What is the greatest moral issue in modern society?

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,172
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,592.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I


You're still trying to suggest that because they have one prohibition against slavery you can quote from the OT that somehow that excuses the slavery that the Israelites were explicitly told was moral and approved in the same grouping of books. Except it really doesn't, it suggests that the Israelites were hypocrites, same as anyone when they try to prop up their way of life and worldview as being divinely inspired or protected, justifying atrocities against humanity like slavery, genocide and general prejudice.

The "step" you quote from ancient Israel is contradicted by them saying you can own a Gentile as property, period and as long as you don't kill them by beating them, you can discipline them however you want, seemingly, with a few restrictions

The problem remains that you somehow think that Christianity is unique in that notion and that is something you'd have to actually substantiate instead of generalizing every non Abrahamic faith. I don't claim to be an expert, but methinks there's a strong tinge of bias in trying to suggest Christianity is the direct cause in terms of people respecting others rather than it merely having more hegemonic power in history and thus having the advantage in influencing history and society more than other groups that were competing in some sense. It's why Islam is dominant in the Middle East, why Buddhism is dominant in Southeast Asia, etc. It doesn't mean anything in terms of the truth of the claims if they are held commonly by people in a region where those claims are commonplace

I call malarkey on that, full equality is the goal in America, the problem is how people have let their greed or envy or other flaws in character (not sins, that's your word, I have no reason to use it) blind them in terms of seeking compassion for others. To suggest even remotely that only Christians want equality ends up with you calling No True Scotsman on KKK members that defended slavery as justified by cherry picking the bible, the same way you ignore anything that would remotely suggest slavery was considered moral or approved of in the bible (Exodus 21 comes immediately to mind, among others, including some from the NT)
People do wrong. Christ said only "few" would enter heaven.
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,172
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,592.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I


You're still trying to suggest that because they have one prohibition against slavery you can quote from the OT that somehow that excuses the slavery that the Israelites were explicitly told was moral and approved in the same grouping of books. Except it really doesn't, it suggests that the Israelites were hypocrites, same as anyone when they try to prop up their way of life and worldview as being divinely inspired or protected, justifying atrocities against humanity like slavery, genocide and general prejudice.

The "step" you quote from ancient Israel is contradicted by them saying you can own a Gentile as property, period and as long as you don't kill them by beating them, you can discipline them however you want, seemingly, with a few restrictions

The problem remains that you somehow think that Christianity is unique in that notion and that is something you'd have to actually substantiate instead of generalizing every non Abrahamic faith. I don't claim to be an expert, but methinks there's a strong tinge of bias in trying to suggest Christianity is the direct cause in terms of people respecting others rather than it merely having more hegemonic power in history and thus having the advantage in influencing history and society more than other groups that were competing in some sense. It's why Islam is dominant in the Middle East, why Buddhism is dominant in Southeast Asia, etc. It doesn't mean anything in terms of the truth of the claims if they are held commonly by people in a region where those claims are commonplace

I call malarkey on that, full equality is the goal in America, the problem is how people have let their greed or envy or other flaws in character (not sins, that's your word, I have no reason to use it) blind them in terms of seeking compassion for others. To suggest even remotely that only Christians want equality ends up with you calling No True Scotsman on KKK members that defended slavery as justified by cherry picking the bible, the same way you ignore anything that would remotely suggest slavery was considered moral or approved of in the bible (Exodus 21 comes immediately to mind, among others, including some from the NT)


Note you say cherry picking... Heh heh. Look what you wrote above-- picked passages like exodus 21, that is only a tiny part regarding slavery, and represented it as characterizing!

Look and see:
justifying atrocities against humanity like slavery

There's literally a section in Deuteronomy and Exodus about how to properly treat your slaves:

In response I point out this passage is only a step in a progression.

Then, yourself having cherry picked, you projected what you've done onto others.....

....
 
Upvote 0

Unofficial Reverand Alex

Pray in silence...God speaks softly
Supporter
Dec 22, 2017
2,355
2,915
The Mystical Lands of Rural Indiana
Visit site
✟526,763.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
It is a virtue to reject as revelation that which hasn't been demonstrated to be such.
That is a good point; there are a vast variety of religions that all claim to have the revealed truth. Prudence in determining what is the best thing to believe is necessary for everyone, even though we will inevitably disagree.
 
