Offshoot discussion of "what religion are you" thread

[MasterMothra]

"For some or other reason, I wasn't able to post any replies at home last night. Anyway, I wanted to advise caution against such a move. Have you personally examined these alleged contradictions? Have you investigated the viewpoints of various apologists? These are necessary -- as a minimum, in my opinion -- before making such a claim."

im not sure what your saying.

the problem that i see with gods "guidelines on slavery" is that it implies that slavery is acceptable. here are a few of the quotes that questions gods love, judgement and righteousness.

4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.

whats wrong with that? im sure women dont mind.

7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.

what could possibly be wrong with selling your daughter ?

16 And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.

wouldnt that constitute slavery? so if you steal a man into slavery, because im sure no one goes willingly, then you should be put to death? if thats the case then why regulate slavery?

23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

thou shault not kill is one of the commandments, mentioned just moments before verse 21.

the only way that i can read the bible is literally. if i choose another method of interpretation then i would invite the possibility of an ambiguous translation. i dont believe that god would be ambiguous when it comes to his word, of course that is just my assumption. when i was a practicing christian i was told that the word of god(the bible) was beyond reproach.. i really have problems with the slavery issues addressed in exodus and leviticus. i dont think that slavery was acceptable at that time or at any time in the history of mankind, and a diety that justifies slavery with regulations is not my idea of a just god, a god that promotes free will. this is why have serious doubts about the validity of christianity through the teachings of the bible.

thank you for your time

[Lizra]

Hi Rian, That's exactly why I like Unity! It is NOT BIble based Christian! (neither am I)
Jesus was a wonderful teacher of spiritual ideals, but on par with other humans. The bible is not the "word" of God, but a book of history and spiritual guidlines. "Christ" is in you, and you make your own "Heaven and /or Hell" right now, in this life, on this earth. This works for me, helps me to be a better person, helps me to connect with the spiritual qualities in myself, and it is a pleasure to come together with all the different peoples of different beliefs in a community that embraces diversity. Thank goodness for Unity (IMO)

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Actually, slavery was something that people sold themselves into, I believe: it was a way to get out of financial difficulties. But the slavery of those days was not the slavery that we know from earlier American days. It was very much like a system in the colonial days: When I try to remember what it was called, I keep thinking bondservant, but that's not right! Grr...can't remember the name. Anyway, if someone wanted to go to America, but couldn't afford it, they would sell themselves into slavery, basically, for seven years to a person who was going to Ameirca; they would work for a person, without pay. At the end of the seven years, they would go out and make their own way in the world.

When the Bible says: Thou shalt not kill, I believe that refers to murder. If I am correct, God Himself instigated capital punishment; if God were against any form of killing, then that would not make much sense, would it? And also, I believe it says Thou shalt not kill; I don't think there's a mention of killing human beings there. If you want to take it in the extreme literal sense, then we are forbidden to kill animals, or even plants! Doesn't leave much room for eating, does it? Of course, I don't say this to be rude or anything; I am merely saying that an interpretation which is literal to the extreme does not make much sense. And when I say this, I do not mean that the Bible that the Bible is a bunch of fairy-tales, or a book of parables: I believe the events which are recorded in the Bible, I just mean...oh, nevermind.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Lizra: I don't mean to be rude, but consider this: As He claimed to be the "only begotten Son", Jesus either was the Son of God, or he was a preposterous, arrogant liar.

[Millane]

Endentured servant i think is the word you are looking for Gwaimir... i wont come near Religion because i end up saying childish stupid remarks

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Thank you, Millane! Endentured servitude is it!

[Elfhelm]

Metaphors work for me.

But I still have no taste for the sacrificial animal / christos business. It sounds like something out of a bloodletting religion. This teacher was framed and executed because he was a threat to the powers that be. What he taught was worth remembering. But to twist it together with ritual sacrifice, to heap all your own sins onto this teacher and say that he took your punishment for you, it sounds like a whipping boy.

I do not personally believe that man is separated from God by anything but his own ignorance, and I certainly don't have any desire to see a man die to bring me closer to Him. I think some wacko cultist things got mixed into that religion in order to spread it around. (I am not calling anyone a wacko, I just think killing a ram to atone for sins is a lot of hooey!)

But you know if the presence of slaves invalidates a book, then almost all of western literature is useless. I guess it then becomes a great excuse not to do homework. That is like the book where a boy helps a slave escape but because it was written in the 19th century and the boy had no education he used the "n" word therefore it shouldn't be taught in schools?

Anyway, I only take from the scriptures of any religion that which I know to be good, and that which is tacitly false I just shrug off as ignorance. I haven't yet found anything that is totally right, including my own writing. I look at something I wrote even as recently as a week ago and still find fault.

I don't see the need to twist logic about and stand it on end just to turn one of the scriptures into "always correct". And I think it is wrong to do. A thing should be seen for what it is, not for what you want it to be.

