The Meaning Of The Bible

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

He doesn’t. He says that when an argument to justify the claim “god” also justifies the claim “leprechauns” you have no grounds to believe in one but not the other if that’s the argument you need.

Wrongly so.

Is your name Ippy?

[Outrider]

They all have in common submission to their god, which is the essence of the tree of knowledge story.

You were suggesting, though, that people need someone to tell them their morality, when the reality is that they are choosing their own morality and then adopting a sect which affirms it.

What's not to like about no adultery

Depends on if your definition of adultery involves an overly restrictive view of marriage..

rights for slaves

You don't legislate slavery, you abolish it.

strange haircuts a sign of ungodly attitude so forbidden.

Enforced conformity to aid in tribalism...
 

Do you mean relative interactions?

No, the calibration of relative infractions - so, for instance, eating shellfish and having the wrong haircut were considered worse infractions than keeping slaves, forced marriage of the conquered was actively encouraged but crop rotation and mixed fabric clothing was frowned upon, murder was on a par with working on the wrong day... the calibration, even if you accept that all of those should in some way be considered problematic, is just unfathomable.

O.

[ippy]

Is your name Ippy?

                                    ippy

[ippy]

If you say it makes as much sense to believe in God as Leprechauns I have to say you are wrong.
I put it down to all that shit the NSS is filling your head with.

This rule would also apply to superbly wonderful ippies, it'd make no sense to believe in the superb wonderfulness of all ippies, without supporting viable evidence. 

This rule would also apply to god or gods, it'd make no sense to believe in these gods or god, without the supporting viable evidence either. 

I will fully and freely admit to a touch of bias here.

ippy.

[Spud]

You don't legislate slavery, you abolish it.

So to summarize my point of view as previously discussed:
You abolish the type that involves kidnapping an innocent person and forcing them to work for you, yes.
There are circumstances where forms of slavery can be justified (and therefore must be legislated for); for example, we might legislate that when someone commits murder, they should be imprisoned for life and do some sort of labour and earning their own money and possessions. Considering that they deserve to forfeit their life, this would be a concession. Or, in a culture where sex before marriage is considered wrong, when a man seduces and sleeps with an unmarried woman he should be forced to marry her, as in the OT law.
Or if someone pledges his labour to someone for life in return for food and housing, in order to stay alive.
Or (a typical OT scenario) where a person becomes a slave for life when a neighboring country attacks Israel and gets beaten, and Israel takes prisoners of war and enslaves them. Or if someone from a neighboring country is already a slave and is sold to an Israelite.
Bear in mind, they could get out of this situation if their master mistreated them.
The word 'slave' was associated with cruelty during the Egyptian captivity, and this type of slavery was not permitted in Israel.

[Spud]

Plus the fact that we are all slaves to the ground, since it won't produce much for us to eat unless we cultivate it.

[ProfessorDavey]

Plus the fact that we are all slaves to the ground, since it won't produce much for us to eat unless we cultivate it.

You never heard of hunter-gatherers - they seemed to manage. In fact agriculture is a pretty recent development in the evolution of human societies.

[Spud]

You were suggesting, though, that people need someone to tell them their morality, when the reality is that they are choosing their own morality and then adopting a sect which affirms it.

I think the reality is that we don't always naturally want to do the right thing and have to be told.

[Spud]

Enforced conformity to aid in tribalism...

So if we enforce say, drinking in moderation, is that tribalism?

[Spud]

No, the calibration of relative infractions - so, for instance, eating shellfish and having the wrong haircut were considered worse infractions than keeping slaves, forced marriage of the conquered was actively encouraged but crop rotation and mixed fabric clothing was frowned upon, murder was on a par with working on the wrong day... the calibration, even if you accept that all of those should in some way be considered problematic, is just unfathomable.

Well forced marriage of the conquered never involved actively attacking a country. Only the child-sacrificing Canaanite nations were attacked.

[Spud]

You never heard of hunter-gatherers - they seemed to manage. In fact agriculture is a pretty recent development in the evolution of human societies.

I did see a brilliant documentary about an Amazon tribe - that Scottish guy went out to visit them.

[Spud]

eating shellfish

Was prohibited on the basis that they don't have fins and scales, a simple way to distinguish something that could transmit a disease.

