaves are people, not property. He is saying that slaves have full human dignity (Gal. 3.28; Col. 3.11). He is saying that slaves don't really belong to their owners, even here in ancient Rome—rather, they belonged to God, served God, and had a higher allegiance than to their owners (Col. 3.22-25).
Paul told the slaves that their slavery didn't matter because they were free in Christ, that both slaves and freemen were servants of Jesus, and therefore they shouldn't be slaves of humans (Philemon 16). He encouraged slaves to acquire their freedom whenever possible (1 Cor. 7.20-22).
In 1 Timothy 1.10, Paul advocated against slave trading, considering it to be "ungodly" and "contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God."
None of the early Christian writers called for an uprising to overthrow slavery in Rome. They didn't want the Christian faith to be confused with political rebellion and opposition to social order. Christian slaves were taught to be honorable people, even if they were mistreated (1 Peter 2.18-20; Eph. 6.5-9). The early Christian church, without staging any actual campaign against slavery, in the course of the centuries weakened it until it all but disappeared from Europe. Slavery was doomed simply because it jarred with Christian teaching—the same basic circumstance that doomed it in the modern West. Abraham Lincoln took the same approach. Though he despised slavery and talked freely about this degrading institution, his first priority was to hold the Union together rather than try to abolish slavery immediately.
> You say that christians fought against slavery, but that was in SPITE of scripture, not because of it.
Therefore, as I just showed, this conclusion is a distortion.
> It was atrocious because the verses it is based on are atrocious.
No, it was atrocious because that's not what the verses say. 1 Samuel 15 is not about genocide but instead about the conquering a major Amalekite city, killing the king, and depriving the Amalekite people of their corporate identity. It's a much longer discussion to lay out all the evidence for you, and we can have that discussion if you want.
> I'd like to point out another story he talked about, the story of Samson. Who is celebrated for killing 3000 religious enemies by toppling a building in a suicide attack.
Yes, Samson's final act is an act of judgment on godless people. Any judge worth his salt condemns evil and vindicates the good. That's what God is doing.
Of course not. This is an obvious misconstrual to create a straw man to make what I alleged said to look ridiculous. I didn't say that the Bible didn't have any moral value in its teachings, that we can ignore every commandment, and that no morality is taught. That's absurd. What I said was that the point of the Bible is to reveal God, and to show us how to be godly. That's different than saying that "the Bible is the objective standard of morality."
> If the bible is not mean to teach us anything...
See how far off the cliff you've jumped? Since when did I suggest the Bible is not meant to teach us anything?
> Then it's not an objective standard, just like that phrase is not an objective phrase. The definition of objective is...
I agreed that the Bible is not an objective standard of morality. God is the objective standard of morality, and the Bible is one of the primary ways that God has revealed Himself to us. The Bible is an objective revelation of God—independent of individual thought or the subjectivities of readers.
> So if you have to consider context to understand it, it's a SUBJECTIVE standard.
This is a misdirection. Context is how we understand the text. All communication, whether oral, written, or body-language, is subject to interpretation. All communication.
> Not if you are an omni-powerful being who supposedly created the concept of different languages to begin with.
Then you misunderstand omnipotence. Omnipotence has nothing to do with the fact that communication has three parts: the communicator, the message, and the receiver. Those realities have nothing to do with God being omnipotent.
> And since when was God "accommodating?
God often accommodated their cultural or scientific understandings for the sake of communication. For instance, in Genesis 1.6, they believed that the sky was a solid dome. God doesn't bother to tell them it's really a combination of oxygen, nitrogen, argon, carbon dioxide, methane, etc. He doesn't bother to tell them it's a gas, not a solid. He just reveals himself as the one who establishes weather patterns and lets it go at that. God as the one who orders the cosmos is the point, not the scientific analysis of the atmosphere.
There are many other such examples.
> Accommodating when the Israelite wanted meat so he force-fed them until "it came out of their noses".
???????
First of all, I don't know what you're talking about. Second, that's not an example of accommodation, but apparently some craw in your gut.
