Morality

[Moral Orel]

I believe a 'bondservant' is different than a 'slave'.

It is, and the Bible draws a distinction in that male Israelites could only be bondservants. You aren't claiming that all slavery that is sanctioned by OT Law in the Bible is indentured servitude though, are you? Because that is false.

 

[Uber Genius]

See? Strawmanning, right there. I didn't "extend someone's argument to the ridiculous" did I? I didn't misrepresent your argument as anything because I didn't talk about it. All I did was point out that you were evading questions.

And you aren't even using the "argument from authority" fallacy correctly either. I didn't state you were an authority (though I think you are stating as much) so I can't "appeal" to you as an authority now can I?

For Pete's sake man. You need to brush up on your fallacies, because you don't know how to use them. And don't dodge questions, it makes it look like you have a weak position.

I was attempting to point out, and seems impossible, that you have erected a naive misrepresentation of inspiration. I explained your error in detail. And for Pete's sake I can't simplify to the point that you understand it.

We should let it be what it is. If we decide that it is written for us in our time we must relegate everyone prior to the 21st century to living without a revelation of God's knowledge.

God decided to reveal a portion of his knowledge through ancient cultures.

So inspiration operates inside of a cultural context chosen by God in his sovereign wisdom. We honor God by respecting his decision to reveal his knowledge WHERE, WHEN, in WHAT CULTURE, and to WHOM he did by letting it be what it is ...and by not making it what we would like it to be.

Exegesis is the process of understanding what the original audience would have understood God's revelation to be.

If we follow that process we have a chance of gaining understanding.


Strawman arguments about God being a genocidal tyrant, or encouraging slavery, or diminishing the value of women disappear!

Of coarse Jesus did say, "ATHEIST FUNDAMENTALISTS will always be we you."

But this comment is for the benefit of this that are interested in learning not those interested in misrepresenting the nature of God's revelation.

 

[Moral Orel]

I was attempting to point out, and seems impossible, that you have erected a naive misrepresentation of inspiration.

I am not the OP. I have made no argument. I have made no representation of inspiration, proper or improper. What are you reading that you think I have? What have I said that sounds like an argument to you? You chimed in while I was arguing over whether the NT addressed real slaves or not with another poster. I asked two questions as the first in a series of questions I planned to ask you and you dodged them. I have not made an argument, so I cannot commit fallacies of logic. The argument that you imagined me making is not my argument. I don't know how I can make that clearer to you. You are imagining things, and that is where you err.

 

[Uber Genius]

[

Jesus contradicted the OT Law.

I'm going to need to see the Bible verses for these claims. A "no sex until marriage" verse and a "no violence in general" verse.

I know in the OT prostitution was legal under the Law

You can be a slave owner and a Christian, as explicitly stated by the Bible. Is it morally wrong to own another human being as property? Why does the Bible neglect to say that it is?

Sex before marriage is not a bad thing in OT Law, so this verse doesn't say it carries over because there's nothing about sex before marriage to carry over.

The OT is not the place to go to show the Bible has a problem with slavery

When did all sex outside of marriage start being condemned to interpret it that way though?

QUOTE="Nicholas Deka, post: 70277331, member: 377019"]I am not the OP. I have made no argument. I have made no representation of inspiration, proper or improper. What are you reading that you think I have? What have I said that sounds like an argument to you? You chimed in while I was arguing over whether the NT addressed real slaves or not with another poster. I asked two questions as the first in a series of questions I planned to ask you and you dodged them. I have not made an argument, so I cannot commit fallacies of logic. The argument that you imagined me making is not my argument. I don't know how I can make that clearer to you. You are imagining things, and that is where you err.[/QUOTE]

That's you not making an argument about the immorality of slavery.

That's you not making claims that sex outside of marriage was considered a sin in the OT.

That is you not making claims that prostitution was legal under OT law.

These are mere fraction of your biblically ignorant claims.

Nihilist may have started this post but your surface misreads have populated this entire discussion, possible more than all other respondents put together.

And any fool can misread scripture continually and respond, "I have no idea what you are talking about endlessly, as you've done.

I'm sure you will respond "I have no idea what your talking about."