"Know the bright; keep to the dull."

[Wayfarer]

Anduril:
My position is that some god-concepts cannot exist in reality because they are defined with incompatible attributes.

I thought that's what I said?

the problem that i see with gods "guidelines on slavery" is that it implies that slavery is acceptable.

When you're talking about the type of slavery mentioned here, I have to say that it certainly seems acceptable to me. After all, we have very similar practices in america: inmates in our prisons are forced to do public service work, people are allowed to work off a debt. That is slavery in all but name.

Let me answer you in mixed up order, to make things as clear as possible.

wouldnt that constitute slavery? so if you steal a man into slavery, because im sure no one goes willingly, then you should be put to death? if thats the case then why regulate slavery?

The fact is that under this system of laws people did become slaves willingly. It was the equivilent of declaring bankrupcy-you could not pay off a debt, and so you sold yourself as a slave for six years in order to have that debt canceled. In fact, this practice continued up until colonial days (wheb racial slavery became common) georgia was originally a debters prison.

Indentured Servitude is not really such a bad system, really. Esp When there is a limit to how long you may be held.

The law you cited above was to prevent people from being kidnapped into slavery. This would include, say, raiding indiginous tribes and shipping them off to another country to pick cotton for you. It is not the same as someone becoming a slave to pay off a debt.

whats wrong with that? im sure women dont mind.

Since the woman was married to a fellow slave during his tenure, that means she had already become a slave independently of him. Therefore, it makes sense that she would go free independently of him.
Each serves out their sentance individually.

what could possibly be wrong with selling your daughter?

I agree that it shoulnd't be nescessary, but the same principle applies as outlined above. The daughter becomes a bondservant, rather than starve in bankrupcy. What's wrong about that?

You need to remember that these people selling themselves into slavery are only one step away from living on the street. Which would you prefer: a period of slavery, or spending the rest of your life eating out of a dumpster and running from debt collectors?

As for women slaves being treated differently... Female slaves and servants often used sexually. In keeping with God's views on sex and marraige in general, slave owners are told 'if you're screwing her, she get's treated like a wife'. I think that's fair, don't you?

It seems to me that the linchpin of your entire case is that servitude is inherently bad. It isn't.

[Wayfarer]

But to twist it together with ritual sacrifice, to heap all your own sins onto this teacher and say that he took your punishment for you, it sounds like a whipping boy.

And that's exactly what it is.

I don't see the need to twist logic about and stand it on end just to turn one of the scriptures into "always correct". And I think it is wrong to do.

My quibble is that I am constantly forced to deal with people who seemingly try to twist logic about and turn it on it's end in order to to claim that the scriptures are incorrect. A thing should be seen for what it is, not what you want it to be.

[Elfhelm]

Well, I don't think it's right when it's used to either prove or disprove.

You know, if those metaphors, like ritual cannabalism, are OK, then why not explore more metaphors than just the ones your Dad had?

[Rían]

Originally posted by Millane
Endentured servant i think is the word you are looking for Gwaimir... i wont come near Religion because i end up saying childish stupid remarks

Millane, were you referring to Gwaimir's post immediately before yours? IOW, were you saying that Jesus is an indentured servant? Or am I missing your point?

EDIT - whoops, silly me you're talking about Gwaimir's post about slavery further up when he couldn't remember a term!

[Elfhelm]

Rian, I agree it's about what's bad for you sometimes, or about what's bad for others that you might do unknowingly. Like someone may say it's OK to have a few drinks if they aren't overindulging, then get in a car with only a slightly impaired response time, and kill himself or someone else. And that's definitely wrong even if they can prove it's OK by the Bible.

Likewise, cutting down massive forests. We now know that they make oxygen that people need to breath. But in the time of the Bible there were hardly even any forests nearby to draw this lesson from. Now I know two totally different takes on this that use the Bible to justify themselves. One says God gave us all this stuff to use as we see fit and that the material world is just a place we're passing through and it's all going to be dust when the end of the world comes so we should just rape the whole planet. The other says that we are caretakers of the world and we must be considerate of our neighbors, so we should not pollute or overharvest. I am certain that I know which one is correct, because I listen to my heart and my conscience. But the problem I have is that the other one is accepted by more people, in fact by the people who are in power, because it justifies their otherwise unacceptable behavior.

