Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Warp wrote:
Nach wrote:
As the verse only indicates indemnification for a single strike with a simple rod that one normally uses for educating children, there is no reason to suggest indemnification against a more serious attack.
The most common apologetic tactic: Read between the lines and add things that aren't there. Try to soften things up bit by bit, until it appears more innocuous and conforms more to the modern notions of secular morals and human rights, and is more palatable. Now the rod is "a simple rod that one normally uses for educating children". Right. It says it right there, between the lines. (And since the verse doesn't explicitly mention hitting many times, that must mean hitting only one time and, by implication, that hitting many times is punishable. Never mind that no passage says the latter. But it can be read between the lines, of course.)
Anyways, discussing the type of rod and how many times the slave was hit is egregiously missing the point. Probably on purpose, to draw attention away from the actual issue: That owning other people as property and beating them is allowed (completely regardless of how many times and with what).
Have you actually studied how slaves were treated in ancient Israel? Call me apologetic all you want, what I explained is roughly how they understood the laws, and acted back then.
Here's an excerpt from a book:
If you want to get a full idea how slaves were treated though, read Maimonides's Laws of Slaves, it covers A to Z every single detail as to how slaves were treated in ancient Israel. It explains how various biblical verses were interpreted and used as a practical matter of law.
You may not like "reading between the lines" as you called it, but that is precisely what the people who actually practiced the text did. You can read lists of rules how to understand the bible. They broke it down to an exact science.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Have you actually studied how slaves were treated in ancient Israel?
Ok, I don't have any other option left than to give up. I don't know how many times I have to repeat "that's not the point" before it comes across, but seemingly no amount is enough.
It doesn't help that you seem to ignore everything I have written previously (in this case that I know perfectly well the arguments on the alleged differences between slavery in Israel and everywhere else), you only seem to concentrate on the last thing I have written and make deductions based on that alone. (I'm honestly wondering if you are subconsciously using this tactic in order to avoid actually considering the issues that have been raised. If you only concentrate on the narrow section of the conversation which you are most comfortable with, you don't have to think about the more troubling parts, and pretend that your apologetics work on those too.)
Joined: 2/28/2006
Posts: 2275
Location: Milky Way -> Earth -> Brazil
Slavery is OK if your god says so.
“You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.”
"Genuine self-esteem, however, consists not of causeless feelings, but of certain knowledge about yourself.
It rests on the conviction that you — by your choices, effort and actions — have made yourself into the
kind of person able to deal with reality. It is the conviction — based on the evidence of your own volitional
functioning — that you are fundamentally able to succeed in life and, therefore, are deserving of that success."
- Onkar Ghate
Bisqwit wrote:
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Warp wrote:
Nach wrote:
Have you actually studied how slaves were treated in ancient Israel?
Ok, I don't have any other option left than to give up. I don't know how many times I have to repeat "that's not the point" before it comes across, but seemingly no amount is enough.
What is you point? That the Bible allows for slaves, and people may mistreat them?
Warp wrote:
It doesn't help that you seem to ignore everything I have written previously (in this case that I know perfectly well the arguments on the alleged differences between slavery in Israel and everywhere else), you only seem to concentrate on the last thing I have written and make deductions based on that alone. (I'm honestly wondering if you are subconsciously using this tactic in order to avoid actually considering the issues that have been raised. If you only concentrate on the narrow section of the conversation which you are most comfortable with, you don't have to think about the more troubling parts, and pretend that your apologetics work on those too.)
I'm telling you that the entire discussion only makes sense in a frame work which follows the Bible in its entirety. See Bisqwit's post on that.
I agree that there are massive issues with slavery outside of this framework. There is something seriously wrong if someone uses some statement in the Bible to condone slavery without taking the Bible as a whole as binding. Either take it in whole, or take none of it, because you'll be perverting the intent otherwise.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
I agree that there are massive issues with slavery outside of this framework. There is something seriously wrong if someone uses some statement in the Bible to condone slavery without taking the Bible as a whole as binding. Either take it in whole, or take none of it, because you'll be perverting the intent otherwise.