"
Proverbs 18:2
"A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion."

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Who do you mean by 'we'?

Well, for starters, most people who love women are not polygamous. Wink wink.

Are there cultures in the world today that still think their women are pretty much chattel?

Mormons and Muslims.

Is your non-God world so enlightened that you believe there is no 'slavery' or that there is no 'rape'.

Those things still exist. This is not an intelligent question.

Has your enlightened (non-God) world finally gotten over the inferior OT Israelites and the NT Christians and their awkward traits?

What do you mean, "gotten over"? Do you mean to ask if we've moved on? How can we when so many Christians are imposing terrible ideas on society?

Have you ever studied the woman's rights in the Babylonian world, or the cutlure of the Hitites, or the Egyptians or any other culture at the time of the Israelites? Your prospective might change.

No.

I believe a 'bondservant' is different than a 'slave'.

I believe you are wrong. Read through the thread. Indentured servitude did not exist in Rome during the time of Christ.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Moralton, Statesota is a fictional city from the television series "Moral Orel". On the surface most Christians will tell you it is filthy blasphemy, but anyone who makes it through the entire three season series actually knows that it's quite pro-Christian.

My avatar is a picture of the main character, Orel Puffington, and I chose that and the tag line because there are a few Christians on these forums who make me feel like I live in that city.

Uh, what? Moral Orel was pro-Christian? Are you referring how he remained Christian into adulthood despite his disillusionment in his father?

 

[Moral Orel]

That's you not making an argument about the immorality of slavery.

That's you not making claims that sex outside of marriage was considered a sin in the OT.

That is you not making claims that prostitution was legal under OT law.

lol. Those are, for the most part, factual statements about what the Bible explicitly says. Now you can argue about the morality and the anachronism of it all, but you can't argue about the legality of what I claimed. The second and third quotes were requests for information, by the way, which is not a claim. RJSS actually won the argument, which I conceded, on the NT stance on rape. We agreed to disagree on the level of vagueness of its stance on extra marital relations though.

Now take notice that I talk about "the Bible" not Christians in general, not God, but "the Bible". Talking about what "the Bible" says ignores all of your problems with anachronism. If it says it, it says it. Whether it applies today or not is irrelevant to whether it said it was okay at the time.

So I'll go through them for you as I back up my claims about what the Bible says. It doesn't matter how it applies to today or not, it is only whether "the Bible" says it or not.

First, is it really a matter of contention that Jesus changed old OT Laws? Really? Like when He updated the divorce laws and when He made it okay to eat whatever. Those aren't contradictions to OT Law?

You think that sex outside of marriage was condemned by OT Law? Remember the story of the two women who were arguing about the maternity of the child, and the king threatened to saw the child in half? Why weren't those two women arrested on the spot instead of hearing their case? There's more information I cited, but that should be sufficient. Again, I am not making the claim, "God is okay with prostitution". I am only making the claim "OT Law was okay with prostitution". That's it, don't read more into it than that. If OT Law is okay with prostitution, then it is okay with extra marital relations by extension. You can show me verses that show prostitution is to be regulated but not outlawed. You can show me verses that a girl is supposed to maintain her virginity. But that is not an outlaw of all extra marital relations.

Slavery in the OT, let's talk about it. My claim: "OT Law is okay with actual slavery, not just indentured servitude". My claim is not "God is okay with slavery" or "Christians think slavery is okay". Don't read into more than what I actually state. If the Israelites go to a city "at a distance" from them, and they open the gates, what do the Israelites do with all the men in the city? Again, just one example, that should be sufficient.

Slavery in the NT, let's talk about it. 1 Timothy 6:2 talks about believing masters, therefore you can be a Christian (at that time) and own slaves. Again, my claim is not "God is okay with slavery" or "Christians are okay with slavery" it is only "the Bible is okay with slavery".

These are simply fact checking statements. When people claim the Bible only talks about indentured servitude, they are incorrect. People who claim extra marital sex is outlawed in the OT are incorrect. How it applies to today is irrelevant to the facts that back then it was okay according to the Bible. I did not make a claim that "God wants people to own slaves" or "Christians believe slavery is okay" or anything of the sort. Closest I came was this question: "why does the Bible neglect to say that it [slavery] is [immoral]?". Which is a question and not a claim. The only claim is that "the Bible does not say slavery is immoral" which is factual.

