Morality

[Nihilist Virus]

Well it seems,that Paul was dealing with a bond servant issue and not a slave issue. As you have been shown there was a,difference. And you have been shown how the church worked to free slaves.

Please refer to posts 154, 197, and 199.

 

[rjs330]

Ah, so you agree that these letters to the Corinthians had instructions for the Corinthians and shouldn't necessarily be taken as advice for any and every Christian everywhere. Thank you.

I don't think he said that.

 

[ewq1938]

I totally missed that... But that is extremely convincing. I looked it up since he only mentioned it in Wikipedia, but here's a better source on Nexum. @ewq1938 you should read this too since we've been discussing whether Rome outlawed any practices of the Jews in terms of servitude. As it turns out, they outlawed indentured servitude, so if they talk about a slave, it can't be a bondservant. An excerpt here:

The Lex Poetelia (B.C. 326) alleviated the condition of the nexi. So far as we can understand its provisions, it set all the nexi free or made them soluti, and it enacted that for the future there should be no nexum (cautumque in posterum ne necterentur), and that no debtor should for the future be put in chains. Addictio however still continued in force after the Lex Poetelia, as we see in several instances. It appears from the Lex Galliae Cisalpinae (c.21, 22), that in the case of other actions there was only a Possessio Bonorum, but in the case of pecunia certa credita there was personal execution. The enactment of the Lex Julia which introduced the Bonorum Cessio, and gradual changes in society, must have diminished the frequency of the Addictio. In the system of Justinian, Nexum did not exist, for the use of aes et libra in legal transactions had ceased.​

See, Rome made it illegal to use yourself as collateral for a loan, so indentured servitude was outlawed, not slavery just for the Jews.

This law would pertain to Roman's. You would need evidence that they cared about this in the same way about non-Roman's plus the wiki do4sn't exactly agree with your assumptions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nexum

Though nexum as a legal contract was abolished, debt bondage persisted in the case of defaulting debtors, since a court could grant creditors the right to take insolvent debtors as bond slaves. [12]

There's more at that article I recommend people go read.

 

[ewq1938]

So the Bible was not used to justify the chattel slavery of Africans in early American history?

That's Irrelevant. The claim is that Christianity supported slavery and the history shows Christianity didn't. That some in the south chose racist beliefs and misused the bible doesn't change that Christianity's position is anti-slavery.

So you are saying that when Paul uses the analogy of how we are slaves to Christ, the correct translation is bondservant and he means that we are only to temporarily serve Christ?

A servant can be for life if one chooses.

We stop serving Christ after death? On the new earth we get to party it up and we don't have to serve Jesus?

No, that's your misunderstanding of servitude.

If Paul's analogy means that we are to serve Christ forever, then he means we are slaves and he is using that analogy because that's the world he's aware of. A world of slavery which he does not rebuke.

He does not promote slavery in the sense you assert. The only type he speaks of is servitude and it's voluntary in every case.

 

[Moral Orel]

Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
1 Corinthians 13:4‭-‬7 ESV
http://bible.com/59/1co.13.4-7.ESV

Husbands are to love their wives. Is forcing your spouse to have sex patient, kind? Love does not insist on its own way. Forcing sex is insisting on your own way and is not love. Love bears all things. If you don't get sex you bear it with patience and kindness.

There is no scripture that encourages us to force sex upon our partner. None. Can you point to scripture to encourage our partner to do the right thing? Sure. But the choice is theirs.

You win that point too! I was going to respond with something about patience being relative, but the last bit nullifies that. Even if a wife refuses sex for a year, you have to endure all things. Honestly, I didn't think it would be hard to prove the NT had a problem with rape, which is weird since people didn't pick up on it for so long (still don't). When you look at Christian rulers coming to power and forcing it on the populace, you would think they would start making laws about it, but they don't for a very very long time. Any guesses why the Bible took so long to condemn it? Why doesn't the OT say the same things, or really, why isn't there a Law about it like there is for stealing? If you've got a long comeback to that, look up my thread "Missing Mosaic Laws" and post it there though, it would be quite off topic here I think.

And it's still kind of a messed up system though. If you don't want to have sex, do it anyways. Your partner has the right to order you to have sex, and you should comply if they do. If you don't comply, they don't get to physically force you, but still...

 

[Moral Orel]

I don't think he said that.

Oh yes he was. See he was explaining why Christians don't follow everything Paul says in that chapter, because that advice wasn't directed at them. I'll list off the pertinent verses, and you can look up the chapter to see where they fit in:

Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.”

