Raf

At least Yahweh tells slave masters to be nice to their slaves. Hey, you know what would be really nice? Not owning people. Not owning people would be really nice. Old Testament morality: it's okay to beat your slaves, as long as you don't kill them. New Testament: try to be a little nicer to your Christian slaves. Moral people: what's say we just don't own people? You are more moral than Yahweh. Before and after Jesus. He just never got around to saying slavery was inherently immoral. We all know that today, but not from Yahweh. We know it because we are more moral than Yahweh. Even New Testament Yahweh. Even EPHESIANS Yahweh.

That word "servants"? Doulos. Bondslave. Not an employee. A slave. Yahweh never banned slavery. Not even in the New Testament. You are more moral than Yahweh, thank goodness.

Remember the time Paul returned a runaway slave to his master, and he told the master that it's just wrong to own a human being, and he should free the slave because it's ungodly for one human being to straight up own another? Me neither. I remember the part where Paul tells the master to be super nice to the slave because they're both Christians now. But nothing about freeing the slave. Nothing about freeing any slaves, Christian or non Christian. There is therefore then no condemnation of slavery for those who are in Christ Jesus. Say, that's New Testament, isn't it? Slavery was not abolished in the New Testament either? Wow. That Yahweh is something else. BBans people with crushed testicles from his presence, but slave owners are good to go. Thank goodness Jesus brought an end to the New Testament! Wait, what?

Whether I am correct about the interpolated verses or not (news flash: I am correct), its relevance to the fact that God supposedly authored the barbaric laws of the Old Testament remains nil. In other words, Mark's continued effort to derail this thread remains noted. If I were observing this conversation rather than participating... but I'm not. Whatever.

From earlier in this thread: Do you realize that by using this ABSURD logic, the tallest building in New York City would have to be the New York Public Library? Because it has more stories than any other building in the city. If you think Jesus was talking about suspending the Old Testament law, that position is scripturally indefensible.

The story of the woman taken in adultery is an interpolation into the Bible and was not an original part of the gospel of John. Using it to prove a theological point reflects a lack of knowledge of Biblical scholarship. Further, it needs to be said that the issue we are discussing is God's morality. Shifting the blame for the barbarism inherent in the Old Testament law to Israel does not negate the fact that, according to the Bible, Yahweh was the author of that law. The notion that Jesus saw they were not applying the Old Testament death penalty with justice is laughably irrelevant to this thread, because if they WERE dispensing Old Testament law with justice, we would correctly see them as bloodthirsty savages. That is because our morality today is greater than the morality of the author of the Old Testament law. And if the author of the Old Testament law was Yahweh, then you are more moral than Yahweh.

I missed a few posts. Sorry. Yes, you were right.

"I take it back. I hope you're doing fine."

Under the Rainbow Jerry Marren The Wizard of Oz

Pea FAL.

If someone else thinks of something first, go ahead.

"Whatcha gonn' do to get into another one of these here rock 'n' roll songs?"

Ok, so let's bring it home: If it's immoral today to execute a man for picking up sticks on a Friday night, then it was always immoral to execute a man for picking up sticks on a Friday night. Therefore, it was immoral to decree a law that says a man who picks up sticks on a Friday night is to be executed. But that law WAS decreed, by Yahweh. And it was decreed by Yahweh centuries before Israel asked for a king. It was also decreed by Yahweh centuries before the invention of the printing press, the moon landing, and the Bush v. Gore election fiasco. It was decreed by Yahweh centuries before an uncountable number of irrelevant events. Israel asking for a king had no more effect on Yahweh's decree than the moon landing had. They were completely unrelated events. The decree that a man who picked up sticks on a Friday night (to be fair, it could have been Saturday morning, which would make a world of difference... to flippin no one) should be executed for his crime was immoral by today's standards. It was not immoral by Yahweh's standards. (How do we know this? Because it was HIS law, not Israel's, not the surrounding nations' and not Neil Armstrong's). But wait! There was another law that said if you stole something, you should have to repay it. That was moral, right? In my humble opinion, yes, that was pretty moral. So we can agree that some of Yahweh's laws were quite moral. Now, getting back to the laws that were NOT moral, the ones that were barbaric, bloodthirsty, cruel, misogynistic and tolerant of intolerable institutions like slavery... No! I want to talk about the moral laws! But the moral laws are not in question or dispute. No one is arguing that ALL of Yahweh's laws are immoral. One would expect SOME laws to be moral. The issue is whether ALL of Yahweh's laws are moral. If Yahweh's laws are not moral, then by what standard to we credit Him with being moral? And please don't tell me the answer is by New Testament standards, because by New Testament standards, the Old Testament law was "holy, just and good." Except it was not holy, just and good. It was cruel, barbaric and inhumane (among other things). If, by today's standards, we can see that some of Yahweh's law is moral and some of it is really, REALLY not, are we not by definition operating on a higher moral standard than Yahweh's? Incidentally, I don't believe in Yahweh, so if you substitute "ancient Israel" for "Yahweh" in the preceding sentences, you will see that nothing I am saying is even remotely controversial. It is only controversial if you think ancient Israel's laws were decreed by Yahweh. I don't believe Yahweh is a moral monster, because I don't believe he exists. I believe ancient Israel had some monstrous laws, but in that, they were no different from any other nation, culture or religion -- exactly the result one would expect if their laws were man-made and not the decrees of an Author of Morality.