> Accommodating when they worshiped other Gods so he unleashed a mass plague against them?
Sin is the greatest evil in the world. Sin is the cause of all the world's problem. Sin is the entity that has to be dealt with.
God unleashing a mass plague is not an accommodation, but rather a judgment for sin.
> Accommodating when the Israelites were scared of the inhabitants of the promised land so he decreed that none of them would ever see it at all?
Another distortion. They were not kept from the land because of their fear, but because of their lack of faith indicated by their rebellion against God.
> So obviously God is willing to sacrifice his own morality (since God disdains an act as immoral as slavery right?) in favor of respecting authority.
Another distortion. God didn't sacrifice his own morality in favor of respecting authority.
In the Bible God does not dictate the shape of society. He does not seek to form a “perfect” society, because no society is perfect (since it is a society of fallen humans). He rather speaks into the shape of society as it exists in those times and encourages his people to live holy lives in that society. He does not dictate an ideal kind of government (monarchy vs. democracy); he does not dictate a system of marriage (arranged vs. love) or even polygamy vs. monogamy; he does not dictate the way that a society is stratified (slaves and free); he does not dictate a certain sort of economy (market economy vs. barter). Every social structure is flawed.
Paul advocates (as does Moses) that slaves are people, not property. He is saying that slaves have full human dignity (Gal. 3.28; Col. 3.11). He is saying that slaves don't really belong to their owners, even here in ancient Rome—rather, they belonged to God, served God, and had a higher allegiance than to their owners (Col. 3.22-25).
Paul told the slaves that their slavery didn't matter because they were free in Christ, that both slaves and freemen were servants of Jesus, and therefore they shouldn't be slaves of humans (Philemon 16). He encouraged slaves to acquire their freedom whenever possible (1 Cor. 7.20-22).
In 1 Timothy 1.10, Paul advocated against slave trading, considering it to be "ungodly" and "contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God."
None of the early Christian writers called for an uprising to overthrow slavery in Rome. They didn't want the Christian faith to be confused with political rebellion and opposition to social order. Christian slaves were taught to be honorable people, even if they were mistreated (1 Peter 2.18-20; Eph. 6.5-9). The early Christian church, without staging any actual campaign against slavery, in the course of the centuries weakened it until it all but disappeared from Europe. Slavery was doomed simply because it jarred with Christian teaching—the same basic circumstance that doomed it in the modern West. Abraham Lincoln took the same approach. Though he despised slavery and talked freely about this degrading institution, his first priority was to hold the Union together rather than try to abolish slavery immediately.
> You say that christians fought against slavery, but that was in SPITE of scripture, not because of it.
Therefore, as I just showed, this conclusion is a distortion.
> It was atrocious because the verses it is based on are atrocious.
No, it was atrocious because that's not what the verses say. 1 Samuel 15 is not about genocide but instead about the conquering a major Amalekite city, killing the king, and depriving the Amalekite people of their corporate identity. It's a much longer discussion to lay out all the evidence for you, and we can have that discussion if you want.
> I'd like to point out another story he talked about, the story of Samson. Who is celebrated for killing 3000 religious enemies by toppling a building in a suicide attack.
Yes, Samson's final act is an act of judgment on godless people. Any judge worth his salt condemns evil and vindicates the good. That's what God is doing.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: The Bible cannot be called the ultimate standard of mora
by Sure Breeze » Mon Mar 04, 2019 4:27 pm
> Masters often complained that slaves were lazy, especially when no one was looking. Paul encourages hard work but gives slaves a new hope and a new motive for their labor: serve your master as if he were Jesus. The same word is used as in the previous section (vv. 1-4), so we can perceive perceive the submission nuance to be similar. In this case the slaves are legally (despite the horror of the laws and the depravity of this part of their social and economic system) under the authority of their masters. Paul is encouraging them to follow Christ’s pattern and to obey and serve their masters with humility, righteousness, and honor as is befitting a follower of God, to treat their earthly masters as they would treat God were he in that same position over them, just as children were to obey their parents "in the Lord."