If you agree that nowadays slavery is not okay, why don't we just call this framework and this Bible obsolete? Like we did with Ancient Greece's pantheon.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
AnS wrote:
Nach wrote:
I agree that there are massive issues with slavery outside of this framework. There is something seriously wrong if someone uses some statement in the Bible to condone slavery without taking the Bible as a whole as binding. Either take it in whole, or take none of it, because you'll be perverting the intent otherwise.
If you agree that nowadays slavery is not okay, why don't we just call this framework and this Bible obsolete? Like we did with Ancient Greece's pantheon.
Time is not the deciding factor, the framework as a whole is.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Old Testament was actually obsoleted by New one. Not cancelled or destroyed though.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Joined: 2/28/2006
Posts: 2275
Location: Milky Way -> Earth -> Brazil
The bible is the ultimate truth. Except the parts I don't like.
New Testament is Bible v2.0. They patched some bugs but then those new fixes ended up breaking other stuff. That's why there's still people reliying on old Bible v1.0 or even other unnoficial branches.
"Genuine self-esteem, however, consists not of causeless feelings, but of certain knowledge about yourself.
It rests on the conviction that you — by your choices, effort and actions — have made yourself into the
kind of person able to deal with reality. It is the conviction — based on the evidence of your own volitional
functioning — that you are fundamentally able to succeed in life and, therefore, are deserving of that success."
- Onkar Ghate
Bisqwit wrote:
The bible is the ultimate truth. Except the parts I don't like.
New Testament is Bible v2.0. They patched some bugs but then those new fixes ended up breaking other stuff. That's why there's still people reliying on old Bible v1.0 or even other unnoficial branches.
What is you point? That the Bible allows for slaves
That.
I'm telling you that the entire discussion only makes sense in a frame work which follows the Bible in its entirety.
You keep saying that, and you are missing the point.
The thing is: Many Christians consider the Bible in its entirety to be the absolutely perfect moral ground upon which we should base our lives and behavior. However, they do not understand or outright ignore the very valid objections to this notion, as there are parts of the Bible that appear to be in drastic contradiction to what is universally considered the most basic human rights, even by these Christians themselves. In other words, these Christians say one thing but do another (with respect to which parts of this biblical moral code they actually enact in their lives, or even would enact in theory if they were confronted with such situation).
When confronted with this dilemma, the reactions vary. Some simply ignore it and pretend that it doesn't exist, others try to make up excuses (which actually don't work, when scrutinized(*)) and, if I dare say it, the worst of the bunch actually artificially change their own moral standards to agree with what those laws say (even though they would still not enact them personally, making them even more hypocritical), or at least they say they do (which would be doubly hypocritical). It's no wonder why there's the saying that it takes religion to make good people do bad things. (I'm sorry, but it's absolutely horrendous to me to see anybody say that they would stone their friend or family member, or anybody for that matter, to death for breaking the sabbath. Anybody who says that has something wrong in the head. Sorry if I offend you.)
You seem to use one form of rationalization: That the laws are good, but only if all of them (as well as the entirety of the biblical principles) are held at once. You don't seem to realize that doesn't change anything. Giving the death penalty to someone for breaking the sabbath or owning people as property (and many other such laws) are morally questionable regardless of what other standards the society additionally upholds. It's not dependent on them. You'll most probably disagree with this, but then we just have to agree to do so.
(*) As one example (of many) of an excuse that many Christians give for the more uncomfortable laws is that the Old Testament laws have been superseded when Jesus died and don't have to be upheld anymore. What these people do not understand is that what they are effectively implying is that the laws are indeed immoral, and that God gave immoral laws, and that they were then removed later. Did God deliberately give immoral laws to the Hebrews? This excuse raises more moral questions than it answers. (Also, ironically and hypocritically, these exact same people don't have any problem in condoning the ten commandments, even though they can't explain why they are an exception.)
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Warp wrote:
I'm telling you that the entire discussion only makes sense in a frame work which follows the Bible in its entirety.
You keep saying that, and you are missing the point.
The thing is: Many Christians consider the Bible in its entirety to be the absolutely perfect moral ground upon which we should base our lives and behavior. However, they do not understand or outright ignore the very valid objections to this notion, as there are parts of the Bible that appear to be in drastic contradiction to what is universally considered the most basic human rights, even by these Christians themselves. In other words, these Christians say one thing but do another (with respect to which parts of this biblical moral code they actually enact in their lives, or even would enact in theory if they were confronted with such situation).
