A Christmas Story

[muichimotsu]

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

 

[Silmarien]

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

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?

 

[muichimotsu]

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

Not sure I claimed it was a Greek one, I'm saying that some incidentally nice things in Jewish culture does not mean it was perfect or even something that should be seen as some moral paragon as if the stains from the OT are just minor

 

[Silmarien]

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)

Eh, even the treatment of slavery is kind of interesting in the Old Testament, in that there are significant controls put upon it. I swear, you guys don't seem to understand the concept of historical context and what Bronze Age civilization actually looked like. This is all very anachronistic.

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

Now that's quite the claim.

 

[muichimotsu]

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

Controls applied to the Hebrew slaves, while you can trick a non Hebrew slave into being your slave forever and they were regarded as your property, not merely working off some debt as a trade for not having money and such: 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 (particularly since THEY were slaves to the Egyptians, if we're accepting that instead of remaining skeptical that it was actually a thing in history)

That's hardly any different than saying that Washington might've been a nice slave owner: he still owned slaves. There isn't really "nice slavery", it's an oxymoron in the same vein as "nice murder"

 

[Silmarien]

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

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'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

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.

 

[muichimotsu]

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.

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

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.

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)

 

[Silmarien]

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

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.

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)

Yeah... that's kind of what I was getting at. Not really sure why you're repeating it again.

 

[muichimotsu]

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.

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"

Historical context is necessarily relative, you seem to ignore that completely, ancient Israel is not somehow morally superior to the present except as you assume it must've been better in some proximity to divine revelation

Yeah... that's kind of what I was getting at. Not really sure why you're repeating it again.

You seem to focus far more on the good aspects rather than considering they may be incidentally so in hindsight rather than some novel idea that was anything comparable to abolitionism, etc.

 

[Silmarien]

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"

Yeah... 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.

 

[muichimotsu]

Yeah... 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.

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

 

[thomas_t]

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.
In this sense God endorses it - that's my opinion. In this sense I think it's good, too: Better a slave who lives than a captive who is dead. All passages about slavery addressed situations, in which slavery already existed. Or those situations in which the alternative would have been death for the captives.

This is for situations outside the Kingdom of God. Inside the church: no slaves. as I said.

"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."

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.

 

[thomas_t]

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 to write them a letter, tell them that you are of their faith demanding that this should stop!
Thomas

 

[muichimotsu]

"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

Even if I was remotely affiliated in a direct fashion to Buddhism rather than utilizing it in a secular manner, you're utilizing the same cherry picking criticism one could do with horrible Christians, as if they represent all Christians.

Buddhist majority countries can have the same problems as any other religiously dominant countries in the overlap with politics: ancient Buddhist kings, like in Thailand, are Buddhists practically in name only, more superstitious

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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

I 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!

 

[thomas_t]

you're utilizing the same cherry picking criticism one could do with horrible Christians, as if they represent all Christians.

no. I didn't say this represented all Buddhism. I said this happened.

 

[cvanwey]

I stay with my opinion about your point concerning the inequality of women.

But you did not address my inquiries. Which either means you are ignoring them, or, I am still not clear in conveying my requests to you, or, you maybe are exercising belief preservation (which might be synonymous with ignoring)?

Again...

- The Bible advocates/asserts for women to not have authority over men. (yes <or> no)
- Jesus never abolishes this pronouncement. (agree/yes <or> disagree/no)
- In regards to authority, the Christian women < the Christian male (yes <or> no)
- The same Chapter offers no caveats or exceptions to this assertion (yes <or> no)

Galations 3:28 states that all Christians are "one" under Christ.

I have to raise a point, relevant to [your] cited verse...

"There there Sally, you are not allowed authority in this way. I'm giving such requested authority to Fred instead. He is a male. Your kind, (Eve), sinned before Adam. It's what God wants. But don't worry about it. In the eye's of God, we Christians are all one in the same. And some day, when we are all in heaven, you will understand."

Do you agree?

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.

But this is false.

The Bible does not state slavery is held exclusively for POWs. The Bible speaks about slavery in fairly generalistic terms. No specific criteria is mandated.

Your only response is that it's better to enslave than to kill.

God instructs it is okay to enslave, treat as property, beat, and pass on to next of kin, - for life; as long as you are not a Jew - (sometimes). Jesus never abolishes these allowances later. He instead reinforces them, and continues to leave OT pronouncements intact and vague.

You have not addressed the meat of this discussion. Care to start?

I have provided many Bible verses. Care to address them? Or are you going to instead continue ignoring them?

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.

Your response makes no sense.

God has no problem providing Commandments; no murder, no theft, no trespassing, etc... He too would know there may still exist caveats to all of them.

However, for slavery, He issues no such fundamental rule. He instead sanctions slavery. This just means God is a-okay with practically any form of unspecified slavery.

You are now allowed to spin it, just like other Bible believers did in the past, and may do again in the future.

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. Because, again, God weighed in on it, and never abolished it. He is either indifferent to slavery in general, or maybe kind of likes it. All He asks is that you continue to serve Him, as he is apparently okay with your enslavement for life.

Do you agree with God here, that God either likes or is indifferent to slavery?

 

[muichimotsu]

I 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!

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 claim

It's primarily epistemological, I'll grant that, but that doesn't mean metaphysics isn't involved implicitly when you're talking about the ontological nature that is implied by something being objective epistemologically speaking

 

[thomas_t]

- 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)

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.
Concerning your 4):
All passages promoting different roles for men and women can be reconciled with the pemise "no female and no male" in Galatians, in my opinion. While the chapter in 1 Timothy itself offers nothing to even out the advantage given to men in this chapter... other passages do. The sum of the Bible is truth, as declares Psalms 119:160.
I agree with your example if Sally agrees with the proposition.

I do think I did address the meat of your discussion. My answer was right, I think. Slavery for prisoners of war was my example to show that slavery can be a better option for people wanting to live. Slavery wasn't limited to prisoners of war, indeed. But this example shows that slavery can be reasonable given the situation Israel was in during the Old Covenant.
I stay with my opinion: God was okay with slavery if it existed already... or if the alternative would have been worse. It refers to specific conditions. You can't say that God endorses slavery regardless of the circumstances under which the slavery occurs.
Jesus did not abolish slavery within the Roman Empire, here we agree. Instead, he told Chirstian slaves to be obedient. I have said why. This was in an attempt to direct the attention of his followers to the kingdom of God instead of losing time in trouble.
So I did not ignore the Bible verses brought up by you.

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.

New Covenant passages are not about how to make people slaves. So God would have a problem with me becoming a slave.

 

[thomas_t]

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)

Abhorrent? Sometimes people reject freedoms.
Take the Weimar Republic, for instance. This was a genuine democracy. In the end, 64,2% of German voters voted for anti democratic parties including the Communists, in 1933, see here. Even today in Germany, some 20% of the population has serious problems knowing the merits of a democracy, I'd estimate. I'm thinking of those that vote for right-wing AfD and others.

Knowing this, when Jesus knows people sometimes reject more freedom... why should he grant it?

Poland voted for a party fighting democracy in trying to undermine the independance of the judicial system.
Take Turkey that used to be a democracy, too. Now president Erdogan is popular AND anti democratic, as I see it.
Egypt. During the arab spring revolution they used to be great demonstrators. Soon after, they majoritarily voted for a non-democratic party. That's how I see the situation there.
And in Syria, the situation after the arab spring is worse than before.

I conclude, people sometimes reject freedom and this is why it is a problem for Jesus installing more of it. You can't just take modern Western standards and apply it to people that don't want these standards for themselves. It's just as @Silmarien told you, I think.