How Do We Behave?

[fr0d0]

Interesting on your 1st point Nap... I was talking with a local historian earlier who was telling me about a visit to the northern UK cotton mills by some US Slave owners, including George Washington he thinks. At the sight of the children forced to crawl under the looms to clear lint (that would often cause fatalities) they commented on how much better they treated their own slaves.

I'm not suggesting slavery is a good thing, and neither is the bible. It's making a point that all people should be treated humanely, and always as having the potential to have remorse and accept forgiveness. Our laws reflect this biblical position, and in our society we champion those standards as being 'civilized'.

Prisoners prefer to be inside because we adopt biblical standards of forgiveness in our penal systems. I don't think it quite works because secular society doesn't work to religious moral standards. Hence the mismatch between public opinion and judicial rulings.

[Girlysprite]

Biblical standards for criminals is stoning. To death.
I think that the way prisons are today has very little to do with religion. Our standards for forgiveness also have little to do with the bible. Yes, the bible may agrue for forgiveness at points, but some pages later there are scenes of people being stoned to death for sleeping with someone of their own gender. On that point (forgiveness) the bible is (again!) very confounding.

I get where you are coming from; some of the rules are quite gentle, esp. when compared with certain other practices of slavery. But that is like a guy coming up and saying 'hey, we shouldn't kill those criminals, because killing is bad. Let's chop off both their hands so they can't steal anymore! Well...at least they are no longer killing, but does that really make it so good? And other cultures also practiced kindness towards slaves in that time, and servitute to settle debts was not uncommon. So it's not like the writers of the bible stumbled upon a whole new concept here.

[Napoléon]

Interesting on your 1st point Nap... I was talking with a local historian earlier who was telling me about a visit to the northern UK cotton mills by some US Slave owners, including George Washington he thinks. At the sight of the children forced to crawl under the looms to clear lint (that would often cause fatalities) they commented on how much better they treated their own slaves.

This relates to my first point how?
I think you meant second.
I'm sure you can find some examples of prisoners being treated horrendously in the modern world, and I could easily find examples equalling such maltreatment for slaves. It's not really the point, fact is slaves were treated like shit, and whilst prisoners might be treated on equal ground on some examples on the whole slavery is on a different level to modern imprisonment.

I'm not suggesting slavery is a good thing, and neither is the bible.

Frodo if you honestly believe this then why don't you question why the bible just doesn't say slavery shouldn't be allowed in the first place?
You can say that it's because of the times when it was written but that is just cherry picking, because the bible says not to kill, not to steal etc. Why is slavery not on the same ground?
Like I said do you condone slavery now? Would you condone it if you existed two thousand years ago?

Prisoners prefer to be inside because we adopt biblical standards of forgiveness in our penal systems. I don't think it quite works because secular society doesn't work to religious moral standards. Hence the mismatch between public opinion and judicial rulings.

We don't adopt 'biblical standards' at all. We adopt HUMAN standards.

[Girlysprite]

On an additional note: I would not be surprised if some cues had been picked up from the Egyptians, as many parts of their life and culture have wriggled their way into the stories and culture of the people who wrote the bible. In Egypt, slaves were also to be treated kindly, maltreatment was very frowned upon. And those rights were also extended to those of not-egyptian descent.

Look - what happens here is what me frown in general. People start with a position 'god is good and the bible is good'. Then we get to a part of the bible where it conflicts with that vision. Next you see those people wriggling around to try to fit those parts to their vision of a good bible. If they can't, they will actually adapt their views on what is good! It's like there's being said 'yeah well slavery isn't that good, but at least they weren't total bastards about it so that makes it ok'.
I side with Napoleon666 here to ask

Frodo if you honestly believe this then why don't you question why the bible just doesn't say slavery shouldn't be allowed in the first place?
You can say that it's because of the times when it was written but that is just cherry picking, because the bible says not to kill, not to steal etc. Why is slavery not on the same ground?
Like I said do you condone slavery now? Would you condone it if you existed two thousand years ago?

Hey, even if we managed to work out if it was relatively good and humane for those times...what about stoning people to death? What about the fates of the women who were raped but couldn't scream liud enough? (hint; according the rules they were to be stoned). What if a girl couldn't proove she was a virgin? Death. What about people who don't follow the lord? Kill them. And this is just the start.

[fr0d0]

More so Nap, but @ both of you... I think you seem to always be stating that biblical commentary is actually prescribed behavior. What we're addressing here is the intersession by the people of Gods standards onto any given cultural state. That happens to be set in ancient middle eastern culture which we must superimpose onto our situation now and see what it says to us.

This God we're addressing hasn't been a God who imparts knowledge beyond what people already had. The language used is the same as is found everywhere around that time. The angle is, however, unique in it's situation. Where other deities were distant overlords needing placation, this deity placed human beings as his representatives.

@ Nap I would condemn slavery now, but most likely would have condoned it 2000 years ago. <--- that's secular morality. How I would have treated slaves as a slave owner... would be governed by my belief that people can change and have to be given the freedom to do so > which is informed by my beliefs.

[Faith No More]

I don't understand why if the bible is such a high moral code that it doesn't just say, "Thou shalt not keep slaves." I know the argument is that it is meant for different people in a different time, but shouldn't god's morals be objective? Being god, he could have put an end to slavery by telling people not to do it and then smiting anyone who didn't obey. It just doesn't make sense that god would be sitting there thinking, "well, they're not quite ready to end slavery so I'll just tell them to be nice to their slaves."

[fr0d0]

Thanks FNM. If you demand what people do... that's a morality from rules rather than morality from thinking. In this plan (Xtianity) you're meant to make your own choice.

[Napoléon]

@ Nap I would condemn slavery now, but most likely would have condoned it 2000 years ago. <--- that's secular morality. How I would have treated slaves as a slave owner... would be governed by my belief that people can change and have to be given the freedom to do so > which is informed by my beliefs.

But the bible condones slavery full stop. Period. End line.


So if the words of this book are so true which you keep telling us then why would you actively disagree with it at this point in time?

[fr0d0]

You completely misunderstand Nap. Again. Yet again to want to see every verse in the bible as prescriptive, where it's descriptive.

Like I already said... from the biblical account we can see God's perspective applied.

[Strongbad]

@ Nap I would condemn slavery now, but most likely would have condoned it 2000 years ago. <--- that's secular morality. How I would have treated slaves as a slave owner... would be governed by my belief that people can change and have to be given the freedom to do so > which is informed by my beliefs.

Hmmmm....do you think you would have "condoned" slavery if YOU were one of the slaves?