When confronted with this dilemma, the reactions vary. Some simply ignore it and pretend that it doesn't exist, others try to make up excuses (which actually don't work, when scrutinized(*))
Well, different groups believe in different parts. Some people only believe in the first five books, some the first two dozen or so. The book of Maccabees is disputed. The New Testament is disputed in whole or in part, or even what is considered part of it. Then you have the book of Mormon...
Then on top of this, much of it is open to interpretation.
Warp wrote:
and, if I dare say it, the worst of the bunch actually artificially change their own moral standards to agree with what those laws say
Alternatively, you have murderers who have their own moral standard. Is it okay to leave them to it?
Warp wrote:
You seem to use one form of rationalization: That the laws are good, but only if all of them (as well as the entirety of the biblical principles) are held at once.
That, and that they have to be interpreted properly. Random layman reading is not proper interpretation.
Warp wrote:
You don't seem to realize that doesn't change anything. Giving the death penalty to someone for breaking the sabbath or owning people as property (and many other such laws) are morally questionable regardless of what other standards the society additionally upholds.
Is it?
You see the word slave and think it means slaves like they had in Malta, or like in the Sudan today. Maybe it means the classical "domestic worker"?
When I said take the Bible in whole, I didn't just mean all the laws, I meant you must reconcile all the text to make it a worthwhile law guide.
Case in point, you think that a slave is property. Let's see what it says.
Deut 22 1-3:
Thou shalt not see thy brother's ox or his sheep driven away, and hide thyself from them; thou shalt surely bring them back unto thy brother. And if thy brother be not nigh unto thee, and thou know him not, then thou shalt bring it home to thy house, and it shall be with thee until thy brother require it, and thou shalt restore it to him. And so shalt thou do with his ass; and so shalt thou do with his garment; and so shalt thou do with every lost thing of thy brother's, which he hath lost, and thou hast found; thou mayest not hide thyself.
So one must return all lost possessions, correct?
Then in 23 16-17:
Thou shalt not deliver unto his master a bondman that is escaped from his master unto thee; he shall dwell with thee, in the midst of thee, in the place which he shall choose within one of thy gates, where it liketh him best; thou shalt not wrong him.
So unlike property, you do not return the "bondman"/"slave" (the original word for slave is probably mistranslated throughout all biblical translations). In fact, it seems the slave can leave whenever he feels like it.
To push the point further, I found this excerpt from the Talmud while searching via Google on the topic: "If thy daughter is of marriageable age, free thy slave and give her to him in marriage".
It seems that idea was gleaned from the Bible right afterwards in verse 18 talks about one's daughter.
Warp, it's easy to condemn a cryptic text, but if you actually take the time to really understand it, it seems to be suggesting something quite different than what it seems to.
Warp wrote:
(*) As one example (of many) of an excuse that many Christians give for the more uncomfortable laws is that the Old Testament laws have been superseded when Jesus died and don't have to be upheld anymore. What these people do not understand is that what they are effectively implying is that the laws are indeed immoral, and that God gave immoral laws, and that they were then removed later.
The biggest problem with that idea is that the earlier texts says that the laws would never be changed, they are to remain as is. I can quote related verses if need be.
Warp wrote:
Also, ironically and hypocritically, these exact same people don't have any problem in condoning the ten commandments, even though they can't explain why they are an exception.
Even more ironically, there is no such thing as "the ten commandments".
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
"Genuine self-esteem, however, consists not of causeless feelings, but of certain knowledge about yourself.
It rests on the conviction that you — by your choices, effort and actions — have made yourself into the
kind of person able to deal with reality. It is the conviction — based on the evidence of your own volitional
functioning — that you are fundamentally able to succeed in life and, therefore, are deserving of that success."
- Onkar Ghate
Bisqwit wrote:
Yes, and goes to the category as some earlier "look how smart I am" shows in this thread. In short, make a predetermined conclusion, and then pick anything that seems to support that conclusion, no matter how far drawn, no matter how separated from context, no matter how irrelevant, and hope that by quantity alone you have sufficient "evidence" to waltz to victory and silence any opposition.
