What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Randy Carson]

Yep. Makes sense. Would you agree, however, that there are SOME broad agreements even among atheists?

But these SOME don't go much beyond disbelief. Atheists are quite a broad group of people. Ayn Rand was an atheist, just to give one example. I wouldn't piss on her if she was on fire, if you get my drift.

There are atheists I don't want to be associated with and there others I happen to agree with. I'm not defining myself over my atheism, but over my values. And these have next to nothing to do with my absence of belief. I can appreciate the pope's stance on wealth distribution and climate change, since he's got some clout when it comes to influencing the members of his church and I happen to agree with what he's saying on these matters.

My point is, I don't buy the whole package. If I agree with the pope on a matter, I'm still not agreeing with anything else he stands for. But I'm not waving it away either because of some stupid principle.

Noted. Thanks.

[Randy Carson]

They had a huge advantage. They had Jesus to go off of, who is God and made Himself man, and spoke to us directly. The OT folks did not have that.

Jesus and god are the same being so they did have Jesus.

They had God, yes...they did not know Jesus as the second person of the Trinity.

The Incarnation was a game-changer.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Why not just make better Hebrews from the start? This idea that he had to train people by making them slaves and having them raped seems a little ridiculous when he could of just included it in his instruction manual, instead of having it say the opposite.

He instructed the Hebrews not to mix different fibers, for goodness sakes. It seems like a small thing to add, "Oh by the way, don't rape women"

Jesus, Nopey, would you get a sense of proportion already?  What's a few thousand rapes when there are fibers being intertwined?

[Randy Carson]

...


Ah...Funnily enough I do have to disagree here (wow, this is bittersweet). I think it is impossible to believe the Roman Pontiff is infallible and to disagree with slavery but I don't actually think that actually extends to Protestantism (Orthodoxy suffers the same trap as Catholicism, but to a much lesser extent as their claims to infallibility are far less grandoise).

We know there was a serious reshuffle in what was good/bad between the OT and NT and several commands contained in the NT like "there is neither gentile or jew" can very easily be extended or reinterpreted to be against slavery. I don't have a problem with Protestants claiming that slavery is immoral, many of them freely admit they can read the verse incorrectly but I do find it curious that the infallible mouthpiece of God can change his mind on the matter.

Two things.  First, the serious reshuffle is bogus.  It is just Christian bullshit propaganda.  The words of Jesus as recorded in Matthew 5:

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 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.


Of course, Christians typically pretend that Jesus didn't really mean what he said.  But we have there Jesus endorsing all of the laws, which includes the laws pertaining to slavery.

This is incorrect. Christians understand that Jesus meant what he said, and they understand what he meant. You may not.

When Jesus says, "I have not come to destroy but to fulfill," you have the answer. Jesus DID fulfill the law and the prophets. The Greek word translated as "fulfill" actually means "to make complete." The New Covenant of Jesus thus includes and concludes the Old Covenant; it both perfects and transforms it.

And while the sacrificial laws of the OT expired with the sacrifice of Jesus, the moral law (Ten Commandments, etc.) was retained and refined.

I may also add that the idea that God got it wrong and had to correct things with Jesus is theologically problematic.  If there had been a drastic change, that would mean that God was drastically wrong in the first place.  Even a little change means that God was a little wrong.

Nope.

Stage 1: tough love in the OT
Stage 2: Love God and neighbor in the NT

God implemented as much as WE could bear in the OT; He stepped it up in the New. It's very obvious to those who do not need this as on of their pet arguments against Christianity, pyrrho.

Second, the New Testament tells us that slaves are supposed to obey their masters.

It did.

You would think that Jesus and the New Testament would have a different view of slavery, but slavery is still approved of in the New Testament, as the following passages show.
 
    Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear.  Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.  (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)
 
    Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed.  If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful.  You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts.  Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them.  (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)
 
    In the following parable, Jesus clearly approves of beating slaves even if they didn't know they were doing anything wrong.
 
    The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it.  "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly.  Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given."  (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm

So, the message about slavery is, slaves should obey their masters.  That is the "good news" of the New Testament.  It is only in rejecting such evil drivel that one can be an abolitionist.  The Bible is simply proslavery, regardless of whether we confine ourselves to just the New Testament or not.

So I stand by my original comments.  It is only in rejecting parts of the Bible, AND parts of what Jesus said (as reported in the Bible), that one can be an abolitionist.  That applies whether one is protestant or catholic or anything else.

Are you not in error because you do not know the scriptures? Yeah, you have NO idea what you are talking about...you keep parroting the same crap over and over because you are IGNORANT. Paul encourages slaves with these words:

1 Corinthians 7:21
Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so.

[Catholic_Lady]

Like I said, though He didn't specifically address slavery, He told us "love your enemy," and "love your neighbor as yourself." and "treat others how you want them to treat you."

He probably didn't specifically address rape either, as well as other specific things. But like slavery, I think that's a given... considering his commandment to love.

