Theistic morality

[rjh4 is back]

---

Oh, brother! Why not follow through on your thinking and conclude that the Bible says it is ok/better to beat a slave with a rock because even if he/she dies on the spot you won't be punished because the Bible says that you will only be punished if you beat the slave with a stick and he/she dies on the spot? That must mean that it is ok/better to use a rock instead of a stick, right?

Because it makes no mention of rocks in the Bible. Besides, one can reasonably assume that the same punishment would apply with a rock as with a stick.

Still, even if one looks at it from that point of view, I don't know how you conclude that the Bible says that a slave "should" be beaten and that was the issue I raised with respect to Chasm's comment.

Is acceptance of slave-beating not morally abhorrent enough for you? Is this not enough to make you doubt that the Bible is the inerrant word of an all-loving, perfectly good deity?

What I find ironic is that we also live in a society that accepts a certain amount of unacceptable behavior. Some men beat their wives and get away with it without being punished. Do you then conclude that the laws of our society condones wife beating? Is reasonable for one to conclude that it is ok to beat your wife as long as you don't leave evidence that it was you? Do you conclude that our laws against certain things coupled with the requirement in the law for evidence should be taken as instructions on how to do something and get away with it?

Society does not accept wife-beating. Just because some wife-beaters get away with it, how does that imply societal approval? How does the requirement of evidence count as telling people how to get away with it? Maybe I'm just stupid, but what you said seems to make little sense.

I take it you did not go back and read the passage in context as I suggested. That passage, in context, is not directing all slave owners to severely punish their slaves. Furthermore, the punishment talked about in this passage certainly appears to be for doing something worthy of punishment. The KJV of Luke 12:48 says "But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes". So it sounds to me like the punishment being talked about here is deserved, not punishment at the whim of the lord.

It's fascinating to see you try and justify this Stone Age barbarism. Besides the fact that this passage tacitly accepts slavery as perfectly okay, it seems to advocate a punishment which only the most brutal Muslim countries engage in today. What, I wonder, could cause someone to 'deserve' such treatment?

---

If you have been following the whole conversation, I think you missed my point.

Chasm said that the Bible says that a slave "should" be beaten. I did not think the Bible said such a thing so I asked for support. You and Paul proffered some verses that supposedly supported Chasm's position. I am merely arguing that the verses do not support that position. The Bible, or at least those passages proffered, does not say that a slave "should" be beaten.

If you want to discuss some of the other issues that have arisen, I am happy to do so but it would be nice to take one issue at a time.

Do you agree with me that these passages do not support Chasm's comment?

Do you agree with me that the Bible doesn't say that slaves "should" be beaten? If not, then what is your support?