Originally posted by Roy
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Morality or Obedience?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by element771 View PostChristians are human and I am sure that many of them advocated for keeping slavery. That doesn't change that the people pushing for abolition were also Christian. And if you think the Bible advocates for slavery, you must have a different Bible than I have.
But that is as far as I am going to go on biblical discussions. I view the bible as a book written by men (AFAIK), documenting their religious beliefs. As with all books, it is highly subject to interpretation, and has been used to defend or decry a wide range of things over the centuries. I do not turn to it for "truth" other than what historical information we can glean about the beliefs of its writers and their community, and those nuggets that I find inspirational.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by element771 View PostChristians are human and I am sure that many of them advocated for keeping slavery. That doesn't change that the people pushing for abolition were also Christian.And if you think the Bible advocates for slavery, you must have a different Bible than I have.Last edited by Roy; 03-09-2018, 11:12 AM.Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.
MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.
seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Roy View PostChristians are human and many of them advocated for abolishing slavery. That doesn't change that the people pushing against abolition were also Christian.
Comment
-
Originally posted by element771 View PostI think part of the problem is that modern slavery is different than the servitude which is mentioned in the Bible.
Look, I think there are many types of slavery that were practiced in the ancient near east, and many of them are reflected in the Christian bible. I do not recall the bible identifying which kinds were OK and which were not. I know the modern preference is to see the texts as referring more to indentured servitude or so-called "voluntary" slavery. Only a couple of centuries ago, those same passages were used to justify slavery in America, and before that slavery in the colonies of Christian countries.
As I said, the book is so subject to interpretation, a discussion about "what it means" I usually find to be pointless. Each person will have their interpretation, justify it in light of something, and then assure us that theirs is correct and everyone else's is incorrect. It's a rathole I just don't find productive. When I do read the bible, or reference it, I tend to constrain myself to "what it means to me," and leave it at that. I don't try to pretend I know what the original authors were thinking when they wrote it.
The discussion about moral frameworks we were engaged in seems to me to be more potentially productive.Last edited by carpedm9587; 03-09-2018, 11:41 AM.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by element771I think part of the problem is that modern slavery is different than the servitude which is mentioned in the Bible.
That's the third and last time you've avoided acknowledging the Biblical law permitting slavery.Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.
MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.
seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostI probably should not have posted on this topic...
Look, I think there are many types of slavery that were practiced in the ancient near east, and many of them are reflected in the Christian bible. I do not recall the bible identifying which kinds were OK and which were not. I know the modern preference is to see the texts as referring more to indentured servitude or so-called "voluntary" slavery. Only a couple of centuries ago, those same passages were used to justify slavery in America, and before that slavery in the colonies of Christian countries.
As I said, the book is so subject to interpretation, a discussion about "what it means" I usually find to be pointless. Each person will have their interpretation, justify it in light of something, and then assure us that theirs is correct and everyone else's is incorrect. It's a rathole I just don't find productive. When I do read the bible, or reference it, I tend to constrain myself to "what it means to me," and leave it at that. I don't try to pretend I know what the original authors were thinking when they wrote it.
The discussion about moral frameworks we were engaged in seems to me to be more potentially productive.
I think you're going too far here. The logical end-point of this (post-modern ?) approach is that all meaning is subjective to the reader, and thus any text can mean anything to the reader. Of course there is a degree of ambiguity in all communication, and being so far removed in time and culture from the OT increases that.
But surely the original authors of the Bible meant something in particular by what they wrote, and it is possible to get close to that meaning. As we develop better understanding of the background, language, context and culture, I think we can and do move closer and closer to the original author's meaning (the hermeneutical spiral).
So there is no need to throw our hands up and despair of ever arriving at the true meaning of the text, the question really should be something like 'How much weight and support can we see for this interpretation of the text being what the authors meant?'.
Such discussions might not be everyone's cup of tea, which is fair enough....>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by seer View PostOr we just intuitively understand that lying, stealing, etc....
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostSo what? If men just made it up, no big deal, follow it or not. If it is a command of God then it is a universal moral truth, with real ultimate consequences for not following it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostThere you go with subjective opinions again.
Your idea though, in my opinion, is just silly, there is no reason or logic at the basis of your coclusion, there is no reason that an act is considered immoral, other than that it is a brute fact, or because a god has decreed it so.
Comment
-
Originally posted by MaxVel View PostI think you're going too far here. The logical end-point of this (post-modern ?) approach is that all meaning is subjective to the reader, and thus any text can mean anything to the reader. Of course there is a degree of ambiguity in all communication, and being so far removed in time and culture from the OT increases that.
Originally posted by MaxVel View PostBut surely the original authors of the Bible meant something in particular by what they wrote, and it is possible to get close to that meaning. As we develop better understanding of the background, language, context and culture, I think we can and do move closer and closer to the original author's meaning (the hermeneutical spiral).
Originally posted by MaxVel View PostSo there is no need to throw our hands up and despair of ever arriving at the true meaning of the text, the question really should be something like 'How much weight and support can we see for this interpretation of the text being what the authors meant?'.
Originally posted by MaxVel View PostSuch discussions might not be everyone's cup of tea, which is fair enough.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Except that the reciprocity rule describes a basic social contract; the basic dynamic by which society's tend to function. It doesn't actually tell us what is morally right action or morally wrong action. Using it and it alone, a masochist could find justification for torture. A suicidal person could find justification for homicide. The list goes on.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by MaxVel View PostI think you're going too far here. The logical end-point of this (post-modern ?) approach is that all meaning is subjective to the reader, and thus any text can mean anything to the reader. Of course there is a degree of ambiguity in all communication, and being so far removed in time and culture from the OT increases that.
But surely the original authors of the Bible meant something in particular by what they wrote, and it is possible to get close to that meaning. As we develop better understanding of the background, language, context and culture, I think we can and do move closer and closer to the original author's meaning (the hermeneutical spiral).
So there is no need to throw our hands up and despair of ever arriving at the true meaning of the text, the question really should be something like 'How much weight and support can we see for this interpretation of the text being what the authors meant?'.
Such discussions might not be everyone's cup of tea, which is fair enough.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Sparko, 06-25-2024, 03:03 PM
|
21 responses
93 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 12:34 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, 06-20-2024, 10:04 AM
|
26 responses
131 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
Today, 01:15 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 06-18-2024, 08:18 AM
|
81 responses
458 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 12:48 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 06-15-2024, 09:43 AM
|
139 responses
582 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Today, 11:01 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-09-2024, 01:04 PM
|
468 responses
2,137 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 06-05-2024, 04:09 AM |
Comment