This is wonderful. I've really struck a chord with the previous post about morality. Beechbum has actually provided comments worthy of response. His response is in black and mine are in red! I've changed the format of his response to make them easier to read.- You don't think the bible treats women as property:
"Beechbum obviously believes that the Bible condones treating women as property but it doesn't."This is from the King James Version: Judges 19:23-25 (King James Version)
23 And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly. 24 Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. 25 But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.
And if you want a real good definition of chattel, read to the end of the chapter. But I have more, just in case; Genesis 19:7-9 Another case of Women as property7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. 8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. 9 And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.
But does god punish Lot for throwing his daughters to the mob, of course not, he protects him from the harm that besets the cities by sending him out of Sodum and Gomorrah, but wait the god is not done yet he then turns Lots wife into a pillar of salt just for looking back in remembrance:
No, your religion doesn't treat women as property, it treats them much, much worse. But you have asserted even more from your state of... anyway. From your point of view slavery of biblical times isn't real slavery, not compared to, as you say; "the slavery practiced in ancient Israel is nothing like the slavery of Africans and native North and South Americans" Men used as primitive boat motors, women used as sex slaves, even young boys used as sex slaves, if anything the slavery of the ancient Mediterranean was even more horrible than the slavery of early America, if you can imagine that, wait you don't have to: Slavery is now a crime against humanity, because it is universally proclaimed. So this is one heinous act regulated by the godly that proves morality is not objective, therefore can be changed and if it can be changed it is subjective but when it can be changed for the better, but is stopped by superstitions or a superstitious tyrant - that is truly heinous.26 But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.
- January 8, 2010 4:23 AM
All Beechbum has managed to prove is that he is so biased he can't read properly. No where in the passages he quoted does the Bible say "This is good idea...this is how you should live.". It's not God commanding the men in these passages to do these heinous things. The Bible does not condone these behaviors. It only describes what happened. Description not prescription. What does the Bible really say about the equality of men and women.for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.- Galatians 3:27-29
I have written an extensive blog post truly describing how the Bible portrays women: An "Evil" of Christianity. Beechbum obviously needs to study more. I doubt Beechbum even knows why Lot's wife was punished. She wasn't punished because she was a woman. She longed for the life in Sodom that God was delivering her from. That was why she got what she deserved. And don't think that we all don't deserve the same. We should be grateful for God's mercy.As for slavery, I was not referring to slavery practiced in all the ancient Mediterranean but only to the slavery as it was described in the books of Moses. Is Beechbum really trying to suggest that the same the same things as he referred to in the following quote happened in ancient Israel?Men used as primitive boat motors, women used as sex slaves, even young boys used as sex slaves, if anything the slavery of the ancient Mediterranean was even more horrible than the slavery of early America, if you can imagine that, wait you don't have to: Slavery is now a crime against humanity, because it is universally proclaimed.If such was practiced in ancient Israel. it was against scripture. No where in scripture does it say that one person can own another as property and be pleasing to God. Slavery is still with us today...denouncing it is not universal but I wish it was. I've also written more about this at Dwindling In Unbelief: Collision: Are Douglas Wilson's beliefs good for the world? Part 1. - "Stoning was no different back then as firing lines, electric chairs, and lethal injection that we have today. Capital punishment is still with us."Stoning is vastly different than capital punishment, not in the result of course, but for the crime that incited such action, i.e. being in the company of the wrong gender, or religious affiliation, being raped or molested. You know, crimes of the heart or mind, for the act of being too desirable or speaking out against the perpetrator.Beechbum calls himself moral relativist but he feels like he has the right to judge ancient Israel for the crimes that were considered capital offenses in comparison to what is a capital offense today. The word "Hypocrite" comes to mind. "Deciding what side of the road to drive on is not a moral issue. It is no way that can be equated with the thought that adultery is wrong and stealing is wrong. If Beechbum is right then one day sex with little children will one day be okay." Which side of the road one drives on is arbitrary as long as it is consistent and agreed upon by the community at large, that was the point. I wouldn't equate transportation regulations with a personal choice, that would be as silly as saying adultery was wrong because your sky fairy said so. Adultery is wrong (immoral) because infants without two fulltime parents are less likely to do as well in this world, and it was even worse in our evolutionary past when social cohesion was built on the family, even extended family, unit. Along similar lines, is the socially destructive nature of theft, societies that didn't curtail it did not persist through time. The motivation for attaining goods in such a society were greatly diminished without a trust that one would reap the full reward for ones labors. Like all of your "misguided" concerns with regards to morality, while this one is only a vitriolic example of arrogance from ignorance, sex with little children has been a heinous act and treated as such for far longer than your superstitious god(s) have been poisoning the minds of man. But this does show the level one will stoop to protect their silly superstition. Do you honestly think anyone would condone a world view that would permit such an act, hardly, but the religious relish your decrepit attempt at fear mongering, disgusting. I wonder if Beechbum really does think that sex with children will never be the majority view? Just 50 years ago, homosexuality was wrong from the majority point of view and as far as I can tell had never been mainstream or a bedrock of any society. In ancient Greece and Rome, it was accepted as long as you kept a wife and family.. There are a lot of taboos and crimes that were shunned by the majority of people that are no longer viewed as wrong today. They are condoned and on public display. I agree that sex with children is awful and horrible and should never be considered as plausible. However not everyone agrees with us on that point. What if they manage to convince more people that it does not harm children and the majority starts thinking that adults can have sex with children and not harm anyone. They'd be wrong, but then that would be minority view. According to Beechbum, then sex with children would then be moral. This isn't attempt at fear mongering. This is the logical conclusion for Beechbum's worldview. If morality is subjective and depends only on the opinion of the majority, then what's to keep things from going in horrible ways?
