Using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry

[Nearly Sane]

Pardon my typo, which I have just corrected.  I despise the RCC.

But are willing to suppress freedom in the name of you own idolatry of your views.

[Roses]

But are willing to suppress freedom in the name of you own idolatry of your views.

Ehhhhhhhhhh?

[Nearly Sane]

Ehhhhhhhhhh?

You think that your views should be enforced. You are just the same as those religious people who want the same.

[Roses]

You think that your views should be enforced. You are just the same as those religious people who want the same.

Surely religious extremism is a danger to everyone?

[Nearly Sane]

Surely religious extremism is a danger to everyone?

I think extremism is dangerous. I think trying to restrict people's beliefs as you seem to is extremism.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I think extremism is dangerous. I think trying to restrict people's beliefs as you seem to is extremism.

I think extremism is dangerous too, but I think you’re misrepresenting LR here. What she actually said in Reply 351 was:

It should be an offence to use the Bible to control others, however that is achieved.

In Reply 352 you responded:

In practice other than banning the book how would that work?

That’s a big jump from not “using the Bible to control others” to “banning the book”, let alone to restricting people’s beliefs. You can achieve what LR hopes for in the same way we do with, say the Communist Manifesto. Schools teach that the CM exist and what it contains. They do not though insist that pupils must accept its claims as inerrantly correct, let alone that they’ll be subject to grisly punishments in an afterlife if they don’t.

LR seems to me to be arguing only for the equivalent, secular treatment of the Bible (and, presumably, of other “holy” books) that we have in non-faith schools: ie that they’re significant cultural artefacts worthy of study as such, but that’s all. If people want to believe their contents to be true they’re still free to do so, but they’re not told that they must because that’s the faith of the teacher. That’s not “restricting people’s beliefs” at all I’d have thought.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

I think extremism is dangerous too, but I think you’re misrepresenting LR here. What she actually said in Reply 351 was:

In Reply 352 you responded:

That’s a big jump from not “using the Bible to control others” to “banning the book”, let alone to restricting people’s beliefs. You can achieve what LR hopes for in the same way we do with, say the Communist Manifesto. Schools teach that the CM exist and what it contains. They do not though insist that pupils must accept its claims as inerrantly correct, let alone that they’ll be subject to grisly punishments in an afterlife if they don’t.

LR seems to me to be arguing only for the equivalent, secular treatment of the Bible (and, presumably, of other “holy” books) that we have in non-faith schools: ie that they’re significant cultural artefacts worthy of study as such, but that’s all. If people want to believe their contents to be true they’re still free to do so, but they’re not told that they must because that’s the faith of the teacher. That’s not “restricting people’s beliefs” at all I’d have thought.

Where did LR mention faith schools? Why did you miss that the question mark in my statement which then means that I am not actually stating LR wants to ban the bible? Why are you so hypocritical about applying standards?

[Roses]

Just to make my position clear. I am of the opinion it should be against the law if people use their faith as an excuse for abusing other people, physically or mentally. For instance, there are extremist Christians, particularly in the US, who would have homosexuality made illegal, I have heard some would even like the death sentence for gays. Threatening children and vulnerable with the tortures of hell if they don't convert is abusive and very damaging as I know for a fact. My late grandmother literally beat religion into her children!

As I have said many times, I have no problem at all with people who are moderates where their faith is concerned, like my own children. I don't see it their way, but I certainly don't object to them having a faith.

[Nearly Sane]

Just to make my position clear. I am of the opinion it should be against the law if people use their faith as an excuse for abusing other people, physically or mentally. For instance, there are extremist Christians, particularly in the US, who would have homosexuality made illegal, I have heard some would even like the death sentence for gays. Threatening children and vulnerable with the tortures of hell if they don't convert is abusive and very damaging as I know for a fact. My late grandmother literally beat religion into her children!

As I have said many times, I have no problem at all with people who are moderates where their faith is concerned, like my own children. I don't see it their way, but I certainly don't object to them having a faith.

Apart from none of that having any connection to your post about people using the bible to control anyone, what about moderates who argue that racism is wrong because of the bible and use it to get people to think racism is wrong?