[Nearly Sane]

Plus the fact that we are all slaves to the ground, since it won't produce much for us to eat unless we cultivate it.

  https://youtu.be/H-a7mLqjP_c

[jeremyp]

Is it a close call against 'Have you heard the word of our Lord and Saviour?', though?

O.

That nearly worked on me once, but I answered with "is he the saviour of the other apes too?" That put a damper on things.

[jeremyp]

Plus the fact that we are all slaves to the ground, since it won't produce much for us to eat unless we cultivate it.

The key thing about slavery is not that you have to work but that you are property of somebody else and you have to work for them. It makes no sense to say we are slaves to the ground except as a metaphor.

[jeremyp]

Was prohibited on the basis that they don't have fins and scales, a simple way to distinguish something that could transmit a disease.

Fish with fins and scales can transmit disease. Also, quite often shellfish do not transmit disease. I've eaten them many times and I usually don't get ill.

[Outrider]

Was prohibited on the basis that they don't have fins and scales, a simple way to distinguish something that could transmit a disease.

I wasn't suggesting I thought it would have practical difficulties in implementation, I was pointing out that to adjudge it as somehow unacceptable behaviour but to raise no strong objections to the institution of slavery and to actively encourage forcing the marriage of the womenfolk of defeated enemy tribes doesn't really speak well of a perfect moral being.

O.

[Outrider]

So if we enforce say, drinking in moderation, is that tribalism?

Depends on why you do it - if, rather than 'enforcing drinking in moderation' you have a special magical ritual for the intiated with alcohol and bread, then yes, if you set a blanket prohibition on anyone being drunk in public, then no.

O.

[Spud]

Fish with fins and scales can transmit disease. Also, quite often shellfish do not transmit disease. I've eaten them many times and I usually don't get ill.

My bad. Its symbolic, which we know because Noah, who didn't eat meat before the Flood, knew about unclean animals. We may not know for certain how clean animals symbolized holiness, but in the case of shellfish it may be to do with drifting aimlessly with the current, and not having the armour plating of scales to protect them from the environment.

[Sebastian Toe]

but in the case of shellfish it may be to do with drifting aimlessly with the current, and not having the armour plating of scales to protect them from the environment.

When was the last time you tried eating a prawn with it's outer "unprotective" layer still attatched?

[jeremyp]

My bad. Its symbolic, which we know because Noah, who didn't eat meat before the Flood, knew about unclean animals.

Are you claiming nobody ate meat before the Flood? That would make the thing about unclean animals completely nonsensical to Noah.

We may not know for certain how clean animals symbolized holiness, but in the case of shellfish it may be to do with drifting aimlessly with the current, and not having the armour plating of scales to protect them from the environment.

Have you ever eaten moules marinière? If you do, one of the first things you'll notice is that mussels do have significant armour plating. In fact, most shellfish have... well, shells. Wouldn't it be amazing if God had got it wrong and he really meant jellyfish.

[Spud]

Are you claiming nobody ate meat before the Flood? That would make the thing about unclean animals completely nonsensical to Noah.

Noah used clean animals for sacrifices. Also, God gave Noah all the animals for food, it was not until Moses that unclean were prohibited. So the reason for the distinction must be to do with outward symbolism of purity of heart.

[Spud]

Depends on why you do it

To prevent drunkenness in public.

[Outrider]

To prevent drunkenness in public.

Then that seems to me to be a reasonable 'public health/safety' benefit - and, as it applies to everyone it's difficult to see it as tribalism. Can you suggest a similar benefit to a special haircut?

O.

[Spud]

I wasn't suggesting I thought it would have practical difficulties in implementation, I was pointing out that to adjudge it as somehow unacceptable behaviour but to raise no strong objections to the institution of slavery

The institution of slavery was in some ways essential to society. Exodus 22:3 says, "A thief must make full restitution. If he is unable, he is to be sold because of his theft."
Kidnapping and selling a person as a slave, however, was a crime.

and to actively encourage forcing the marriage of the womenfolk of defeated enemy tribes doesn't really speak well of a perfect moral being.

Maybe it was the only alternative to the women having to fend for themselves?