To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am.

I think that in view of the present distress it is good for a person to remain as he is. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife.

This is what I mean, brothers: the appointed time has grown very short. From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none

I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband.

A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. 40 Yet in my judgment she is happier if she remains as she is. And I think that I too have the Spirit of God.

Now he says over and over that it isn't a command, so I'm not saying these things are sins, don't get me wrong. But he says over and over that it is better to remain single than to ever get married, and you should if you have the self-control. Now if "the appointed time" means Jesus' second coming (which I still think it kind of does) then he's off by a few thousand years. But he was explaining why this advice was for those people at that time. Not us in our time.

Do you think this advice is for us right now? Why don't more Christians seek a celibate lifestyle then? There's hardly any right now.

 

[redleghunter]

Reason.

Neither a standard nor transcendent.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Neither a standard nor transcendent.

It is a standard and I don't care about it being "transcendent".

I care about it yielding succesfull results.

Reason does that. Superstition does not.

 

[Moral Orel]

This law would pertain to Roman's. You would need evidence that they cared about this in the same way about non-Roman's

So you think that the Romans outlawed slavery for the Jews, even though the Romans were okay with slavery, but didn't outlaw indentured servitude for the Jews, even though they were not okay with indentured servitude...

plus the wiki do4sn't exactly agree with your assumptions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nexum

Though nexum as a legal contract was abolished, debt bondage persisted in the case of defaulting debtors, since a court could grant creditors the right to take insolvent debtors as bond slaves. [12]

So all the references to "slave/bondservant" in the NT were to people who got too far into debt? There were enough of these people to warrant mentioning, even though there were no real slaves?

Take a look at this verse:
Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so. 1 Corinthians 7:21

Now what type of person will ever be able to make the choice to "seek their freedom"? It couldn't be a person who volunteered to become a servant for a wage (indentured servitude) because they can quit when they want, that isn't "seeking freedom". And it can't be a person sentenced to pay off a debt because you have a term that you must finish, and then you'll be free. You don't get an early release from debt. It can however be an actual slave who can attempt to buy their way out of slavery.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

That's Irrelevant. The claim is that Christianity supported slavery and the history shows Christianity didn't. That some in the south chose racist beliefs and misused the bible doesn't change that Christianity's position is anti-slavery.

http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/gaa_slavery.htm

A servant can be for life if one chooses.





No, that's your misunderstanding of servitude.



He does not promote slavery in the sense you assert. The only type he speaks of is servitude and it's voluntary in every case.

Voluntary? Why would Onesimus be running away from voluntary servitude? I'd think he would just walk away.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Somewhat entertaining. A few questions:

Why equivocate morality with God's law?

Especially when the law is said to powerless to produce good, and described as weak and ineffectual? The misunderstanding may be the cut and paste proof-text approach to representing the ideas in scripture.

You just conceded the argument. God, even if he exists, is irrelevant to mortality and we choose secular morality over the Bible. I give your post a like.

Why do you think people who have studied the Bible would let you get away with misrepresenting the context of the law?

I'm saying the law is bad. There's no context in which rape, slavery and genocide are good. You agree with that above. How am I misrepresenting the law?

I can ground goodness in God's nature, what does the atheist ground "goodness" in?

I don't think either of us know God's nature. But his actions include genocide, mass murder, and the ordering thereof. Also he permits rape and slavery. Despite not knowing his nature, I do believe that he acted freely in doing these things, that he was not under duress, and so these actions reflect some aspects of his nature.

Atheists ground goodness in that which leads to the health and happiness of society.

The poster-boy for atheism has this to say about morality,

"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."
Richard Dawkins

How is that an improvement over love your neighbor and pray for you enemy?

Dawkins is saying that the universe does not care about us and there is no benevolent force overseeing the human race. Therefore it's up to us to ensure we travel the right path.

And just about anything is an improvement over praying for your enemy because prayer does not actualize anything. Even if God exists, is his sovereignty is altered by the pleading of a worm?

Dawkins encourages action because the universe is indifferent. Theology encourages inaction because God is sovereign.

A simple history class as a college freshman would have educated you about the fallacy of anachronism. Simply put it is applying modern cultural standard to ancient cultures in a way that deletes the context. (We see that quite a bit in this post).

So God thought it would be a bad idea to impart timeless wisdom on the ancients?

