Religion and scuba

[dfx]

God has ultimate authority, and from a Christian perspective, obedience to His will is indeed moral. I believe there was a historical context to dealings with those the Hebrews 'invaded' that goes beyond your depiction.

Really! So what's this context that would make murdering an entire village (except the virgins which you can keep for yourselves) moral?

As for 'owning' people, slavery, that institution existed in society, and provided a way to make a living (people could sell themselves into it, basically), to deal with prisoners of war (without killing them all), and I would imagine for dealing with criminals. As opposed to today where we lock many up in cages (prison).

Except that this is not what Exodus 21 and other parts of the bible are talking about. They're talking about slave trade. Buying them, where to buy them, how much to pay for them. Different rules for Jewish slaves (you own them for six years, but there's a loophole through which you can own them for life) and non-Jewish slaves (you own them for life anyway). That you can pass them on to your children as personal property. Perhaps you're aware of some other parts of the bible, maybe in the NT, that says: OK nevermind, slavery is wrong, don't do that? (Spoiler: there is no such passage).

I'm impressed though! You're actually trying to explain this away. I do truly hope that you don't actually believe that there is any chance for even the slightest hint of morality in these parts, because that would make you an immoral monster.

 

[drrich2]

The Jews were called to treat those amongst their own community with a special regard, yes. That that extended to slavery is no great surprise. As for a loop hole, I suspect you're referring to a 'bond slave,' where a slave had served out his time of service, decided he would rather stay on in his present state, and thus by choice became a bond slave/servant. At least one of the Apostles in the New Testament referred to himself as a bond slave of the Lord Jesus Christ.

It is true that the Bible didn't come out actively trying to overturn the institution of slavery of its day. And some of Jesus' followers were probably surprised He wasn't there to overthrow the Roman occupation and 'return the nation to Israel.' God had a much greater agenda. Our slavery to sin & ostracism from God is vastly and eternally more significant than our present circumstances on the Earth, whether we be slave or free, rich or poor, healthy or sick.

Be mindful; the institution of slavery was a human design. From a Christian perspective, we live in a fallen world. Eden started well; it was the human choice to depart from God's will and seek to serve their own agenda. And we've been learning ever since about how well that works.

Richard.

 

[agilis]

God has ultimate authority, and from a Christian perspective, obedience to His will is indeed moral. I believe there was a historical context to dealings with those the Hebrews 'invaded' that goes beyond your depiction.

As for 'owning' people, slavery, that institution existed in society, and provided a way to make a living (people could sell themselves into it, basically), to deal with prisoners of war (without killing them all), and I would imagine for dealing with criminals. As opposed to today where we lock many up in cages (prison).



So again, it's his preference alone that restricts him, apart from potential consequences (if any) in a given situation. And we know not all intelligent 'highly evolved social animals' act in a compassionate way; in a nutshell, they don't all go for the Golden Rule, basically.



To a point. But when that support of the common good extends to those who are no longer of active value to the society (a drain on resources without contributing much) or are a genetic danger to it (e.g.: serious mental & physical diseases with a strong hereditary component), then eventually, the rational atheist might have to wonder whether nursing homes, & welfare for the mentally retarded, schizophrenics & some other groups is a wise use of resources. That mindset paves the way for eugenics.



I hope so. A fundamental principle of Christianity is that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. The Apostle Paul, author of a large portion of the New Testament, identified himself as a chief of sinners. This doctrine is foundational as a rationale for why God would send his sinless Son as a perfect sacrifice as an atonement for sin, an act modeled by the historical animal sacrifices of the Hebrews (who became the Jew) for many generations. The thief also on a cross whom appealed to Christ to remember him did not see his own crucifixion as unjust, and yet Christ told him that day he would be with him in Paradise.

Now, if you would make the point that some people claim affiliation with Christ, yet engage in vile acts in powerful contradiction to that, yes, that happens.

Richard.

Please, I beg, don't try to defend murderous and cruel Old Testament.

No, there was no absolving "historical context" to the various genocides engaged in by that amazing power team, God and his Hebrew Heavy Hitters.

All the mitigations of slavery mentioned in the Old Testament applied only to Jewish slaves. The text is filled with barbaric atrocity. Read Samuel Clemen's observations on the Old Testament.

The post- Elizabethan King James translations lend an overwhelming majesty and poetic beauty to the Old Testament, but the substance is really nasty stuff. Read the complete, unabbreviated version of the Ten Commandments sometime for an eye-opening experience.

All of this is beginning to remind me of discussions I had with my Catholic school girlfriends while trying to get under those uniform skirts by convincing them that they would not go to hell.

 

[doctormike]

So again, it's his preference alone that restricts him, apart from potential consequences (if any) in a given situation.

To a point. But when that support of the common good extends to those who are no longer of active value to the society (a drain on resources without contributing much) or are a genetic danger to it (e.g.: serious mental & physical diseases with a strong hereditary component), then eventually, the rational atheist might have to wonder whether nursing homes, & welfare for the mentally retarded, schizophrenics & some other groups is a wise use of resources. That mindset paves the way for eugenics.