I chimed in to fact check about what the Bible actually states, not what it means for us today. Do you disagree that the Bible actually states the things I claim it does? Do you disagree that the Bible actually neglects to state the things that I claim it neglects to state?

Whatever argument you think that I want to make based on these facts is also irrelevant. I made no such argument. Don't try to imagine what I conclude from these facts, because thus far you have been incorrect, and I don't imagine you will start to be correct any time soon.

Whatever argument you want to make about these facts and how they apply today and why they exist is irrelevant. I only make the claim that the Bible says what it says, and it did.

So refute these claims if you can:

• OT Law does not outlaw extra marital relations of all kinds.
• OT Law does not outlaw prostitution.
• OT Law does not outlaw slavery.
• Jesus altered/contradicted OT Law.
• NT writings do not condemn slavery.
• NT writings do not explicitly condemn extra marital relations of all kinds. -- That one I admit is contended, so note the "explicitly" part. It might be hinted at, which I already conceded.

Are these not facts? Which one(s) are not facts and why?

Do you understand the difference between me stating that it is a fact the Bible says it, and me claiming that it means something to us? I haven't done the latter, only the former. Some people won't even acknowledge that the Bible says it, that's what I poked my nose in to correct, and that's all I've done thus far. I almost started my argument about using the Bible as a moral guidebook with one person, but he wouldn't acknowledge that slaves received NT writings at all, so it never got past that.

 

[Moral Orel]

Uh, what? Moral Orel was pro-Christian? Are you referring how he remained Christian into adulthood despite his disillusionment in his father?

Absolutely. Moral Orel was absolutely pro-real Christian, and anti-fake Christian. It was full of caricatures about crazy, evil, fundamentalist "Christians" who didn't care about what the Bible actually said. But Orel was a good Christian. In fact, I consider every opening sequence to be a testament to the fact that Christianity is real. Remember his dog Bartholomew. Remember the relationship between Moral's pastor and his daughter. And yes, the final episode shows a real Christian family in the end with Orel and his childhood sweetheart (also a real Christian). If anything, it was a testament to trusting Jesus above people. Orel always knew in his heart what was right because he loved Jesus, but he was guided down the wrong path by people who didn't care about Jesus at all.

In fact Dino Stamatopoulos (the show's creator) said he just didn't like people who misused the Bible.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Absolutely. Moral Orel was absolutely pro-real Christian, and anti-fake Christian. It was full of caricatures about crazy, evil, fundamentalist "Christians" who didn't care about what the Bible actually said. But Orel was a good Christian. In fact, I consider every opening sequence to be a testament to the fact that Christianity is real. Remember his dog Bartholomew. Remember the relationship between Moral's pastor and his daughter. And yes, the final episode shows a real Christian family in the end with Orel and his childhood sweetheart (also a real Christian). If anything, it was a testament to trusting Jesus above people. Orel always knew in his heart what was right because he loved Jesus, but he was guided down the wrong path by people who didn't care about Jesus at all.

In fact Dino Stamatopoulos (the show's creator) said he just didn't like people who misused the Bible.

Have you seen "Beforel Orel"? That's what concluded the series. It was quite pro-reason and not pro-Christian. I think the ending of the third season where we see Orel with his childhood sweetheart is a comment on the power of indoctrination: in spite of everything Orel's been through, he remains Christian. "Beforel Orel," despite being a prequel, clashes with the previously established conclusion to the story and suggests that perhaps Orel will find his way out of Christianity one day, the power of indoctrination notwithstanding.

 

[Moral Orel]

Have you seen "Beforel Orel"? That's what concluded the series. It was quite pro-reason and not pro-Christian. I think the ending of the third season where we see Orel with his childhood sweetheart is a comment on the power of indoctrination: in spite of everything Orel's been through, he remains Christian. "Beforel Orel," despite being a prequel, clashes with the previously established conclusion to the story and suggests that perhaps Orel will find his way out of Christianity one day, the power of indoctrination notwithstanding.