Upvote 0

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
36
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
People do wrong. Christ said only "few" would enter heaven.

you try to accuse cherry picking? Heh heh. Look what you wrote above--cherry picked passage that is only a tiny part regarding slavery, and represented it as conclusive!

Look and see:

I don't care about heaven, that's not germane to the moral issue, that's an issue of soteriology and such, which is not remotely verifiable or falsifiable in principle




In response I point out this passage is only a being step.

Then, yourself having cheery picked, you projected it into others.....
Nice try, but I didn't claim that was the entirety in regards to slavery in the Bible, only that it's a pretty explicit approval of slavery in some sense.

Matt Dillahunty, for reference, has looked at every passage that, as someone who studied theology extensively in his 20s~, would be aware of in the bible regarding slavery to a great degree and understand the passages better than one who just assumes they're all God-breathed and thus cannot be criticized on any moral basis, but just rationalized, seemingly, to be correct.

There are certainly points you bring up from the bible that would be a "counter" of sorts, but that only seems to suggest a contradictory aspect in the Bible both suggesting abolitionism and then just saying, "Oh slavery's nothing, it'll just go away one day" or even the variant where it doesn't matter that you're enslaved, because you're free in Jesus or such, which is ignoring the present suffering slavery inflicts upon people.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: Halbhh
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,981
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟960,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
That is a good point; there are a vast variety of religions that all claim to have the revealed truth. Prudence in determining what is the best thing to believe is necessary for everyone, even though we will inevitably disagree.

If people already have the 'unvarnished' truth, why revelation?
 
Upvote 0

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
36
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
Rejecting God's word is a "virtue"?
Assuming it's God's word in any sense is not intellectually virtuous, because you'd have to demonstrate it or be honest enough to admit it's a belief, not something founded in fact that is unambiguous
 
Upvote 0

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
36
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
If people already have the 'unvarnished' truth, why revelation?
You kind of just answered the question in favor of Deism or the like, which ironically for me, was what sent me down the path of apostasy
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,172
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,592.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
...
Nice try, but I didn't claim that was the entirety in regards to slavery in the Bible, only that it's a pretty explicit approval of slavery in some sense.

Matt Dillahunty, for reference, has looked at every passage that, as someone who studied theology extensively in his 20s~, would be aware of in the bible regarding slavery to a great degree and understand the passages better than one who just assumes they're all God-breathed and thus cannot be criticized on any moral basis, but just rationalized, seemingly, to be correct.

There are certainly points you bring up from the bible that would be a "counter" of sorts, but that only seems to suggest a contradictory aspect in the Bible both suggesting abolitionism and then just saying, "Oh slavery's nothing, it'll just go away one day" or even the variant where it doesn't matter that you're enslaved, because you're free in Jesus or such, which is ignoring the present suffering slavery inflicts upon people.

Just because sometimes people have a word learned only by usage somewhere, and can have an odd idea of what it means, as a courtesy, I'll give the precise meaning of "progression", the way I use it above:

Progression -- the process of developing or moving gradually towards a more advanced state.
--Oxford Languages

So, of course when I say something is a "step" (I'll quote that very post you responded to below)
, and part a "progression", and of course, by definition, I'm not cherry picking... heh heh

Step by step. A incremental progression, over time.

Why? Because Israel had over and over failed to follow the big step laws.

They needed smaller steps. Small changes. One regulation step at a time. That's why so many small regulations came in the O.T.

Anti-Christian propaganda tries to paint the first step as the final law.

But if we simply read, we find more steps, and often dramatic.

For instance:

15 If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. 16 Let them live among you wherever they like and in whatever town they choose. Do not oppress them.
Deuteronomy 23 NIV


So....who's cherry picking then?