Yeah, but what if a few centuries from now, students in a future class WANT A to be smaller than B. Can A be smaller than B now to accommodate the whims of a future class of students?

So. Umm. Do we agree that executing a man for picking up sticks on the sabbath is immoral?

Gotcha.

5. You own two slaves, a man and a woman. You decide to give the woman to the man. They have two sons. After six years, the man is supposed to go free. But you still own the woman and the two sons. What do you do? A. Set the man free, but keep the woman and boys. They are your property, after all. B. Give the man a chance to stay with his wife and sons by committing to be your slave for life. C. Set the sons free, because they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, including liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Keep the wife because she's a good cook and can work a plow, if you know what I mean wink wink. D. You effing own effing slaves? What the eff are you effing doing owning effing slaves?

Please elaborate on what you mean by "finite criteria." If I think Halle Berry is more attractive than Rosanne Barr, does that mean I'm holding them both to a "finite criteria"?

New question. Why does the Old Testament contain some laws and punishments that are barbaric by today's higher moral standards? A. Who said today's moral standards are higher? God is the standard of morality. His law is holy just and good. We should get back to it. Start stoning some heathens and Sabbath breakers. Rape my daughter? pay me 50 shekels and marry her and we'll call it even. B. God gave Israel barbaric laws in Exodus - Deuteronomy in response to Israel's demand for a king hundreds of years later. C. The laws were not given by God but concocted by a society that was no more morally advanced than other societies of the time.

MOD EDIT: off topic content deleted. According to the Bible, God instituted these barbaric laws. Stop trying to pass the responsibility for their barbaric immorality to the Israelites. Israel RECEIVED the law. Israel didn't concoct it. At least, not unless the Bible is false. If the Bible is false, then Israel, not God, is responsible for the barbaric nature of the Old Testament law. What a concept.

Are you reading your own posts? "All I am doing now is a short evaluation of God's Laws. However, if you want to actually read a bible you might see that God did not have strict laws when he started the nation of Israel. Instead they originally had a system of judges. It was only after the demand of the people of the nation that a King was set-up with the people wanting to copy other cultures and this would of course include some of the strict laws of death." Those be your words. And they be ridiculous. The law preceded the kings by GENERATIONS. MOD EDIT: off topic content deleted

Well, shucks, I'm sorry, but you're kind of sort of wrong. You see, the issue is NOT whether the barbaric law prescribed by God was ever carried out. The issue is whether the barbaric law was prescribed by God. The question is GOD'S morality, not ancient Israel's. Or modern Israel's. Or first century Israel's. The sick thing is that the laws are patently immoral and yet presented to us as though they are God's Word. If these laws are God's Word, then God's Word is immoral, and if God's Word is immoral, God is immoral. It makes not one whit of difference if no one ever carried it out. In fact, if it was never carried out, it goes down in Israel's ledger as a positive achievement. Mark, being patronizing doesn't become you, especially when you're so demonstrably flipping WRONG about the point you're making. "God did not have strict laws when he started the nation of Israel. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Every law I have cited is from the Pentateuch, which LONG precedes the reigns of the judges and the kings. That law that prescribes death by stoning for the crime of picking up sticks on the sabbath? That's in Numbers. That's a little bit before Judges. I cited three strict capital offenses in recent posts, just for kicks. NOT ONE of them fits your description of being "only after the demand of the people of the nation that a King was set-up with the people wanting to copy other cultures and this would of course include some of the strict laws of death."

If you disagree that exercising freedom of religion should be punishable by death by stoning, you are more moral than Yahweh. If you disagree with killing an entire town, men, women, children, and pets, because someone in that town -- or, hell, the entire town -- converted to a different religion, you are more moral than Yahweh.

If you disagree with stoning children to death for being disobedient, you are more moral than Yahweh.

I'm just curious -- why are you spending more time attacking me than you are defending your God? By not challenging the premises of my argument, are you conceding that God was responsible for ALL the Old Testament laws (the good, the bad, and the utterly barbaric)?