I don't think any honest person could read the entire life of Jesus and come out of it with the take way that He condones enslaving people.

The idea that one of his instructions to slaves was not "Rise up, because the Good Lord will strengthen your right arm against the slave master", but rather, "be meek and obedient to him like you are to me" speaks volumes about not only his alleged views about slavery -- that it was acceptable because this world is meaningless, only the next one counts -- but also to the mindset he wants in his own believers.  Believers are not to question the master.  They are not to exhibit will of their own.  They are to accept and obey commands given them by the master, on pain of eternal punishment.

Of course such a god would endorse slavery in this world ... it is, after all, exactly what he has planned for you.

If you think Jesus condoned slavery, then what do you make of His commandment to love everyone, even our enemies, to love our neighbor as ourselves, and to treat others how we want to be treated?

You're looking at the paragraph in the bible where Jesus addresses slaves and forming the conclusion that, because He didn't tell them to try to run away or to fight, He must have condoned it. Objectively speaking, don't you think that you can form a much more accurate conclusion about what He meant and where He stands on the issue by looking at the entirety of what He taught, and His character?

---

Also, I just wanted to point something out: there's no way in the world such a vigorous debate as this one would be supported on a religious website.

Kudos to AF.

I don't know what site you are referring to, but the site I was a member of had debates just as heated (if not more so) than this one.

Only difference it people didn't use foul language and resort to personal attacks. But it got just as passionate.

Randy can attest to this.

[Ravenshire]

As for the prohibition of slavery in the Bible, my response would be that general principles espoused in the Bible led to the elimination of slavery as it was practiced in times much closer to our own. It was the TRAJECTORY of Christianity that made this eventually possible.

Randy, you keep forgetting there are places in this world where your pet religion never traveled until very recently. If it were "the TRAJECTORY of Christianity" then would you care to explain why the Japanese never had the trouble with it that the chister world had?

[Ravenshire]

Ok so god is not needed for morality nor is he the one creating morality, so he would be governed by the same objective morality we are. Now I have to ask if you believe in an objective morality where slavery, killing, rape and genocide are wrong, why does god order these actions in the bible? Is god immoral or are we immoral?

I believe He created morality, and if it weren't for Him, there would be no such thing. But a person does not need to believe in God to make moral choices. Does that make my position more clear to you?

The second part I have address numerous times all throughout this very thread. Even as recently as just a few pages back, if you want to look.

If gawd created morality, then it is not objective. It is subjective to what it decides is moral. That's not objectivity.

[Mr.wizard]

The idea that one of his instructions to slaves was not "Rise up, because the Good Lord will strengthen your right arm against the slave master", but rather, "be meek and obedient to him like you are to me" speaks volumes about not only his alleged views about slavery -- that it was acceptable because this world is meaningless, only the next one counts -- but also to the mindset he wants in his own believers.  Believers are not to question the master.  They are not to exhibit will of their own.  They are to accept and obey commands given them by the master, on pain of eternal punishment.

Of course such a god would endorse slavery in this world ... it is, after all, exactly what he has planned for you.

If you think Jesus condoned slavery, then what do you make of His commandment to love everyone, even our enemies, to love our neighbor as ourselves, and to treat others how we want to be treated?

You're looking at the paragraph in the bible where Jesus addresses slaves and forming the conclusion that, because He didn't tell them to try to run away or to fight, He must have condoned it. Objectively speaking, don't you think that you can form a much more accurate conclusion about what He meant and where He stands on the issue by looking at the entirety of what He taught, and His character?

---

Also, I just wanted to point something out: there's no way in the world such a vigorous debate as this one would be supported on a religious website.

Kudos to AF.

I don't know what site you are referring to, but the site I was a member of had debates just as heated (if not more so) than this one.

Only difference it people didn't use foul language and resort to personal attacks. But it got just as passionate.

Randy can attest to this.

If jesus viewed slavery as moral I can see him saying love everyone and condoning slavery, after all he is the guy that tells people to love everyone and holds the threat of eternal torture over their heads at the same time. Also we are looking at the entirety of his work and his character by noting what he commanded in the old testament as god the father, rather than just trying to pick the feel good parts of jesus we like.

[Catholic_Lady]

I believe He created morality, and if it weren't for Him, there would be no such thing. But a person does not need to believe in God to make moral choices. Does that make my position more clear to you?

The second part I have address numerous times all throughout this very thread. Even as recently as just a few pages back, if you want to look.

If gawd created morality, then it is not objective. It is subjective to what it decides is moral. That's not objectivity.

I don't follow, I'm sorry.

[rexbeccarox]

I believe He created morality, and if it weren't for Him, there would be no such thing. But a person does not need to believe in God to make moral choices. Does that make my position more clear to you?

The second part I have address numerous times all throughout this very thread. Even as recently as just a few pages back, if you want to look.

If gawd created morality, then it is not objective. It is subjective to what it decides is moral. That's not objectivity.

I'm still waiting for a list, or at least a reason why a list would be impossible to make.  If morals are objective, it should be quite easy.