Yep, I sarn it. Did you notice it had that just-barely-enough-proof-of-God to make you say, "hmm..."? Like the fact that God stopped Orel "through" his Grandpa (as Orel saw it anyways)? And the stork that was following Orel around?

Did you ever read A Clockwork Orange? Not the movie, but the book that didn't have the last chapter chopped off? It's like that. Orel is easily programmed. First by his Grandpa to make him question everything, then by his family and community to trust everything they say, but then Orel strikes the happy balance in-between. Just like Alex in A Clockwork Orange starts out all evil, then is programmed too good, then finds the balance in-between. The stupid movie ends on him going back to evil and ruins the whole darn point of the book...

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Yep, I sarn it. Did you notice it had that just-barely-enough-proof-of-God to make you say, "hmm..."? Like the fact that God stopped Orel "through" his Grandpa (as Orel saw it anyways)? And the stork that was following Orel around?

Perhaps I should watch it all again with your interpretation in mind. I never saw it as anything but mockery.

Did you ever read A Clockwork Orange? Not the movie, but the book that didn't have the last chapter chopped off? It's like that. Orel is easily programmed. First by his Grandpa to make him question everything, then by his family and community to trust everything they say, but then Orel strikes the happy balance in-between. Just like Alex in A Clockwork Orange starts out all evil, then is programmed too good, then finds the balance in-between. The stupid movie ends on him going back to evil and ruins the whole darn point of the book...

I haven't read the book but I have heard the ending is different. Stanley Kubrick also mutilated the ending of 2001: A Space Odyssey to the point that the ending does not even make sense unless you're aware of the actual story. Aside from making the story incomprehensible, he also removed large portions of great ideas from the author.

 

[Moral Orel]

Perhaps I should watch it all again with your interpretation in mind. I never saw it as anything but mockery.

Yeah, give it a "glass half full" look. A very tiny bit of real Christianity shined through despite all the mockery of Moralton's evil residents. I never got the sense the show was mocking Orel.

I haven't read the book but I have heard the ending is different.

Oh, not just different, that's what makes me so mad. They cut a whole chapter off the end. It would be like ending TLOTR movies with Frodo deciding to keep the ring...

 

[Eudaimonist]

Stanley Kubrick also mutilated the ending of 2001: A Space Odyssey to the point that the ending does not even make sense unless you're aware of the actual story. Aside from making the story incomprehensible, he also removed large portions of great ideas from the author.

I found the movie easy to understand. I'm not sure why so many people have difficulty with it.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Just like Alex in A Clockwork Orange starts out all evil, then is programmed too good, then finds the balance in-between. The stupid movie ends on him going back to evil and ruins the whole darn point of the book...

My impression of the end of the movie is that Alex had found balance, not that he was "going back to evil".


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Moral Orel]

My impression of the end of the movie is that Alex had found balance, not that he was "going back to evil".


eudaimonia,

Mark

It ends with debauchery, I don't see balance in that. He strikes a deal with the government to be good and keep up the image for them, but there's no reason to think he's learned anything. He was only cured of the treatment they gave him, not of any of his evil tendencies. The debauchery just showed that the treatment didn't have the effect on him that it used to.

In the final chapter, he worked his job, but got himself three new drugs to roam the streets with causing trouble, just like he always did. He eventually gets bored and starts feeling like quitting the life. Without that, I don't see any reason to think he became a better person at all. The treatment they gave him didn't actually change him at all.

 

[Eudaimonist]

It ends with debauchery, I don't see balance in that.

LOL! It ends with a non-violent sex fantasy. That is balance!

That is the clear message I got out of the ending.

If Alex had become a Victorian prude, I would not have believed that he was cured. I would think that he still suffered some damage from the treatment. If he had a violent sex fantasy, I would not have believed that he had found balance. He would simply have regressed to his old ways. This was in between.

Also check out the psych test he is given a little before his sex fantasy. There is a clear message of balance there too. Yes, there are some expressions of violence (for instance, he wants to break the bird eggs), but notably, when speaking for a man who is looking into a woman's bedroom where the woman is alone and naked, he says "No time for the old in-and-out love, I've just come to read the meter". That would normally have been a time for both the in-and-out and the ultra-violence. His subconscious mind actually declines both. The psych test doesn't support either extreme well.