The rest of your points seem to be non-sequiturs (meaningless complaints that don't engage the topic)

The OP cannot be off topic because the topic is the OP. If you are saying that the OP lacks a focus, refer to the title of the thread.

If god does not exist culturally independent morals don't exist.
But cultural independent morals do exist (e.g. Hitler was wrong to wipe out the Jews even if he had won WW2 and converted everyone in the world to agree with his point of view)
Therefore God exists.

You just implied that God operates within ancient society without enlightening them too much. Now you're saying that he had enlightened all societies on earth with certain shared ideas.

Get back to us when you know what you want to say.

That is the moral argument, or at least one version of it, not a strawman, anachronistic, out-of-context, complaint about how an ancient culture's morals weren't like our morals 3500 years removed.

The moral argument is that God imparts certain ideas of morality on all societies but also allows them to be ancient and ignorant in other areas of morality? Essentially you're saying, "If it's good, it's because God did it; if it's bad, it's because God allowed it."

God certainly made an allowance for your arguments.

 

[Uber Genius]

Okay, then we shouldn't be talking about imaginary laws that the Jews had to follow that you have no evidence for existing.

Where does the NT refer to slaves then? Not to bondservants, but to slaves.

If the Bible doesn't mention something, then the Bible ignored it. Maybe Christianity didn't ignore it, but the Bible did. So where is this "common knowledge"? It wasn't common knowledge amongst Romans or Jews that slavery was wrong, so it had to be a new idea that came along with Christianity. Where is your reference that slavery being wrong was common knowledge amongst Christians?

You argument is circular. Because the masters were Christians, they wouldn't own slaves, because Christians don't own slaves, and that's how you know they weren't supposed to. Why did the Christian masters know they weren't supposed to own slaves?

You said that it is because Romans controlled commerce that we know they didn't allow Jews to buy slaves. That is non-sequitur. There is nothing special about slavery in that statement. We could apply that logic to any product that Jews wanted to purchase. If you want to claim that Jews weren't allowed to purchase slaves, you need to show me a reference to a Roman law that says they couldn't or a reference to a Jew talking about a such a restriction. Otherwise it is imagined.

I can see you are putting quite an effort into proving the immorality of certain cultural aspects of 3500-year-old civilizations, not to mention that Paul seemed to be focused on personal relationships rather than hot-button issues of our day such as equality.

But why think the Bible is reducible to a moral code?

Given that it claims to be both Divine and Human in origin, why think authors didn't have freedom to represent their prescientific view of science, or premedical view of medicine, or that in a world where ever culture had slaves that the ancient Israelites would limit the abuses of slavery and maximize the benefits (safety, food, shelter, for the poor and dispossessed)?

By misrepresenting the point of the collection of books as a moral code, you created a straw man.

Secondly, you are quibbling over word usage when you could have pointed out that tradition has it that the Torah was written by a murderer (Moses), and a good portion of Psalms was written by a murderer (David), and a good portion of the New Testament was written by an accomplice to murder (Paul, chased down many Christian leaders, and imprisoned them, some of which were stoned to death).
When ever you transport a modern view back into history as a way to judge that culture, you have committed the fallacy of anachronism.

Clearly the Bible is written, not as a moral code but as a variety of experiences having to do with God or his people written by over 40 authors, from Kings to outlaws, criminals to heroes, the poorest to the richest, spanning 1500+ years.

You can get Christians to argue due to their lack of knowledge about your particular fallacies or intuition about your rhetorical strategies, sure. But why not ask Christians questions that would anchor your premises?

1. What is the nature of the Bible?
2. How is it different that other religious books?
3. What is the nature of "The Law," as recorded in the OT?
4. Is that Law a universal moral code?
5. Why did the authors of the Old and New Testaments only interact mildly about great social injustices? (This may not be the case)
6. Why did Christians creat the first:
Elder hostiles
Orphanages
Hospitals
Shelters for the poor
If their scriptures didn't even provide freedom for slavery?

7. Why did the Jews treat foreigners, widows, orphans, poor, infirm so much better than all their neighboring cultures?

If in fact one is a "seeker," one would expect questions about the nature of the thing one is seeking, rather than strawman constructions popular to individuals's go are clearly not seeking (New Atheists).

Seekers don't defend fallacious propaganda. Propagandist do.

The New Atheist never tire, but "seekers" learn and change their arguments into sound ones.

 

[redleghunter]

It is a standard and I don't care about it being "transcendent".

I care about it yielding succesfull results.

Reason does that. Superstition does not.