There you have it, the Christian justification of abolition. Wait, strike that, this is the Christian justification of slavery.
> I watched about 10 minutes of the video. It was atrocious. Such a shameless distortion of the Bible.
It was cringy. As far as actual atrocities, that's what the point of video was - the Christian defense of divine atrocities, genocide in this particular case and, as you said, "this is the kind of trash that influences people who don't know enough to ignore it".
There you have it, the Christian justification of abolition. Wait, strike that, this is the Christian justification of slavery.
> I watched about 10 minutes of the video. It was atrocious. Such a shameless distortion of the Bible.
It was cringy. As far as actual atrocities, that's what the point of video was - the Christian defense of divine atrocities, genocide in this particular case and, as you said, "this is the kind of trash that influences people who don't know enough to ignore it".
- Sure Breeze
Re: The Bible cannot be called the ultimate standard of mora
by jimwalton » Mon Mar 04, 2019 4:27 pm
> There you have it, the Christian justification of abolition. Wait, strike that, this is the Christian justification of slavery.
In the Bible God does not dictate the shape of society. He does not seek to form a “perfect” society, because no society is perfect (since it is a society of fallen humans). He rather speaks into the shape of society as it exists in those times and encourages his people to live holy lives in that society. He does not dictate an ideal kind of government (monarchy vs. democracy); he does not dictate a system of marriage (arranged vs. love) or even polygamy vs. monogamy; he does not dictate the way that a society is stratified (slaves and free); he does not dictate a certain sort of economy (market economy vs. barter). Every social structure is flawed.
Paul advocates (as does Moses) that slaves are people, not property. He is saying that slaves have full human dignity (Gal. 3.28; Col. 3.11). He is saying that slaves don't really belong to their owners, even here in ancient Rome—rather, they belonged to God, served God, and had a higher allegiance than to their owners (Col. 3.22-25). Paul told the slaves that their slavery didn't matter because they were free in Christ, that both slaves and freemen were servants of Jesus, and therefore they shouldn't be slaves of humans (Philemon 16). He encouraged slaves to acquire their freedom whenever possible (1 Cor. 7.20-22).
In 1 Timothy 1.10, Paul advocated against slave trading, considering it to be "ungodly" and "contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God."
None of the early Christian writers called for an uprising to overthrow slavery in Rome. They didn't want the Christian faith to be confused with political rebellion and opposition to social order. Christian slaves were taught to be honorable people, even if they were mistreated (1 Peter 2.18-20; Eph. 6.5-9). The early Christian church, without staging any actual campaign against slavery, in the course of the centuries weakened it until it all but disappeared from Europe. Slavery was doomed simply because it jarred with Christian teaching—the same basic circumstance that doomed it in the modern West. Abraham Lincoln took the same approach. Though he despised slavery and talked freely about this degrading institution, his first priority was to hold the Union together rather than try to abolish slavery immediately.
> It was cringy. As far as actual atrocities, that's what the point of video was - the Christian defense of divine atrocities, genocide in this particular case and, as you said, "this is the kind of trash that influences people who don't know enough to ignore it".
I'm not defending atrocities. I'm upset by the distortion of the Bible by people who don't know what they're talking about. 1 Samuel 15 is not about genocide but instead about the conquering a major Amalekite city, killing the king, and depriving the Amalekite people of their corporate identity. It's a much longer discussion to lay out all the evidence for you, and we can have that discussion if you want. What I tire of is people who read the Bible superficially and claim to be experts, and then attribute to the Bible positions it is not taking.
In the Bible God does not dictate the shape of society. He does not seek to form a “perfect” society, because no society is perfect (since it is a society of fallen humans). He rather speaks into the shape of society as it exists in those times and encourages his people to live holy lives in that society. He does not dictate an ideal kind of government (monarchy vs. democracy); he does not dictate a system of marriage (arranged vs. love) or even polygamy vs. monogamy; he does not dictate the way that a society is stratified (slaves and free); he does not dictate a certain sort of economy (market economy vs. barter). Every social structure is flawed.