[Spud]

People are not items to be traded.  'Buying' people is the moral evil, here, considering other human beings as property is the fundamentally unjustifiable element of slavery - the potential ill-treatment after the fact is not the issue if there are no slaves.  You can suggest that there is some good in a treatise that advises slaves should be treated well, but it still fails as an explanation of morality if it doesn't call out the concept of slavery as wrong.

Would you agree that owning a person is not in itself a bad thing. For example, when caught, a mass murderer will be owned by the taxpayer and controlled by him in a prison for life. A government may conscript men to serve in the army. This means for life, for someone who eventually gets killed. The conquest of Canaan and law of Moses ultimately shows the nature of God. Canaan is God's land, and because he is completely holy, there can be no sin in the land so serious sin that cannot be atoned for, such as adultery, must be punished by death. The indigenous idolatrous nations living in the land had to be either driven out or exterminated because it was God's land.

The point of the 'Holy land' is to show that actually we all deserve death, and consequently it points us to our need for a saviour. It is also a picture of what will happen at the final judgment, where all who are not under Christ as master will die the second death.

People tend to gasp at the barbarity of the Old Testament, including its comments about slavery. Only when seen through the lens of the holiness of God does it fully make sense.

[Spud]

Hi Spud,

I didn't say you were trying to justify slavery.  I said you were trying to justify the unjustifiable.  Not slavery, in this case, but the abject immorality of (parts of) your so-called good book.  (The qualification is in deference to Dicky Underpants who seems to know what he's talking about.)

It can be hard to understand your points, as words' meanings seem fluid to you.  For example, when you said that "every inclination of the human heart" was towards evil, because that's what it says in the Bible, you didn't mean every inclination of human beings is evil, you mean something bizarre, obscure and totally unexplained about 'evil' inclinations originating somewhere different from 'good' ones. 

It's easy to sound like you're giving answers when you don't need to be consistent, logical or clear.  Some of them even sound quite impressive if you don't think about them too much.  Or at all.

And that, my Liege, is how we know the world to be banana shaped.

Sorry - It's up to people to read the context if I quote a verse. I can't explain everything - I'm kinda outnumbered about 10 to 1 here.

[Roses]

Would you agree that owning a person is not in itself a bad thing. For example, when caught, a mass murderer will be owned by the taxpayer and controlled by him in a prison for life. A government may conscript men to serve in the army. This means for life, for someone who eventually gets killed. The conquest of Canaan is a story that shows the nature of God. Canaan is God's land, and because he is completely holy, there can be no sin in the land so serious sin that cannot be atoned for, such as adultery, must be punished by death. The indigenous idolatrous nations living in the land had to be either driven out or exterminated because it was God's land.

The point of the 'Holy land' is to show that actually we all deserve death, and consequently it points us to our need for a saviour. It is also a picture of what will happen at the final judgment, where all who are not under Christ as master will die the second death.

People tend to gasp at the barbarity of the Old Testament, including its comments about slavery. Only when seen through the lens of the holiness of God does it fully make sense.

The way you see it doesn't make any sense at all, imo.

[Nearly Sane]

Sorry - It's up to people to read the context if I quote a verse. I can't explain everything - I'm kinda outnumbered about 10 to 1 here.

No, your claim, up to.you to justify.

[Nearly Sane]

Would you agree that owning a person is not in itself a bad thing. For example, when caught, a mass murderer will be owned by the taxpayer and controlled by him in a prison for life. A government may conscript men to serve in the army. This means for life, for someone who eventually gets killed. The conquest of Canaan and law of Moses ultimately shows the nature of God. Canaan is God's land, and because he is completely holy, there can be no sin in the land so serious sin that cannot be atoned for, such as adultery, must be punished by death. The indigenous idolatrous nations living in the land had to be either driven out or exterminated because it was God's land.

The point of the 'Holy land' is to show that actually we all deserve death, and consequently it points us to our need for a saviour. It is also a picture of what will happen at the final judgment, where all who are not under Christ as master will die the second death.

People tend to gasp at the barbarity of the Old Testament, including its comments about slavery. Only when seen through the lens of the holiness of God does it fully make sense.

You worship a thug god that says it is ok to beat a slave if the slave doesn't die within a couple of days. The god you worship is a prick.