- January 8, 2010 4:25 AM
- The rights of one individual end where another individual's begin, that is why it is not your place to tell someone else how they can live their life, as long as they don't infringe on your rights. Like your use of the old canard about Hitler, the majority took him down because he was wrong, conducting himself immorally. Who says he was wrong? By what right do we have to tell the Nazi's they were wrong. According your worldview we have nothing to stand on except most of the nations on this world said "No, you can't just do what you want and roll over us." The majority is the only authority, because of examples like Hitler's affiliation with the Church and their interpretation of what god(s) "supposedly" said or commanded him to do about the Jewish problem. The power of morality, moral choices of right and wrong, in the hands of the power hungry is what gave us a Hitler, or the Aztec kings, just about all totalitarians in history. What if the majority is wrong? The majority of the German people were wrong. What if the majority of the world had agreed with Hitler? Would Hitler still be wrong if the majority of the world agreed with him? According to Beechbum's worldview, no Hitler would not have been. According to mine, Hitler was wrong no matter who agreed with him. Since you cannot prove your god(s) even exists, how are you going to convince me that you can talk to him. Which means I would be a fool for taking your word for anything. But that doesn't matter, the community knows that your "good" is just as important as my "good" and it is the community that judges us on those grounds, because there is no god(s). You had better be glad that morality is not stagnant and objective or we would still be living with the morality of Lot's daughters or the concubine, slavery or any of the bloodthirsty acts in the bible. The very fact that our morality has evolved is the proof that you are wrong about objective morality, it has already changed. You said the magic words yourself, "remember when it was illegal."
The point having a personal relationship with God is the fact that you don't have to take my word for anything. You can go to God yourself and let Him tell you how things are. The argument that my good is just as good as yours carries little weight. We have people in this world who are happiest and pursue happiness in denying you yours. Is their good just as good as yours? If so I hope Beechbum will give me all his money, because that would be consistent with His worldview. The morality in the Bible has not changed because it is based on the unchanging character of God. Our understanding has changed. Our moral views have changed not God. When I said "remember when it was illegal" I was talking about our culture not the one God has painted for us. In that scenario - theocratic Israel - there is no such thing as "when it was illegal".1Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. 2This is what the ancients were commended for.3By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. 4By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did. By faith he was commended as a righteous man, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith he still speaks, even though he is dead.5By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death; he could not be found, because God had taken him away. For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God. 6And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. - Hebrews 11:1-6"Without an objective moral standard, how do you know what "good" is."Good evolves with our understanding of how our actions affect our surroundings, our society, and our future. Morality, improves as our understanding improves, there is no standard but that of Confucius, don't do to others what you wouldn't want done to yourself, what Christians call the golden rule, and what every 10 year old in the world understands, it is innate in us all. And one final note; You already live in the world I described, because it is only people that make it good or bad. There is no god to interact in the actions of man and if the bible is a testament to the world with a god, be very glad he does not exist.
- January 8, 2010 4:27 AM
Beechbum is incorrect about the "Golden Rule". Jesus and Confuscious actually said two different
things. Jesus did not say "Don't do to others that you don't want done to you." Jesus said that we
should do to others as you we want done to us. It included what Confuscious said but calls us higher.
Just don't do to other what you don't want done to yourself, but do good to others as you want them to
do to you! That's higher. We can't just not help others but help others the way we would want to be
helped even if they are unable to help us. This is antithetical to what is in us inherently. We only really
want to do these types of things for friends and family if that. Jesus is commanding more. We are to
show love like this to everyone...even enemies.
"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Matthew 7:12, King James Version.
"And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." Luke 6:31, King James Version.
What had happen' was.....: The Nature of Morality part 1 of 2
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uUCWXaHM_iN2Ql7cq8bnV63UkLSQDhHo30gMlarAD9THn_F6OlOhLddWpO_AEM6_UnBzT8iNO78M1LFQUM2oic6Sn19dZDJzf0HyCdfQ4AIAOBO5uAxV9TOF6t6hq9QEBUpbaupM1X0W1UBgyPv_mF=s0-d)
No comments:
Post a Comment