Paul advocates (as does Moses) that slaves are people, not property. He is saying that slaves have full human dignity (Gal. 3.28; Col. 3.11). He is saying that slaves don't really belong to their owners, even here in ancient Rome—rather, they belonged to God, served God, and had a higher allegiance than to their owners (Col. 3.22-25). Paul told the slaves that their slavery didn't matter because they were free in Christ, that both slaves and freemen were servants of Jesus, and therefore they shouldn't be slaves of humans (Philemon 16). He encouraged slaves to acquire their freedom whenever possible (1 Cor. 7.20-22).
In 1 Timothy 1.10, Paul advocated against slave trading, considering it to be "ungodly" and "contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God."
None of the early Christian writers called for an uprising to overthrow slavery in Rome. They didn't want the Christian faith to be confused with political rebellion and opposition to social order. Christian slaves were taught to be honorable people, even if they were mistreated (1 Peter 2.18-20; Eph. 6.5-9). The early Christian church, without staging any actual campaign against slavery, in the course of the centuries weakened it until it all but disappeared from Europe. Slavery was doomed simply because it jarred with Christian teaching—the same basic circumstance that doomed it in the modern West. Abraham Lincoln took the same approach. Though he despised slavery and talked freely about this degrading institution, his first priority was to hold the Union together rather than try to abolish slavery immediately.
> It was cringy. As far as actual atrocities, that's what the point of video was - the Christian defense of divine atrocities, genocide in this particular case and, as you said, "this is the kind of trash that influences people who don't know enough to ignore it".
I'm not defending atrocities. I'm upset by the distortion of the Bible by people who don't know what they're talking about. 1 Samuel 15 is not about genocide but instead about the conquering a major Amalekite city, killing the king, and depriving the Amalekite people of their corporate identity. It's a much longer discussion to lay out all the evidence for you, and we can have that discussion if you want. What I tire of is people who read the Bible superficially and claim to be experts, and then attribute to the Bible positions it is not taking.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: The Bible cannot be called the ultimate standard of mora
by Sure Breeze » Tue Mar 05, 2019 11:20 am
> In the Bible God does not dictate the shape of society.
If you believe this then you haven't read the Bible where God repeatedly dictates the shape of society.
> He rather speaks into the shape of society as it exists in those times and encourages his people to live holy lives in that society.
So morality is subjective. Slavery was good for those ignorant tribesmen thousands of years ago and we should disregard this now because we're not them. Due to lack of recent revelations you'll accept (Mormonism and the angel's revelations to Joseph Smith), you're lost and have no direction.
I don't know why you're talking about Roman politics when the pro-slavery message predates the Roman Republic and goes back into Moses' times. God chose not to eliminate slavery to be practiced by former slaves. Wouldn't that have been a great message: as once you were enslaved, you are now free and never hold slaves again. But no, go ahead and keep slaves because the earlier lessons that slavery is bad when you were enslaved should be forgotten.
> Abraham Lincoln took the same approach. Though he despised slavery and talked freely about this degrading institution, his first priority was to hold the Union together rather than try to abolish slavery immediately.
That's because he wasn't an omnimax deity. God wouldn't be constrained.
> It's a much longer discussion to lay out all the evidence for you, and we can have that discussion if you want. What I tire of is people who read the Bible superficially and claim to be experts, and then attribute to the Bible positions it is not taking.
No it's OK. Let me know when you find an actual Biblical expert though.
If you believe this then you haven't read the Bible where God repeatedly dictates the shape of society.
> He rather speaks into the shape of society as it exists in those times and encourages his people to live holy lives in that society.
So morality is subjective. Slavery was good for those ignorant tribesmen thousands of years ago and we should disregard this now because we're not them. Due to lack of recent revelations you'll accept (Mormonism and the angel's revelations to Joseph Smith), you're lost and have no direction.