It seems your preferred (cherry picked?? heh heh) scholar didn't read the entirety of all the Old Testament carefully enough to learn for instance that God was progressively, in a progression, step by step, restricting and reducing slavery, in incremental steps, to finally begin to deal the fatal blows to slavery when Christ came (or that is for those that believe in Him enough to truly listen to Him and do as He says, which He said would be "few" in the very next 2 verses after Matthew 7:12)


 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
36
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
Just because sometimes people have a word learned only by usage somewhere, and can have an odd idea of what it means, as a courtesy, I'll give the precise meaning of "progression", the way I use it above:

Progression -- the process of developing or moving gradually towards a more advanced state.
--Oxford Languages

So, of course when I say something is a "step" (I'll quote that very post you responded to below)
, and part a "progression", and of course, by definition, I'm not cherry picking... heh heh

There isn't a precise usage of progression that isn't potentially going to change by context or usage overall, because dictionaries describe usage, they don't prescribe it as unchanging fact

The fact that you ignore the parts of the bible where slavery is approved is cherry picking, because you're suggesting that isn't germane to the discussion, when it in fact is that they had different rules for Hebrews and Gentiles in regards to slavery, even if Hebrew slavery could be argued as indentured servitude. But that really just says that Gentiles were the only ones enslaved effectively, which isn't really supporting morality of the Jews




So....who's cherry picking then?

It seems your preferred (cherry picked?? heh heh) scholar didn't read the entirety of all the Old Testament carefully enough to learn for instance that God was progressively, in a progression, step by step, restricting and reducing slavery, in incremental steps, to finally begin to deal the fatal blows to slavery when Christ came (or that is for those that believe in Him enough to truly listen to Him and do as He says, which He said would be "few" in the very next 2 verses after Matthew 7:12)

Except slavery still existed in Jesus' time and it existed LONG after he died and resurrected (allegedly), so his "prediction" didn't really come true, you're selectively interpreting evidence to fit a preconception that you think slavery is somehow gone now, when it's not, even today, albeit chattel slavery is fairly rare to my knowledge, the most common form nowadays sex slavery, very unpleasant
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,172
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,592.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
There isn't a precise usage of progression that isn't potentially going to change by context or usage overall, because dictionaries describe usage, they don't prescribe it as unchanging fact

The fact that you ignore the parts of the bible where slavery is approved is cherry picking, because you're suggesting that isn't germane to the discussion, when it in fact is that they had different rules for Hebrews and Gentiles in regards to slavery, even if Hebrew slavery could be argued as indentured servitude. But that really just says that Gentiles were the only ones enslaved effectively, which isn't really supporting morality of the Jews






Except slavery still existed in Jesus' time and it existed LONG after he died and resurrected (allegedly), so his "prediction" didn't really come true, you're selectively interpreting evidence to fit a preconception that you think slavery is somehow gone now, when it's not, even today, albeit chattel slavery is fairly rare to my knowledge, the most common form nowadays sex slavery, very unpleasant

As long as you make baseless accusations, such as asserting I ignore the passages which I'm actually taking about --- every passage, all of them, on slavery, none left out...

I've now zero confidence you actually are discussing.
 
Upvote 0

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
36
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
As long as you make baseless accusations, such as asserting I ignore the passages which I'm actually taking about --- every passage, all of them, on slavery, none left out...

I've now zero confidence you actually are discussing.
So how do you remotely reconcile rules about slavery both in the OT and NT (the latter being more general advice to obey your masters rather than specifics like the OT saying that you can beat your slaves as long as they don't die) with the examples you can find that would suggest slavery was just something that was going to go away (which btw, it hasn't)?
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,981
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟960,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Assuming it's God's word in any sense is not intellectually virtuous, because you'd have to demonstrate it or be honest enough to admit it's a belief, not something founded in fact that is unambiguous

So crime isn't unambiguously bad?

God said "don't steal" because...we were stealing. If we thought stealing was actually (unambiguously) wrong why would we continue to do it? God had to reveal to us (to the dismay of the whole human race to this very day), that stealing was wrong.
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,981
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟960,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
You kind of just answered the question in favor of Deism or the like, which ironically for me, was what sent me down the path of apostasy

There are those caveats.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
36
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
So crime isn't unambiguously bad?

God said "don't steal" because...we were stealing. If we thought stealing was actually (unambiguously) wrong why would we continue to do it? God had to reveal to us (to the dismay of the whole human race to this very day), that stealing was wrong.
We have an agreed upon standard about crime in terms of its meaning, the disagreement is in either the punishment or the degree of the acts that are disapproved of.

No, we don't need revelation that stealing is wrong (barring extenuating circumstances), we only need to consider based on the golden rule and principle of reciprocity thereof, that it would be better that we don't inflict that upon others, because we wouldn't want it inflicted on us. Basic empathy dictates morality far better, along with considering consequences and benefits to society at large as well as individual edification. If all you have is an authority, then demonstrating the incompetence of the authority or contradictions would make your moral system crumble
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,172
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,592.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So how do you remotely reconcile rules about slavery both in the OT and NT...

