Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Not really. I just know enough about Antiquity to think that the notion of social justice comes from the Jews, not the Greeks.
The Jews that didn't try to abolish slavery were about social justice? The Jews that apparently were focused more on their own tribalistic superiority with their deity cared about justice for society at large? Call me skeptical
Pointing to some good aspects doesn't take away from the abhorrent practices one can also find in the same book, particularly slavery, to say nothing of notions regarding the punishment of particular kinds of rape (both victim and rapist killed if it was in the city versus only the rapist if it was in the field, Deuteronomy)Economic justice and care for the marginalized (particularly the poor and the foreigner) is an extremely biblical concept. Not so much a Greek one. Perhaps you should take off your proverbial blinders and actually look at what's going on in the Bible?
Pointing to some good aspects doesn't take away from the abhorrent practices one can also find in the same book, particularly slavery, to say nothing of notions regarding the punishment of particular kinds of rape (both victim and rapist killed if it was in the city versus only the rapist if it was in the field, Deuteronomy)
I can say that Jesus, if we're using a similar nature of comparison, said some good things, it doesn't lessen his lines that are morally bankrupt
My criticism is hardly anachronistic when we're addressing something that, by their perspective, was not a moral evil in itself, but just something they had to modify according to what their deity commanded. They weren't being moral, they were obedient to standards that we'd find abhorrent today and can't really defend except as a lesser form of things we'd universally condemn otherwise
I'm hardly naive to the nuances between them, you seem to keep trying to soften the blow of a tribal people that, at best, were slightly less barbaric than others, but also appeared perfectly fine to just cotton to practices instead of actually standing against them
No, it's completely anachronistic to judge past cultures solely by the standard of what we find acceptable today. That is kind of the definition of being anachronistic.
I mean, yeah. A lot of the Old Testament is about them continually adopting the practices of their screwed up neighbors. Nobody is saying that a group of people who kept on wanting to turn away and sacrifice their children to Moloch are morally perfect.
It's equally irrational to claim that we can just hand wave the notions that there is anything objectionable by finding a silver lining in things that would reasonably be considered as such, the historian's fallacy isn't necessarily pertinent in terms of considering that any group should not be judged purely in its own context if it's still relevant today rather than if it is long past. But we also don't get to exercise pure relativism and just claim the Jews were doing what they thought was right and not criticize aspects that are supposedly inspired by God
Yet they're apparently not morally bankrupt either in how often they seem to screw up and keep getting conveniently "forgiven" by their deity that had to teach them a lesson constantly by removing its protection from them and then bringing it back once they became obedient (temporarily)
Who's exercising pure relativism? You presumably should be, unless you can cite an objective standard to measure things by, but I'm just focusing on historical context.
Yeah... that's kind of what I was getting at. Not really sure why you're repeating it again.
Objective standard in which sense? I'm not saying there's some standard independent of us, there's objectivity in seeking to be as unbiased as possible and consider a reasonable standard rather than exercising sentimentality that clouds your ability to judge something objectively independent of preferential biases towards something being "good"
If you're just going to demand absolute certainty, then that's far more unrealistic than admitting that the best we can do is reasonable agreement subject to change without it being absolutely relative either. There are objective standards in the sense that we can be objective about them, not that they are metaphysically objective in the epistemological sense, because these aren't physical realities, they're conceptual descriptions we use to understand the world, they don't exist unto themselvesYeah... that's what I thought. More of this "the Bible is objectively bad even though there are no objective standards whatsoever" nonsense. Better luck next time.
could be his church elder, this guy is talking to...."don't worry, cheer up, God sees us as equals and you will be free once you die; (if) you are truly Christian. But until then, you belong to me." But God is okay with me owning you while you are still breathing."
"morally bancrupt". ... says the Buddhist.I can say that Jesus, if we're using a similar nature of comparison, said some good things, it doesn't lessen Jesus's lines that are morally bankrupt
"morally bancrupt". ... says the buddhist.
I had to think for a while...
I hope you won't agree with these sorts of punishment:
Christian Children Forced to Observe Buddhism - Open Doors USA
Buddhist Bhutan Proposes 'Anti-Conversion' Law - Open Doors USA
Sri Lankan Orphanage Targeted by Buddhist Locals - Open Doors USA
I want to encourage you... write them a letter, tell them that you are of their faith demanding that this should stop!
Thomas
If you're just going to demand absolute certainty, then that's far more unrealistic than admitting that the best we can do is reasonable agreement subject to change without it being absolutely relative either. There are objective standards in the sense that we can be objective about them, not that they are metaphysically objective in the epistemological sense, because these aren't physical realities, they're conceptual descriptions we use to understand the world, they don't exist unto themselves
no. I didn't say this represented all Buddhism. I said this happened.you're utilizing the same cherry picking criticism one could do with horrible Christians, as if they represent all Christians.
I stay with my opinion about your point concerning the inequality of women.
In my opinion, I did address all your slavery passages + your arguments... in explaining that slavery is better than killing captives on the spot, for instance.
could be his church elder, this guy is talking to....
so lets remember how God views the role of church elders. See for instance Revelation 5:5: he might be one of the elders right in front of Jesus's throne any time soon.
Or are you evoking this example meaning the owner is Non-Christian and the slave is not? In this case, as I said, it makes more sense for the slave to work hard for the Kingdom of God than to start a revolution inside the Roman Empire. Kingdom of God first. Always.
Not sure why I have to get it from a scholar when what is being described is both epistemological and metaphysical in nature: one posits that the thing exists independently of the mind, a metaphysical claim, and that we cannot necessarily verify it due to the subjective filter we necessarily use, an epistemological claimI think this is the first time I've ever seen someone attempt to assert that objectivity can be a "non-epistemological" concept. As far as I know, anything having to do with "objectivity" or the human act of "being objective" has only ever been an aspect of epistemological human endeavor.
From which scholar are you getting your diversification of taxonomic categorizing of objective standards? It isn't from Kant or Kierkegaard ... so from whom are you getting your view on this? ...'Fess UP!
I think I did adress this all the time. All yes, except #3. I've said soo often in this conversation that, because of equality between the sexes in church... and 1 Timothy stating that women should not have authority over a man... men shouldn't have authority over a woman, either. This is true if the woman wants equality.- 1) The Bible advocates/asserts for women to not have authority over men. (yes <or> no)
- 2) Jesus never abolishes this pronouncement. (agree/yes <or> disagree/no)
- 3) In regards to authority, the Christian women < the Christian male (yes <or> no)
- 4) The same Chapter offers no caveats or exceptions to this assertion (yes <or> no)
New Covenant passages are not about how to make people slaves. So God would have a problem with me becoming a slave.And to answer your response above, if a dictator were to capture you, enslave you for life, and beat you for life; just remember God does not really see much of a problem with it.
Abhorrent? Sometimes people reject freedoms.Pointing to some good aspects doesn't take away from the abhorrent practices one can also find in the same book, particularly slavery, to say nothing of notions regarding the punishment of particular kinds of rape (both victim and rapist killed if it was in the city versus only the rapist if it was in the field, Deuteronomy)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?