I don't know why you're talking about Roman politics when the pro-slavery message predates the Roman Republic and goes back into Moses' times. God chose not to eliminate slavery to be practiced by former slaves. Wouldn't that have been a great message: as once you were enslaved, you are now free and never hold slaves again. But no, go ahead and keep slaves because the earlier lessons that slavery is bad when you were enslaved should be forgotten.
> Abraham Lincoln took the same approach. Though he despised slavery and talked freely about this degrading institution, his first priority was to hold the Union together rather than try to abolish slavery immediately.
That's because he wasn't an omnimax deity. God wouldn't be constrained.
> It's a much longer discussion to lay out all the evidence for you, and we can have that discussion if you want. What I tire of is people who read the Bible superficially and claim to be experts, and then attribute to the Bible positions it is not taking.
No it's OK. Let me know when you find an actual Biblical expert though.
- Sure Breeze
Re: The Bible cannot be called the ultimate standard of mora
by Joel Blazing Pants » Tue Mar 05, 2019 12:23 pm
> Of course not.....
You said, and I quote: "The Bible isn't meant to be a moral guide. The Bible is meant to reveal God, not to teach us right from wrong. It's given to teach us what God is really like in contrast to all the false ideas that are so ubiquitous."
So which is it? A guide to life, or a guide to God himself? Because if it's teaching us to be "godly" and God is objectively moral as you say, then by the nature that you provided, a guide to being godly has to be a moral guide.
> Context......
That makes it, by definition subjective. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subjective
Here's an example of subjective vs objective. Your weight is subjective because depending on where you are, your weight might be less or more depending on gravity. Mass, however, is not, Mass is objective because no matter where you are in the universe, your mass will be the same. There is no "context" where your mass will be different, but there is a "context" where you may weigh less or more due to gravity.
> Then you misunderstand omnipotence.....
That's only the case because supposedly God made it that way. Omnipotence means that reality can be whatever God wants it to be, if there are limits on his power, then he is no longer omnipotent, even if that limits would be what we consider reality, because those limits would not apply to a being outside of reality.
God is, by definition, unrealistic, and applying reality to Him means that he is no longer all-powerful.
> He doesn't bother to tell them it's a gas, not a solid.
Whaaaaatttt? The deity that this ancient society claimed to follow only expressed the knowledge that said society had? Like every other ancient society that worshiped "false" deities? But this deity is the real one, all the other ones are made up, also like every other society believed.
> First of all, I don't know what you're talking about.....
You don't know what I'm talking about because you don't really know the bible.
Numbers 11:20, and if you claim that's "poetic", Numbers 11:33 showed that yes, God wanted them to suffer and die. So much for accommodation.
> Sin is the greatest evil in the world. Sin is the cause of all the world's problem. Sin is the entity that has to be dealt with.
Sin that, even if God didn't create, being an all-knowing deity forsaw entering the world and did nothing to stop. Because life without torturing someone would be boring. And if you believe that sin is key to free will, does that mean that there is no free-will in heaven? Since heaven is obviously without sin. The good place is where we lose the ability to think for ourselves? Doesn't seem too good to me.
> God unleashing a mass plague is not an accommodation, but rather a judgment for sin.
In the same way cutting off someone's hand for stealing an apple is just a "judgement for sin".
> They were not kept from the land because of their fear, but because of their lack of faith indicated by their rebellion against God.
But the accommodating God was fine letting them keep their opinions on child rape and slavery, but when it comes to genociding people who might fight back, that's when God decides his word is law of course.
> They were not kept from the land because of their fear, but because of their lack of faith indicated by their rebellion against God.
But slavery is immoral (you believe that right?) and thus an objectively moral God must be sacrificing his morality to allow such an immoral practice to continue. This is obviously fine when it comes to owning people as property, but God can not stand when two men have consensual sex with each other. That's the real issue and God made sure to take a firm stance on that, even though homosexuality was really prevalent, especially in the Roman times. So much for accommodating cultures.
http://katehon.com/article/truth-about-homosexuality-roman-empire
> Paul advocates (as does Moses) that slaves are people, not property.