So what's your alternative guide for how to act? Follow God's law? Well, then you have two options - do what it says in the book, or do what some human being says God wants you to do.

The first option means that you had better not showing up for the Florida mini lobster season (Leviticus 11:12), and be ready at the dock to stone the captain to death when he comes back from a weekend wreck dive (Exodus 31:14).

The second option is even worse, since then the law depends on whoever is telling you what God wants. And sometimes, those who tell you what God wants don't always have the best intentions...

 

[drrich2]

Really! So what's this context that would make murdering an entire village (except the virgins which you can keep for yourselves) moral?

Aside from that fact that wiping an enemy out entirely can prevent thousands of years of off & on fighting?

This is an important philosophical point. From a Christian perspective, all others live under moral authority, but God is the ultimate moral authority. It's kind of like the doctrine of eminent domain, to my way of thinking; God wrought creation, and He can do with it as He will. Job may have had the best reasoning to question God of any man who ever lived, yet he lacked standing or qualification to do so. My God shall judge me; it is not for me to judge Him. I don't always know why He does this or allows that. But it is in the nature of faith to trust Him. As Job might say, though He slay me, still shall I trust Him (Job 13:15 for specifics).

Richard.

 

[doctormike]

Eden started well; it was the human choice to depart from God's will and seek to serve their own agenda. And we've been learning ever since about how well that works.

Eden was good? Living like a pet, absolutely forbidden to gain knowledge? And you feel that all human achievement since our "fall from grace" hasn't been amazing and awesome?

 

[drrich2]

No, there was no absolving "historical context" to the various genocides engaged in by that amazing power team, God and his Hebrews.

I believe an Old Testament Christian scholar would say otherwise, but that's past what I've studied & recall.

The post- Elizabethan King James translations lend a majesty and a poetic beauty to the Old Testament, but the substance is really nasty stuff. Read the complete, unabbreviated version of the ten Commandments sometime for an eye-opening experience.

Life back then was often very hard by modern standards; the Hebrews had been slaves under the Egyptians for a very long time before the Exodus. A lot of our modern sensibilities about things are enabled in part by modern technological advances. Here, we put people in prison. In a primitive society, you win out over a dangerous enemy, you'd be kill or, if practical, enslave him. Leaving enemies alive could be bad news.

Dr. Mike:

The Jewish nation was called to be set apart as God's chosen people, and a number of observances to keep were assigned to them. In the New Testament, the subject came up as to whether to impose all this burden of custom (e.g.: circumcision, dietary law) onto the gentiles. For the most part, the answer was no. And we were taught to eat something with a clear conscious one can give thanks to God, but to do so believing it is sin, is sin. Yes, Christians can eat lobster.

The New Covenant under Christ has less formal ordinances than seen in Leviticus, although the call to love God with all our heart, soul mind and strength, and our neighbor as ourselves, can keep us busy. God is holy and perfect; it should be no surprise He taught the Hebrews strict observance of detailed customs. As I mentioned with the example of sacrificed animals foreshadowing the sacrifice of Christ, some of those old teachings modeled truths.

Richard.

 

[doctormike]

really! So what's this context that would make murdering an entire village (except the virgins which you can keep for yourselves) moral?

aside from that fact that wiping an enemy out entirely can prevent thousands of years of off & on fighting?

Wow, I've heard a lot of scary stuff justified by religion, Rich, but that's some gangsta level logic there! Yes, genocide is not only justified, but it's the moral thing to do.

 

[drrich2]

Eden was good? Living like a pet, absolutely forbidden to gain knowledge? And you feel that all human achievement since our "fall from grace" hasn't been amazing and awesome?

Yes it was. 'Absolutely forbidden to gain knowledge' sounds like an overstatement/distortion to me. The issue at hand was, from what I gather, whether to adhere to God & His agenda (put Him 1st), or to depart from that and pursue their own way. Yes, they 'gained' some knowledge. They learned about what it means to be guilty, to exist apart from the will of God and cast out of Eden.

That human achievement & learning, basically technological advancement since, not only will be as nothing weighed against Hell after death for many, but also is of very limited value here on earth. None of it grants eternal life. Sometimes so-called 'poor' people with meager material wealth are quite happy, and many who by comparison are awash in riches are miserable; some commit suicide.

I like technology; I'm a big fan of air conditioning & the internet. Vaccines & other health care. But we still die.

Richard.

---------- Post added July 14th, 2015 at 08:26 PM ----------

Wow, I've heard a lot of scary stuff justified by religion, Rich, but that's some gangsta level logic there! Yes, genocide is not only justified, but it's the moral thing to do.

Over the centuries, you can run up a body count just as high. Whether a 'scorched earth' policy is the right approach to take with an enemy is something to decide on a case by case basis, but sometimes, yeah, it is.

Richard.

 

[doctormike]

Dr. Mike:

The Jewish nation was called to be set apart as God's chosen people, and a number of observances to keep were assigned to them. In the New Testament, the subject came up as to whether to impose all this burden of custom (e.g.: circumcision, dietary law) onto the gentiles. For the most part, the answer was no.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." - Matthew 5:17-1


"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” - Luke 16:17