[Spud]

You worship a thug god that says it is ok to hear a slave if the slave doesn't die within a couple of days.

It is talking about a thrashing with a rod, presumably to the point where the slave can't move because he is in pain. Note also it says somewhere that you can discipline your child with a rod. The presumption is that you don't injure it.
See later verses where if the slave is injured (presumably this would cover drawing blood too) he is to be freed. Ie don't injure your slave.

The context makes it clear that a court would assume the master's innocence because he has paid for the slave so is presumed to treat him well. "for he is his money"

20If a man strikes his male or female servant with a rod, and the servant dies by his hand, he shall surely be punished. 21However, if the servant gets up after a day or two, the owner shall not be punished, since the servant is his property

[Gordon]

Would you agree that owning a person is not in itself a bad thing. For example, when caught, a mass murderer will be owned by the taxpayer and controlled by him in a prison for life. A government may conscript men to serve in the army. This means for life, for someone who eventually gets killed. The conquest of Canaan and law of Moses ultimately shows the nature of God. Canaan is God's land, and because he is completely holy, there can be no sin in the land so serious sin that cannot be atoned for, such as adultery, must be punished by death. The indigenous idolatrous nations living in the land had to be either driven out or exterminated because it was God's land.

The point of the 'Holy land' is to show that actually we all deserve death, and consequently it points us to our need for a saviour. It is also a picture of what will happen at the final judgment, where all who are not under Christ as master will die the second death.

People tend to gasp at the barbarity of the Old Testament, including its comments about slavery. Only when seen through the lens of the holiness of God does it fully make sense.

Ordinarily I consider replying to this, Spud: however, if you aren't wumming, and I think you might be, then you are so far beyond any reasoned and intelligent exchange that it isn't worth making the effort to deal with the obvious problems in what you say.

[Roses]

It is talking about a thrashing with a rod, presumably to the point where the slave can't move because he is in pain. Note also it says somewhere that you can discipline your child with a rod. The presumption is that you don't injure it.
See later verses where if the slave is injured (presumably this would cover drawing blood too) he is to be freed. Ie don't injure your slave.

The context makes it clear that a court would assume the master's innocence because he has paid for the slave so is presumed to treat him well. "for he is his money"

20If a man strikes his male or female servant with a rod, and the servant dies by his hand, he shall surely be punished. 21However, if the servant gets up after a day or two, the owner shall not be punished, since the servant is his property

Spud, that is your worst post yet, you should be ashamed of yourself.

[Nearly Sane]

It is talking about a thrashing with a rod, presumably to the point where the slave can't move because he is in pain. Note also it says somewhere that you can discipline your child with a rod. The presumption is that you don't injure it.
See later verses where if the slave is injured (presumably this would cover drawing blood too) he is to be freed. Ie don't injure your slave.

The context makes it clear that a court would assume the master's innocence because he has paid for the slave so is presumed to treat him well. "for he is his money"

20If a man strikes his male or female servant with a rod, and the servant dies by his hand, he shall surely be punished. 21However, if the servant gets up after a day or two, the owner shall not be punished, since the servant is his property

Your god and you are vicious thugs. You worship beating people.

[Roses]

https://historyengine.richmond.edu/episodes/view/3535


In the past some US Christians used the Bible as an excuse for their ownership of slaves. Spud appears to think as they did!

[Nearly Sane]

https://historyengine.richmond.edu/episodes/view/3535


In the past some US Christians used the Bible as an excuse for their ownership of slaves. Spud appears to think as they did!

And some Christians used the Bible to argue for the abolition of slavery.

[Gordon]

It is talking about a thrashing with a rod, presumably to the point where the slave can't move because he is in pain. Note also it says somewhere that you can discipline your child with a rod. The presumption is that you don't injure it.
See later verses where if the slave is injured (presumably this would cover drawing blood too) he is to be freed. Ie don't injure your slave.

The context makes it clear that a court would assume the master's innocence because he has paid for the slave so is presumed to treat him well. "for he is his money"

20If a man strikes his male or female servant with a rod, and the servant dies by his hand, he shall surely be punished. 21However, if the servant gets up after a day or two, the owner shall not be punished, since the servant is his property

Have you tried actually thinking critically about the implications of what you're saying here, Spud?