But not so far as to say that keeping slaves is wrong, that's TOOO much. Almost like they needed propaganda to keep the slaves feeling good and obedient.
> He encouraged slaves to acquire their freedom whenever possible (1 Cor. 7.20-22).
That's absolutely the opposite of what he's saying. 75% of those two verses are telling people to STAY in their situation, even for slaves, he's not saying for slaves to be free whenever "possible" he's telling slaves not to refuse a chance at freedom if it presents itself. Meaning that slaves shouldn't rebel, but rather be freed if their master decides that they should be free.
> 1 Timothy 1.10, Paul advocated against slave trading, considering it to be "ungodly" and
That was not for all slaves, that was for slave traders of the JEWISH people, who were not to be slaves according to the bible, because they are God's favorites. Which is why biblehub crossreferences it to a verse about kidnapping fellow Israelites.
https://biblehub.com/1_timothy/1-10.htm
> They didn't want the Christian faith to be confused with political rebellion and opposition to social order.
This is obvious that this is the only case where values in the bible line up neatly with propaganda of their current society. With a patriarchal society, it's just a coincidence that the most famous "virtuous" women in the bible are for loyalty, having a "pleasing body" and being a virgin. Or how it constantly hammers in that obedience is the most righteous action one can have.
> Abraham Lincoln took the same approach. Though he despised slavery and talked freely about this degrading institution,
You're applying human decisions to an omnipotent being, it's almost like it's possible that you can only apply human decisions because this omni-potent being was created by humans and thus can only act in ways that humans can percieve. That's insane though.
> No, it was atrocious because that's not what the verses say. 1 Samuel 15 is not about genocide but instead about the conquering a major Amalekite city, killing the king,
This is the genocide of the midianites, the people who took Moses in when he was wandering the desert, and I thought my family was ungrateful.
Numbers 31 if you're curious.
> Yes, Samson's final act is an act of judgment on godless people. Any judge worth his salt condemns evil and vindicates the good. That's what God is doing.
Yes, Bin Laden's crowning act was an act of judgment on godless people. Any judge worth his salt condemns evil and vindicates the good. That's what Allah is doing.
That's how you sound. Most Christians at least try to backstop when they realize that the bible literally celebrates terrorism in a way that mirrors modern times in an almost uncanny way. But you're embracing it.
That's the most astounding thing you've said so far, you should reconsider your values.
You said, and I quote: "The Bible isn't meant to be a moral guide. The Bible is meant to reveal God, not to teach us right from wrong. It's given to teach us what God is really like in contrast to all the false ideas that are so ubiquitous."
So which is it? A guide to life, or a guide to God himself? Because if it's teaching us to be "godly" and God is objectively moral as you say, then by the nature that you provided, a guide to being godly has to be a moral guide.
> Context......
That makes it, by definition subjective. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subjective
Here's an example of subjective vs objective. Your weight is subjective because depending on where you are, your weight might be less or more depending on gravity. Mass, however, is not, Mass is objective because no matter where you are in the universe, your mass will be the same. There is no "context" where your mass will be different, but there is a "context" where you may weigh less or more due to gravity.
> Then you misunderstand omnipotence.....
That's only the case because supposedly God made it that way. Omnipotence means that reality can be whatever God wants it to be, if there are limits on his power, then he is no longer omnipotent, even if that limits would be what we consider reality, because those limits would not apply to a being outside of reality.
God is, by definition, unrealistic, and applying reality to Him means that he is no longer all-powerful.
> He doesn't bother to tell them it's a gas, not a solid.
Whaaaaatttt? The deity that this ancient society claimed to follow only expressed the knowledge that said society had? Like every other ancient society that worshiped "false" deities? But this deity is the real one, all the other ones are made up, also like every other society believed.
> First of all, I don't know what you're talking about.....
You don't know what I'm talking about because you don't really know the bible.