Question: How do the OT and NT laws (rules) and related passages about slavery that are not rules all fit together?

Answer: God destroys evil, including slavery also as we see in the OT, in a progression of incremental steps, step by step. A incremental progression, over time.

Why not all at once?

Answer: Because Israel (the nation chosen to lift up) had over and over failed to obey the big step laws such as the 10 commandments. They broke these big step laws over and over and over and over. Ask if you'd like chapters to read to see that; they are numerous.

They showed they needed smaller steps. That's why so many small regulations came in the O.T.

Anti-Christian propaganda tries to paint the first step or 2 (Exodus 21 for instance) as if they are the final laws. They are not at all final, but steps meant to push change, incrementally one step at a time, on reluctant people.

If we simply read in the O.T., we find more steps, and often dramatic.

For instance (not the only, but one along the way) --

15 If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. 16 Let them live among you wherever they like and in whatever town they choose. Do not oppress them.
Deuteronomy 23 NIV

This is somewhat like the Underground Railroad in the U.S. in the 1850s, before the main form of slavery was outlawed.

Except, at that time the U.S. Underground Railroad was illegal! --
"It is important to realize that while conductors and fugitive slaves were participating on the Underground Railroad, all of their actions were illegal. The federal government had passed Fugitive Slave Acts as early as 1793 that allowed slave catchers to come north and force runaways back into slavery."
History | National Underground Railroad Freedom Center


But in Israel about 3300 years earlier, instead of illegal, this was commanded as Law from God!

We see God undercut slavery again. And more is available, just ask, and we can look at more passages.

Until...finally, with Christ, we get the revolutionary "In everything" form of:

Matthew 7:12 In everything, then, do to others as you would have them do to you. For this is the essence of the Law and the Prophets.

"In everything..."

Which led inevitably to slaves being freed, and even more -- becoming total equals(!) -- as in Philemon.
Philemon 1 NIV

So, big steps that went too far at certain times and places, such as when slavery was universal in all nations -- such big steps as outright outlawing did not work.

And not today either, in effect, since today new forms of slavery have simply taken place of the old forms. Such as girls and women trafficked into effective slavery as sex workers or inappropriate contentography workers.

But, God has created real change in those that truly believe, through Christ, so that not only are the captives freed, but more -- they are now to be fully equal in every way, not just 1 way, to any of us. Fully as important to us as a family member.
 
Upvote 0

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
36
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
Why not all at once?

Answer: Because Israel (the nation chosen to lift up) had over and over failed to obey the big step laws such as the 10 commandments. They broke these big step laws over and over and over and over.

They showed they needed smaller steps. That's why so many small regulations came in the O.T.

Anti-Christian propaganda tries to paint the first step or 2 as the final laws.

They are not, not even in the O.T.

Pretty sure I didn't ask all at once, it's more a notion of a better solution in the first place that didn't involve treating your chosen people like they cannot learn, because that sells them short if they're in your image

I also never claimed the OT was the final law, but it's cherry picking and goalpost shifting to suggest that you can just interpret away your following all the laws rather than just the ones you think are more important based on the new interpretation of something that most Jews didn't agree with at all (Jesus as Messiah and all that)


You continue in a thought process that, I'm not joking, is copy and pasting parts of previous posts, as if you think I won't notice or I needed it to be repeated, like I'm a child

The idea that God just has to slowly work this out suggests it's far more impotent in accomplishing things than just, I don't know, outlawing slavery in the Decalogue

You realize Paul has at least 2 verses that suggest slavery is just somehting to be accepted because this life is temporary, right?

Ephesians 6:5-9 and [URL='http://biblia.com/books/esv/Col3.22']Colossians 3:22. All it does is suggest that you should treat your slaves well because God is your master ultimately, not claiming that slavery is abominable (you know, that word used so often for another thing I won't mention, for fear of being silenced because it's "promotion"?)[/URL]

And not today either, in effect, since today new forms of slavery have simply taken place of the old forms. Such as girls and women trafficked into effective slavery as sex workers or inappropriate contentography workers.