[Spud]

Gordon,
On the subject of the extermination of the Canaanites and its representing the final judgment, which you probably found offensive: that was the general meaning which a respectable curate at church gave over a decade ago.

Clearly you also find my comments on slaves offensive. The implications to me are that it was the cultural norm at the time to get slaves to do the menial work. God doesn't have a problem with this, it's a bit like the UK needing people from abroad to pick our fruit for us, as one poster mentioned in the context of Brexit. He does care about how they are treated. A verse I forgot to mention explicitly says not to oppress a foreigner (or an orphan or widow). That's the UK's 'hostile environment' blown out of the water. It also says that an escaped slave shouldn't be returned to his master. That implies that any 'vigour' used over slaves cannot in any way harm him, since to prevent him escaping you would need to use excessive force. The way to keep a slave loyal was to look after him.
Hope that helps.

[Gordon]

Gordon,
On the subject of the extermination of the Canaanites and its representing the final judgment, which you probably found offensive: that was the general meaning which a respectable curate at church gave over a decade ago.

Clearly you also find my comments on slaves offensive. The implications to me are that it was the cultural norm at the time to get slaves to do the menial work. God doesn't have a problem with this, it's a bit like the UK needing people from abroad to pick our fruit for us, as one poster mentioned in the context of Brexit. He does care about how they are treated. A verse I forgot to mention explicitly says not to oppress a foreigner (or an orphan or widow). That's the UK's 'hostile environment' blown out of the water. It also says that an escaped slave shouldn't be returned to his master. That implies that any 'vigour' used over slaves cannot in any way harm him, since to prevent him escaping you would need to use excessive force. The way to keep a slave loyal was to look after him.
Hope that helps.

It doesn't help at all, Spud: that slavery was a cultural norm in times past is one thing, but taking these ancient OT prescriptions about slavery as being a continued justification of slavery is another thing entirely.

As I said, I think you need to apply a touch of critical thinking to the contents of the Christian Bible, as some of your fellow Christians seem able to do, and stop regarding it as being authoritative or especially relevant in the present culture we both live in.

[Roses]

And some Christians used the Bible to argue for the abolition of slavery.

Agreed.

[Outrider]

Would you agree that owning a person is not in itself a bad thing.

No.  Absolutely, fundamentally, at the basis of the concept of human rights is the concept that we are something other than a commodity, that we have intrinsic worth, not transitive worth.

For example, when caught, a mass murderer will be owned by the taxpayer and controlled by him in a prison for life.

Prisoners are not 'owned' - they have their freedoms curtailed for a mixture of punishment and public protection, and the degree to which those freedoms are curtailed are something that we need to be mindful of, but at no point do they stop being people and start being trade goods.

A government may conscript men to serve in the army. This means for life, for someone who eventually gets killed.

And that's about a state forcing people to do something (ostensibly in service of the community) - in the modern world, increasingly, by a state that's elected the people making the decision.  Again, though, that's about the state putting limitations on people's freedom, not fundamentally changing their status - it's a limited incursion on freedom, not the complete eradication of that freedom.

The conquest of Canaan and law of Moses ultimately shows the nature of God. Canaan is God's land, and because he is completely holy, there can be no sin in the land so serious sin that cannot be atoned for, such as adultery, must be punished by death. The indigenous idolatrous nations living in the land had to be either driven out or exterminated because it was God's land.

Because your God is a warmongering god with strange concepts of moral right and wrong - regardless, you can imprison 'sinners', you can educate or exile, but to take slaves is a moral evil far, far beyond that of adultery.

The point of the 'Holy land' is to show that actually we all deserve death, and consequently it points us to our need for a saviour.

The point of 'holy land' is to lay claim to property for a given 'in-group', any spiritual nonsense after the fact is hogwash.  To paraphrase Captain Kirk, of all philosophers, what does a god need with a desert?

It is also a picture of what will happen at the final judgment, where all who are not under Christ as master will die the second death.

Because he loves us all unconditionally, right?

People tend to gasp at the barbarity of the Old Testament, including its comments about slavery. Only when seen through the lens of the holiness of God does it fully make sense.

Only through the delusion of religion can otherwise decent people countenance horrors such as slavery.

O.