So I can't just lump all these people together and call them all one religion.
anyway... back at ya

[Rían]

Originally posted by Lizra
Hi Rian, That's exactly why I like Unity! It is NOT BIble based Christian! (neither am I)
Jesus was a wonderful teacher of spiritual ideals, but on par with other humans. The bible is not the "word" of God, but a book of history and spiritual guidlines. "Christ" is in you, and you make your own "Heaven and /or Hell" right now, in this life, on this earth. This works for me, helps me to be a better person, helps me to connect with the spiritual qualities in myself, and it is a pleasure to come together with all the different peoples of different beliefs in a community that embraces diversity. Thank goodness for Unity (IMO)

Yes, I thought that's probably why you liked it - I just wanted to make it clear, since it bears the name "church" (which to many people incorrectly means "Christian") that it does NOT line up with the Bible on some of the most important points. My opinion on that church, from what I read, is - sounds nice, but won't work to really solve mankind's problems. If you take the deity of Jesus out of the picture, as well as the authority of the Bible as the word of God, there will be no real power in it.

[Andúril]

Wayfarer:
I thought that's what I said?

Nope. You said the following:

Anduril believes that some/most attributes which are ascribed to God are logically incompatable, and therefore, false.

You refer to "God" as if everybody subscribes to the same god-concept, i.e. a god-concept with the same attributes. I specifically made it clear that I was referring to multiple god-concepts. You should now see the difference, and the moral of the story is: don't think.

Can anyone recommend a few scholarly OT/NT/IB (individual book) commentaries?

[Rían]

"scholarly" in my opinion, or yours? If you want to give me your def, I'll see what I can come up with.

[MasterMothra]

by the same token, i guess if ramses would have followed gods "laws" regulating the ownership of slaves then moses would have been spared the trouble of leading them from bondage.

i see your points on the issue, but i dont subscribe to the same theory. there is scripture that in itself shows us the way to live, or how to live. the next passage is genesis 12. god has told abram to leave haran.

10 Now there was a famine in the land, and Abram went down to Egypt to live there for a while because the famine was severe. 11 As he was about to enter Egypt, he said to his wife Sarai, "I know what a beautiful woman you are. 12 When the Egyptians see you, they will say, 'This is his wife.' Then they will kill me but will let you live. 13 Say you are my sister, so that I will be treated well for your sake and my life will be spared because of you."
14 When Abram came to Egypt, the Egyptians saw that she was a very beautiful woman. 15 And when Pharaoh's officials saw her, they praised her to Pharaoh, and she was taken into his palace. 16 He treated Abram well for her sake, and Abram acquired sheep and cattle, male and female donkeys, menservants and maidservants, and camels.
17 But the LORD inflicted serious diseases on Pharaoh and his household because of Abram's wife Sarai. 18 So Pharaoh summoned Abram. "What have you done to me?" he said. "Why didn't you tell me she was your wife? 19 Why did you say, 'She is my sister,' so that I took her to be my wife? Now then, here is your wife. Take her and go!" 20 Then Pharaoh gave orders about Abram to his men, and they sent him on his way, with his wife and everything he had.

this passage was actually the first passage that i deconstructed in my youth for a bible study class. after this passage i had no respect for abram or his wife, and questioned gods response to the matter. abram lied and gave his wife to the pharoh for personal safety and material gain. now god, in his infinite wisdom, decides to punish the pharoh for this fracus. shouldnt abram have been punished? and what does this passage teach: the means justifies the end? to me it says that anything is acceptable to achieve gods will, whatever that may be. even sacrificing the purity of your relationship with your wife. this passage is total nonsense and goes against my belief in the sanctity of marriage for one and falls short of teaching any valuable lessons.

[Elfhelm]

Actually it's a story from Babylonian mythology that has been modified to fit your screen.

[Andúril]

Scholarly in your opinion, ofcourse. I'll check up on the authors myself, but I'll need a few names first.

My idea of scholars include such people as Raymond E. Brown, John P. Meier, etc.

[MasterMothra]

wayfarer: "A thing should be seen for what it is, not what you want it to be."

my sentiments exactly!

[Wayfarer]

my sentiments exactly!

I was quoting elfhelm.

You may agree with that statement, but the degree to which you're willing to go to prove the bible incorrect seems to say otherwise. If you truly saw things for what they were, you would realize that there truly are no flaws of the kind you're looking for.

I think anduril hit close to this when he suggested you should examine both the supposed contradictions and the opinions of leading apologists. Claiming that the bible is full of contradictions and then posting examples which are singularly unconvincing, certainly could be seen to suggest that you're willing to grab on to even the shakiest argument as long as it can be used to support your point.

Please understand that your posts so far have left me with nothing but respect for you, and I'm not suggesting that you are guilty of the sort of thinking which I describe. But I know from long experience that non-christians usually don't want christianity to be true. Heck, I don't want it to be true half the time, but reason won't let me accept anything else, including athiesm. It's not what makes me comfortable, it's simply the truth.

Re: Ramses

If ramses had followed god's laws, the isrealites would have never been made slaves in the first place.

Re: Abraham and Sara

Wasn't abraham punished? He was thrown back out into the wilderness, and he couldn't return for fear of his life. There is no indication that god approved of his deception.