What are successful results in your opinion?

 

[Moral Orel]

I can see you are putting quite an effort into proving the immorality of certain cultural aspects of 3500-year-old civilizations, not to mention that Paul seemed to be focused on personal relationships rather than hot-button issues of our day such as equality...
...When ever you transport a modern view back into history as a way to judge that culture, you have committed the fallacy of anachronism.

It's only anachronistic is there is nothing inherently immoral about treating another human being as property or if there is some reason that a practice is necessary for that culture/time period. If we were talking about murder, you wouldn't claim an anachronistic viewpoint on my part, would you?

But why think the Bible is reducible to a moral code?

Given that it claims to be both Divine and Human in origin, why think authors didn't have freedom to represent their prescientific view of science, or premedical view of medicine, or that in a world where ever culture had slaves that the ancient Israelites would limit the abuses of slavery and maximize the benefits (safety, food, shelter, for the poor and dispossessed)?

By misrepresenting the point of the collection of books as a moral code, you created a straw man...

...Clearly the Bible is written, not as a moral code but as a variety of experiences having to do with God or his people written by over 40 authors, from Kings to outlaws, criminals to heroes, the poorest to the richest, spanning 1500+ years.

I've never said that the Bible is "reducible to a moral code". I don't think it is nothing but a moral code, but it is, in part, a moral code (or at least it has been claimed by many Christians as such). Now speaking of strawman arguments, are you saying that the Bible is not the place to go to to determine what is moral and what is not moral? If you agree it is not, then we have nothing to argue about. If you say it is, then you've created a straw man of my argument that claims I've over simplified which I have not.

Secondly, you are quibbling over word usage when you could have pointed out that tradition has it that the Torah was written by a murderer (Moses), and a good portion of Psalms was written by a murderer (David), and a good portion of the New Testament was written by an accomplice to murder (Paul, chased down many Christian leaders, and imprisoned them, some of which were stoned to death).

Your advice to me is to change my argument to an ad hominem? I can see how easily that is shot down, and I wouldn't support such a position anyways. Are you just trying to trick me into making an argument you know the answer to?

You can get Christians to argue due to their lack of knowledge about your particular fallacies or intuition about your rhetorical strategies, sure. But why not ask Christians questions that would anchor your premises?

1. What is the nature of the Bible?
2. How is it different that other religious books?
3. What is the nature of "The Law," as recorded in the OT?
4. Is that Law a universal moral code?
5. Why did the authors of the Old and New Testaments only interact mildly about great social injustices? (This may not be the case)
6. Why did Christians creat the first:
Elder hostiles
Orphanages
Hospitals
Shelters for the poor
If their scriptures didn't even provide freedom for slavery?

7. Why did the Jews treat foreigners, widows, orphans, poor, infirm so much better than all their neighboring cultures?

1. There is a lot to the nature of the Bible and in different contexts, different Christians use it for many purposes. Again, if you say it is not at all a moral code, then we already agree, and we don't need to discuss this one, as I'm already aware of it's other purposes and it's main purpose, which I know is not a moral code.
2. There are lots of differences, and the Bible is an amazing book. If you have something to say about this that pertains to whether we should seek morality in the Bible, go ahead.
3. Again, there is a lot of reasons for the Law in the OT. It isn't only the purpose I already know you're thinking of. You can't dismiss the other purposes of the Law simply because there is a more important underlying meaning. For instance, why did the Law specifically choose to write down the law "thou shalt not steal"?
4. "Universal" how? As in covers morality for all time, or covers all of morality? If the former, it clearly doesn't. If the latter, it clearly doesn't. So the question is, "why is it not universal?" either way you mean it.
5. That's all up for debate. Plato advocated for orphanages, and Athenian Law covered it before Jesus, so that's one off the top of my head that is wrong.

If in fact one is a "seeker," one would expect questions about the nature of the thing one is seeking, rather than strawman constructions popular to individuals's go are clearly not seeking (New Atheists).

Seekers don't defend fallacious propaganda. Propagandist do.

The New Atheist never tire, but "seekers" learn and change their arguments into sound ones.

I "seek" a better understanding of Christianity. If I ever am convinced of its legitimacy, then I'll know how best to approach it. For instance, I've seen how science and the Bible are not at odds, despite that being a claim by many Christians. I don't use science to disprove the legitimacy of the Bible, and never will, regardless of what science may prove in the future.

If these argument was fallacious, then Christians would already have an answer by now, and we wouldn't see 10 different explanations and excuses from all sorts of Christians to try and explain the problem away.