And yes, I know that you can say many of those same words about proponents of Bible, including me.
Yes, and goes to the category as some earlier "look how smart I am" shows in this thread. In short, make a predetermined conclusion, and then pick anything that seems to support that conclusion, no matter how far drawn, no matter how separated from context, no matter how irrelevant, and hope that by quantity alone you have sufficient "evidence" to waltz to victory and silence any opposition.
And yes, I know that you can say many of those same words about proponents of Bible, including me.
That's called "confirmation bias" and it's wrong no matter who does it.
However, his image stands as strong evidence that the Bible is not infallible.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
That's called "confirmation bias" and it's wrong no matter who does it.
No, confirmation bias is the unbalanced focus on matches while ignoring of mismatches. What I meant is the ignorance to context in favor of gaining another statistics point, regardless of whether the point is valid or not. In other words, counting possible mismatches as matches.
It's as stupid as the games of those children who erupt laughing, when you happen to say a word that they think is ridiculous or stupid, regardless of how normal the word is in the context you used it in, and as a consequence they ignore and forget completely the teaching that you were trying to say to them. Or, the computer equivalent of mechanically censoring occurrences of the word "ass".
I have heard that every single "contradiction" in the Bible is caused by misunderstanding. Sometimes the translation isn't quite right, the writers are a bit different from each other, or the times were different back then.
For instance, in the case of Judas' death, Acts says he fell on a field and died in and one of the gospels (I can't remember which one) says that he hanged himself. In that time, people hanged themself on trees that hung over the edge of cliffs (so that if it broke, they would fall and die anyway). There could've been a field at the bottom of the cliff.
Also, I saw that number 369. on the picture is what Judas did with the silver. He threw the money into the temple, and the priests took it and bought a field with it.
Every one of those "contradictions" in the Bible can be explained. And according to the scientific tests that are done on books/records (the internal, external, and bibliographic), the Bible is the most reliable book for its time. I also looked at some of the contradictions on that picture, and some of them can be instantly thrown out.
"Genuine self-esteem, however, consists not of causeless feelings, but of certain knowledge about yourself.
It rests on the conviction that you — by your choices, effort and actions — have made yourself into the
kind of person able to deal with reality. It is the conviction — based on the evidence of your own volitional
functioning — that you are fundamentally able to succeed in life and, therefore, are deserving of that success."
- Onkar Ghate
Bisqwit wrote:
In that time, people hanged themself on trees that hung over the edge of cliffs (so that if it broke, they would fall and die anyway).
That factoid sounds like completely made-up, unless they can site ample references to literature of the time that indicates so.
And according to the scientific tests that are done on books/records
I always find it amusing how science is reliable and trustworthy when it supports some ideological cause, but unreliable and evil when it contradicts it. It amuses me even more when supporters of such ideology try to claim that "science proves this or that", without giving any actual references to actual scientific research. ("Christian science" doesn't count. It's as trustworthy as voodoo magic.)
SCIENCE CAN NOT PROVE ANYTHING. Ask almost ANY scientest and that's what they say. A lot of people or news or other things say "science has proved..." but science can only provide evidence for things, but NEVER prove things. It is not completely reliable.
Here are pages that explain the contradictions:
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htmhttp://usminc.org/images/136BC.pdf
there are many more, but I didn't want to say that much.
There is a LOT of evidence for a Creator (the universe was made perfectly, if anything was different, we wouldn't exist). It is impossible for life to have been made randomly (I can show evidence for this if you want) and everything in the universe is in the exact right place for life to be sustained on Earth. I can show evidence for a lot of these things.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Seriously now? Anthropic principle is a philosophical construct that merely speculates on the very particular input that lead to a very particular end result, and looks at it from a particular side—that it's the input that fit the end result, i.e. humans, not the other way around. It says so right there in the article. In the lack of other input data (different fundamental constants, for example) and other end results (solid, tangible proof of extraterrestrial life) it's just something to ponder upon when sapping tea with crackers, not to use as a proof or evidence or and kind of solid argument.