I never said slavery was gone, that was your insinuation, which you backpedaled from and then try to say that even though slavery is still around, you're totally "free" in being a "slave" to God or such nonsense. Or you posit tha5t somehow all people are equal in spite of their circumstances not all being equal, it's only in the afterlife as long as they submit to God, in which case you really haven't solved anything, you've just delayed that gratification under a promise you can't substantiate at all

So instead of being honest that the bible only deflects and suggests slavery is some temporary condition, you try to make apologetics for it as somehow being revolutionary rather than just being different enough that it inspired mindsets that are barely justified in the bible itself if you take it in its entirety rather than selectively interpreting in light of liberation theology.

The question is simple: is slavery considered moral in the bible? If you try to suggest it's amoral, then you're being dishonest, because it isn't suggesting it is neutral when there are condemnations of it, but it also isn't outright condemning it when it accepts it as just something that cannot be changed because God apparently has to take steps instead of trying to be revolutionary and treat the chosen people like they're mentally disabled and can't learn properly rather than considering that maybe the methodology is the problem in getting the point across with cryptic revelation and appeals dogmatic authority rather than actually stating outright, "No, you were slaves, thus you should NOT own slaves, period,"
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,172
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,592.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Pretty sure I didn't ask all at once, it's more a notion of a better solution in the first place that didn't involve treating your chosen people like they cannot learn, because that sells them short if they're in your image

I also never claimed the OT was the final law, but it's cherry picking and goalpost shifting to suggest that you can just interpret away your following all the laws rather than just the ones you think are more important based on the new interpretation of something that most Jews didn't agree with at all (Jesus as Messiah and all that)


You continue in a thought process that, I'm not joking, is copy and pasting parts of previous posts, as if you think I won't notice or I needed it to be repeated, like I'm a child

The idea that God just has to slowly work this out suggests it's far more impotent in accomplishing things than just, I don't know, outlawing slavery in the Decalogue

You realize Paul has at least 2 verses that suggest slavery is just somehting to be accepted because this life is temporary, right?

Ephesians 6:5-9 and Colossians 3:22. All it does is suggest that you should treat your slaves well because God is your master ultimately, not claiming that slavery is abominable (you know, that word used so often for another thing I won't mention, for fear of being silenced because it's "promotion"?)



I never said slavery was gone, that was your insinuation, which you backpedaled from and then try to say that even though slavery is still around, you're totally "free" in being a "slave" to God or such nonsense. Or you posit tha5t somehow all people are equal in spite of their circumstances not all being equal, it's only in the afterlife as long as they submit to God, in which case you really haven't solved anything, you've just delayed that gratification under a promise you can't substantiate at all

So instead of being honest that the bible only deflects and suggests slavery is some temporary condition, you try to make apologetics for it as somehow being revolutionary rather than just being different enough that it inspired mindsets that are barely justified in the bible itself if you take it in its entirety rather than selectively interpreting in light of liberation theology.

The question is simple: is slavery considered moral in the bible? If you try to suggest it's amoral, then you're being dishonest, because it isn't suggesting it is neutral when there are condemnations of it, but it also isn't outright condemning it when it accepts it as just something that cannot be changed because God apparently has to take steps instead of trying to be revolutionary and treat the chosen people like they're mentally disabled and can't learn properly rather than considering that maybe the methodology is the problem in getting the point across with cryptic revelation and appeals dogmatic authority rather than actually stating outright, "No, you were slaves, thus you should NOT own slaves, period,"

If I could offer a wonderful thing (you may see today or another day how much so), it's so much better not to make a habit of trying to find fault in others. It's so self-defeating to do that. Each time you accuse others of whatever wrongs as you've been doing, saying other people are 'cherry picking', 'copy and paste', etc., -- that's the thing that's costing you so much (even if it's not clear yet). To leave that behind would be like dumping a load of rocks you are carrying around all the time. You'd not only gain from making less false accusations (or worse even, saying others are doing something you turn out to be the one actually doing more), but there's an even stronger gain -- you just get out of a circular dead-end track that kind of searching for fault causes to begin with. It's a 'mental trap', and we should all hope to avoid it.

So, instead of trying to find a way to make a negative characterization, try instead to really understand what people are saying.

Also, if you spend less time attacking others or their posts, then they will possibly begin to read more of yours, instead of just ignoring what you write. Of course, it could help to begin by apologizing to them for past derogatory characterizations.
 
Upvote 0