 

[Uber Genius]

It's only anachronistic is there is nothing inherently immoral about treating another human being as property or if there is some reason that a practice is necessary for that culture/time period. If we were talking about murder, you wouldn't claim an anachronistic viewpoint on my part, would you?

Missing the point of the scriptures! By representing them as God's universal and timeless standard instead of what he allowed at a particular time and place 1000s of years ago with a developing culture, who was evil, and surrounded by cultures that were more evil, you create a strawman!

Of you have children you recognize that you train them over time, not in a minute. You work based n their cognitive and developmental limitations. Do you assume the chosen people were good, ever in their 1800+ year history?

As to what is or isn't part of anachronism, I. Already made the point that a hugely important part of Old and New Testaments were written by murderers or their accomplices! That should have disabused you of thinking, "this is a book that is just like every other religious book."

Your premise 1

The Bible represents perfect morality divinely handed down to man and represented in how Hebrews treated others in the OT, and Christians lived and treated others in the NT.

THAT IS A FALSE PREMISE!

That is what I'm saying. Ad God, through his prophets says it innumerable times. At least 35 of 39 kings of Israel in the Old Testament are evil.

The issues you are bringing up would have to be commanded by God and universally, such as the Ten Commandments. And not abrogated by same.

Now if you want to inveigh against the immorality of the Ten Commandments, go ahead, but explain to me how arguing against Israel or Paul's complicity in slavery in a world surrounded by slave cultures, is not anachronistic!

And of coarse the bigger issues is, how do you justify objective morality at all, to even call murder wrong on atheism. So people claiming universal moral codes sans theism are in the unenviable position of having no ground whatsoever for their base claim.

 

[Uber Genius]

If these argument was fallacious, then Christians would already have an answer by now, and we wouldn't see 10 different explanations and excuses from all sorts of Christians to try and explain the problem away.

Instead of looking up the fallacies, and examining the claims, and see if they match, you are arguing another fallacy, ad populum!

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

 

[Uber Genius]

I've seen how science and the Bible are not at odds, despite that being a claim by many Christians. I don't use science to disprove the legitimacy of the Bible, and never will, regardless of what science may prove in the future.

This is laudable!

So I don't want to discourage you from a deeper understanding of the intent of scripture or how it came to us, but encourage that investigation.

Be skeptical of these straw constructions created by shallow intellects attempting to convert people to a fundamentalist atheism. Guys like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Dan Dennett, Chris Hitchens, Larry Krauss, and their ilk, prey on the weak-minded by misrepresenting the nature of scripture.

I recommend getting a book on how to understand the scriptures.

Gordon Fee has one called, "How to read the bible for all it's worth," that I recommend.

Biblical theology seeks to understand the progressive unfolding of God's special revelation throughout history, whereas systematic theology seeks to present the entire scriptural teaching on certain specific truths, or doctrines, one at a time.

Exegetical study represents a method to get at what the original audience would have understood. Hermeneutics attempts to determine what, if anything, is still applicable to me, in my modern culture?

There is much more complexity than meets the eye here. But you have convinced me that you are genuine. If you care to engage in deeper or other discussions that are wholly unrelated, start a conversation and I will be glad to point you to resources that might help you sort out some of the complexity.

 

[Moral Orel]

Instead of looking up the fallacies, and examining the claims, and see if they match, you are arguing another fallacy, ad populum!

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

That's not what I said. I didn't say it would be right if all Christians agreed. I said that if there was a good answer to the argument, and if the argument is bad, then it wouldn't have a bunch of different Christians coming up with their own unrelated theories to explain it away. You've got my reasoning backwards. If a bunch of Christians agreed on something, it wouldn't make it true. But if there were an obvious answer, there would be a bunch of Christians who know it. If this was such an absurd argument, there would be an obvious answer. Are you the one and only brilliant Christian here that has it all figured out?

 

[Moral Orel]

This is laudable!

It's laudable to not treat the Bible like a science text book? Okay...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What are successful results in your opinion?

In terms of morality?

More overall well-being.
Less overall suffering.

Moral behaviour are those actions and decisions that increase overall well-being.
Immoral behaviour are those actions and decisions that increase overall suffering.

My 'standard' is an understanding of reality which helps in realising the consequences of my actions. An appeal to authority, is not a standard, nore is it moral. Instead, it is just mere obedience. "Befehl ist befehl" is what that results into.