In other words, we have no way of knowing what life would look like if something was (slightly) different. We have no way of knowing if life would or would not exist if something was (slightly) different. It is impossible to prove or disprove.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
And what exactly can be deduced from that? (In other words, what exactly is your point?)
Surely you understand that "science cannot prove everything, hence God" is a really blatant argumentative fallacy? It just doesn't work, no matter how you word it. (It's called argument from ignorance, if you are curious.)
It is not completely reliable.
And what is completely reliable? That's right: Nothing.
However, the more important question is: Which methodology of discerning the properties of the universe is the most reliable? Science is, by far, the most reliable way. What other ways are there? (Don't bother answering. Any alternatives will in their core be basically just a claim that "feelings and strong emotions are more reliable than physical observation, measurement and testing", which is ridiculous.)
There is a LOT of evidence for a Creator (the universe was made perfectly, if anything was different, we wouldn't exist).
Even if that were true (which isn't a given, but let's grant it), it doesn't really say anything at all. It's effectively a null statement. It raises more questions than it answers.
What kind of "creator"? Is this "creator" sentient? Does he exist currently? (After all, it's possible that this "creator" created the universe, but consumed itself completely in order to do so and thus ceased to exist.) Are there more than one, or is this "creator" unique? Was this "creator" itself also created by another? How long has this "creator" existed? Where is this "creator"? (Is he in a specific place, or is he "everywhere"?) What are the properties of this "creator"? Does he observe us?
Don't bother trying to answer any of those questions because you can't. Even an attempt would be ridiculous, so save yourself the trouble.
As long as we can't observe and measure this hypothetical "creator", it's a useless hypothesis. It only raises more questions than it answers.
It is impossible for life to have been made randomly (I can show evidence for this if you want)
In other words, misinterpretations of science. (A complete misunderstanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics is the favorite of all creationists.)
It's also funny how "science cannot prove anything", but immediately when it's time to (ab)use science to prove how life could not have been formed on its own, suddenly science consists of well-proven and irrefutable facts. (Curiously science is accurate and reliable only when it suits the creationist's needs. In all other cases it's unreliable shooting in the dark.)
and everything in the universe is in the exact right place for life to be sustained on Earth.
That's one of the easiest examples for understanding the anthropic principle.
There are probably billions and billions of planets in our galaxy alone. (Multiply that by the amount of galaxies in the universe.) Each planet has some randomly-set conditions. Their composition, mass, radius, density, distance from the star, the properties of the star, possible moons, other planets in the same system and a million other variables vary randomly from planet to planet. All these parameters are quite random due to how planetary systems form.
Some planets will be more inhospitable than others due to all these factors. A few planets in existence in the universe will have all these parameters just right for some kind of life to be possible on their surface. Yes, completely by chance. This isn't even far-fetched. One of those planets happened to form around this particular star in this particular galaxy. There's nothing special about this particular star or galaxy; there are probably many other similar planets elsewhere. There's nothing "impossible" about Earth being like it is.
In other words, the anthropic principle: It's not that Earth was created for life to exist on it. It's the other way around: Life exists on Earth because Earth happens to have the right conditions to be habitable.
Joined: 2/28/2006
Posts: 2275
Location: Milky Way -> Earth -> Brazil
OK I was saving this one for a special moment because I think it's very funny
Isaiah 40:28
Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding
It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed
Well, SOMEONE didn't know about that...
Also:
Matthew 19:26
But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
And the Lord was with Judah, and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.
:(
"Genuine self-esteem, however, consists not of causeless feelings, but of certain knowledge about yourself.
It rests on the conviction that you — by your choices, effort and actions — have made yourself into the
kind of person able to deal with reality. It is the conviction — based on the evidence of your own volitional
functioning — that you are fundamentally able to succeed in life and, therefore, are deserving of that success."
- Onkar Ghate
Bisqwit wrote:
If you want to get a full idea how slaves were treated though, read Maimonides's Laws of Slaves, it covers A to Z every single detail as to how slaves were treated in ancient Israel. It explains how various biblical verses were interpreted and used as a practical matter of law.
You may not like "reading between the lines" as you called it, but that is precisely what the people who actually practiced the text did. You can read lists of rules how to understand the bible. They broke it down to an exact science.
and this