Kubrick had clearly intended a message of balance at the end of the movie. He simply tripped your "debauchery" button.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Moral Orel]

LOL! It ends with a non-violent sex fantasy. That is balance!

That is the clear message I got out of the ending.

If Alex had become a Victorian prude, I would not have believed that he was cured. I would think that he still suffered some damage from the treatment. If he had a violent sex fantasy, I would not have believed that he had found balance. He would simply have regressed to his old ways. This was in between.

I didn't see the debauchery as showing him to be evil again, I just saw it as showing he was no longer under the effects of the treatment, and nothing more. It wasn't a fantasy was it? If I remember correctly the government hired that girl as payment for Alex keeping his mouth shut and being a good boy. If Alex dreamed up himself a fantasy of making love to a willing participant, that would be evidence of some change.

Also check out the psych test he is given a little before his sex fantasy. There is a clear message of balance there too. Yes, there are some expressions of violence (for instance, he wants to break the bird eggs), but notably, when speaking for a man who is looking into a woman's bedroom where the woman is alone and naked, he says "No time for the old in-and-out love, I've just come to read the meter". That would normally have been a time for both the in-and-out and the ultra-violence. His subconscious mind actually declines both. The psych test doesn't support either extreme well.

Kubrick had clearly intended a message of balance at the end of the movie. He simply tripped your "debauchery" button.

Well I never gave that test any credit for successfully delving into his subconscious so that we know his answers were how he would react in a situation. But even then he talks about smashing people's faces, and putting pocket watches in bad places. He spent a lot of the movie lying to people in charge to get himself out of trouble. He even repeats the "unmuddied lake" line at the end with the government official.

Stopping the movie at the point that he was cured from the treatment, but before showing how he actually goes about living his life, doesn't show any change in his behavior and, to me, doesn't offer evidence that he actually would change his behavior. It never showed him realizing for himself that violence and ultra-violence is wrong, so why would he think it is? Even if he does think it's bad now, it's either a lasting result from the treatment, or from the brain surgery he received while he was in the hospital after the fall. Either way, he's still just a clockwork orange.

 

[miknik5]

"I can improve upon the morality of the Bible if I copy it word for word and then reverse its position on slavery." -Matt Dillahunty

I believe that when it comes to morality, atheism defeats theism simply by remaining silent. Abrahamic religions contain commandments, concessions and/or encouragements for all of the following:

Abortion Numbers 5:11-31
Rape Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Slavery Leviticus 25:44-46
Genocide 1 Samuel 15:2-3
Mass murder Genesis 7


Compounding the problem is 1 John 3:4, which says,

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

The law is the law of Moses. Therefore, I have my doubts when a Christian claims that certain laws of the Old Testament are a covenant between Jehovah and Israel while other laws in the Old Testament are absolute and/or eternal. If this is your position, please list for us the laws which have expired and I will assume that all other laws are still in effect. If your position on morality is more complicated than that, please elucidate it and we will engage from there.

The identifiable argument of this thread:

1.) If Biblical morality (the law) can be improved, then it is from man and not from God.
2.) The law can be improved.
3.) The law is from man and not from God.
4.) We are not accountable to the law.
5.) Christ's death and resurrection, if they occurred, were pointless.
6.) Christianity is pointless.

How will to do it since all mouths will be silenced before HIM?

Either you accept all the WORD of GOD as TRUTH

But to suggest that you can be more moral than GOD by taking HIS LAWS and suggesting you know better?

How can you do that?

 

[miknik5]

Combining the SPIRIT of the LAW with the written (detached list) law is the man who handles the LAW of GOD rightly

Not all are led by the SPIRIT of GOD

 

[miknik5]

By the NEW COVENANT, the law which came on the stone cold outward tablets moooved inwardly upon the fleshly tablets of the heart

(Where it belonged from the beginning)

And sin became so much more...it is in what we do what we do not do. What we say what we do not say. CHRIST came to magnify THE LAW and make it honorable

Based on love and accountability to GOD and to one another