Numbers 11:20, and if you claim that's "poetic", Numbers 11:33 showed that yes, God wanted them to suffer and die. So much for accommodation.
> Sin is the greatest evil in the world. Sin is the cause of all the world's problem. Sin is the entity that has to be dealt with.
Sin that, even if God didn't create, being an all-knowing deity forsaw entering the world and did nothing to stop. Because life without torturing someone would be boring. And if you believe that sin is key to free will, does that mean that there is no free-will in heaven? Since heaven is obviously without sin. The good place is where we lose the ability to think for ourselves? Doesn't seem too good to me.
> God unleashing a mass plague is not an accommodation, but rather a judgment for sin.
In the same way cutting off someone's hand for stealing an apple is just a "judgement for sin".
> They were not kept from the land because of their fear, but because of their lack of faith indicated by their rebellion against God.
But the accommodating God was fine letting them keep their opinions on child rape and slavery, but when it comes to genociding people who might fight back, that's when God decides his word is law of course.
> They were not kept from the land because of their fear, but because of their lack of faith indicated by their rebellion against God.
But slavery is immoral (you believe that right?) and thus an objectively moral God must be sacrificing his morality to allow such an immoral practice to continue. This is obviously fine when it comes to owning people as property, but God can not stand when two men have consensual sex with each other. That's the real issue and God made sure to take a firm stance on that, even though homosexuality was really prevalent, especially in the Roman times. So much for accommodating cultures.
http://katehon.com/article/truth-about-homosexuality-roman-empire
> Paul advocates (as does Moses) that slaves are people, not property.
But not so far as to say that keeping slaves is wrong, that's TOOO much. Almost like they needed propaganda to keep the slaves feeling good and obedient.
> He encouraged slaves to acquire their freedom whenever possible (1 Cor. 7.20-22).
That's absolutely the opposite of what he's saying. 75% of those two verses are telling people to STAY in their situation, even for slaves, he's not saying for slaves to be free whenever "possible" he's telling slaves not to refuse a chance at freedom if it presents itself. Meaning that slaves shouldn't rebel, but rather be freed if their master decides that they should be free.
> 1 Timothy 1.10, Paul advocated against slave trading, considering it to be "ungodly" and
That was not for all slaves, that was for slave traders of the JEWISH people, who were not to be slaves according to the bible, because they are God's favorites. Which is why biblehub crossreferences it to a verse about kidnapping fellow Israelites.
https://biblehub.com/1_timothy/1-10.htm
> They didn't want the Christian faith to be confused with political rebellion and opposition to social order.
This is obvious that this is the only case where values in the bible line up neatly with propaganda of their current society. With a patriarchal society, it's just a coincidence that the most famous "virtuous" women in the bible are for loyalty, having a "pleasing body" and being a virgin. Or how it constantly hammers in that obedience is the most righteous action one can have.
> Abraham Lincoln took the same approach. Though he despised slavery and talked freely about this degrading institution,
You're applying human decisions to an omnipotent being, it's almost like it's possible that you can only apply human decisions because this omni-potent being was created by humans and thus can only act in ways that humans can percieve. That's insane though.
> No, it was atrocious because that's not what the verses say. 1 Samuel 15 is not about genocide but instead about the conquering a major Amalekite city, killing the king,
This is the genocide of the midianites, the people who took Moses in when he was wandering the desert, and I thought my family was ungrateful.
Numbers 31 if you're curious.
> Yes, Samson's final act is an act of judgment on godless people. Any judge worth his salt condemns evil and vindicates the good. That's what God is doing.
Yes, Bin Laden's crowning act was an act of judgment on godless people. Any judge worth his salt condemns evil and vindicates the good. That's what Allah is doing.
That's how you sound. Most Christians at least try to backstop when they realize that the bible literally celebrates terrorism in a way that mirrors modern times in an almost uncanny way. But you're embracing it.
That's the most astounding thing you've said so far, you should reconsider your values.
- Joel Blazing Pants
21 posts
• Page 1 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest