The Bible is holy and from god. Oh, and also you have to understand the times in which it was written. WUT?

[Rhea]

These two things are incompatible and also frequently used by christians who don’t see the contradiction.

Talking today with a Christian trying to justify the cruelty of having to marry your rapist - so that he can rape you for the rest of your life. But! But! You have to understand the times, she was now an outcast and he had to take care of her to keep her alive!

Dude. So maybe the bible should say, “if you rape, you have to pay for her needs for the rest of her life, and you have to stay away from her, oh and also, all you other people, don’t be dicks to her, it’s not her fault.”

But apparently the god of the times couldn’t manage that kind of foresight.

Also it admits that the god of the times had no control over the mores of the times. Sad!

 

[Politesse]

Indeed. It bugs me when they plumb modern Biblical scholarship for support when they think said scholars are in agreement with them, but then utterly ignore, even contemn, the conclusions those same scholars come to on questions like authorship, authenticity, language, or political bias. Fundamentalist hermeneutics rely surprisingly heavily on lies, considering the advice of the Bible itself on the importance of honesty.

"Εἴ τις δοκεῖ θρησκὸς εἶναι μὴ χαλιναγωγῶν γλῶσσαν αὐτοῦ ἀλλὰ ἀπατῶν καρδίαν αὐτοῦ, τούτου μάταιος ἡ θρησκεία."/
"Those who consider themselves pious and but do not keep a tight rein on their tongue deceive their own hearts, and their 'piety' is worthless." ~James 1:26

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

So God wrote a Bible that was not truly moral because, ermmm, what was that again? No,it doesn't make sense. A real God would explain a truly moral way of life for benefit of the savages, not cave in to reinforcing the savages' poor moral understandings. God then is not a leader, but something less than moral.

This is a rationalization that collapses under its own lack of credibility and lack of logic. Then we have to ask the question what parts of today's Christian "absolute" and Bible based morality is likewise lacking in true morality because God is creating that Bible morality to our failed ability to understand true morality?

 

[DrZoidberg]

These two things are incompatible and also frequently used by christians who don’t see the contradiction.

Talking today with a Christian trying to justify the cruelty of having to marry your rapist - so that he can rape you for the rest of your life. But! But! You have to understand the times, she was now an outcast and he had to take care of her to keep her alive!

Dude. So maybe the bible should say, “if you rape, you have to pay for her needs for the rest of her life, and you have to stay away from her, oh and also, all you other people, don’t be dicks to her, it’s not her fault.”

But apparently the god of the times couldn’t manage that kind of foresight.

Also it admits that the god of the times had no control over the mores of the times. Sad!

There's a third option. An all powerful entity could continually update all Bibles to fit the times. The fact that the Bible stays the same and doesn't magically keep changing I think is evidence against the existience of God.

 

[excreationist]

"...you have to understand the times in which it was written..."

Yes.

Matthew 19:7-9

.... “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”...

 

[OLDMAN]

"...you have to understand the times in which it was written..."

Yes.

Matthew 19:7-9

.... “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”...

So what. later he says you can't look at a women without committing adultery....hard on the teenagers.

 

[DrZoidberg]

"...you have to understand the times in which it was written..."

Yes.

Matthew 19:7-9

.... “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”...

So what. later he says you can't look at a women without committing adultery....hard on the teenagers.

That never really went away with me. I covet like crazy all day

 

[excreationist]

"...you have to understand the times in which it was written..."

Yes.

Matthew 19:7-9

.... “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”...

So what. later he says you can't look at a women without committing adultery....hard on the teenagers.

That was written at a time when everyone is said to have broken the law, including times when they deserved death (due to "adultery"). Though Jesus says lust is punished by hell (talking about plucking out your eye).

 

[ideologyhunter]

From the 60s onward, Christian writers have railed against situation ethics. What is "God allowed you to do this because your hearts were hard" but situation ethics? I've heard the same horseshit explanation for the Bible on slavery, i.e., that was the way it was, back then, but God's law tried to make it a better world for the slave, and the NT provided for the eventual downfall of slavery. A total crock. The anti-abolitionist clergy of the pre-Civil War days had it absolutely right: the Bible sees it as completely moral to buy and sell people and beat them to the point of death if ya want. God lets ya. Go ahead and don't think twice.

 

[Politesse]

From the 60s onward, Christian writers have railed against situation ethics. What is "God allowed you to do this because your hearts were hard" but situation ethics? I've heard the same horseshit explanation for the Bible on slavery, i.e., that was the way it was, back then, but God's law tried to make it a better world for the slave, and the NT provided for the eventual downfall of slavery. A total crock. The anti-abolitionist clergy of the pre-Civil War days had it absolutely right: the Bible sees it as completely moral to buy and sell people and beat them to the point of death if ya want. God lets ya. Go ahead and don't think twice.

Why, in your opinion, was it believed for centuries that slavery was against the law of God? Indeed, even during the years of the African slave trade itself; buying and selling of human beings was still illegal in Europe, and for religious reasons. They had merely devised a workaround having to due with the then-recently invented concept of race and some tortured interpretations of some passages in Genesis. You couldn't enslave, say, a white Belgian. Or a Swede. Because that would be un-Christian. You could enslave an Irishman, but only if you pretended they were an indentured servant rather than a slave as such.

Deeply hypocritical, yes, but a bit odd considering your claim that the Biblical case for the pro-slavery position is airtight. If that is so, why didn't the pro-slavery crowd just say so, and resume open enslavement regardless of race? Are you claiming, like your forebears, that the Bible only clearly advocates the enslavement of people with black skin?

 

[OLDMAN]

From the 60s onward, Christian writers have railed against situation ethics. What is "God allowed you to do this because your hearts were hard" but situation ethics? I've heard the same horseshit explanation for the Bible on slavery, i.e., that was the way it was, back then, but God's law tried to make it a better world for the slave, and the NT provided for the eventual downfall of slavery. A total crock. The anti-abolitionist clergy of the pre-Civil War days had it absolutely right: the Bible sees it as completely moral to buy and sell people and beat them to the point of death if ya want. God lets ya. Go ahead and don't think twice.

Why, in your opinion, was it believed for centuries that slavery was against the law of God? Indeed, even during the years of the African slave trade itself; buying and selling of human beings was still illegal in Europe, and for religious reasons. They had merely devised a workaround having to due with the then-recently invented concept of race and some tortured interpretations of some passages in Genesis. You couldn't enslave, say, a white Belgian. Or a Swede. Because that would be un-Christian. You could enslave an Irishman, but only if you pretended they were an indentured servant rather than a slave as such.

Deeply hypocritical, yes, but a bit odd considering your claim that the Biblical case for the pro-slavery position is airtight. If that is so, why didn't the pro-slavery crowd just say so, and resume open enslavement regardless of race? Are you claiming, like your forebears, that the Bible only clearly advocates the enslavement of people with black skin?

It was much easier to dehumanize people who didn't speak english, believe in the same god and were black (like apes)....they were clearly sub-human. What most likely happened was the slaves soon learned english, attended church, learned to read, probably became Christians...now how do you dehumanize someone who is just as smart (often smarter) than the people who own them? Much harder to do, and much harder to justify, leaving some whites to question just how moral their position truly was in this regards.

In short it most likely was the blacks becoming Americanized that lead to a changed attitude....they sort of freed themselves by their abilities. Even for the most ardent slaver, they could no longer say, blacks were sub-human. IMO.

 

[Juma]

From the 60s onward, Christian writers have railed against situation ethics. What is "God allowed you to do this because your hearts were hard" but situation ethics? I've heard the same horseshit explanation for the Bible on slavery, i.e., that was the way it was, back then, but God's law tried to make it a better world for the slave, and the NT provided for the eventual downfall of slavery. A total crock. The anti-abolitionist clergy of the pre-Civil War days had it absolutely right: the Bible sees it as completely moral to buy and sell people and beat them to the point of death if ya want. God lets ya. Go ahead and don't think twice.

Why, in your opinion, was it believed for centuries that slavery was against the law of God? Indeed, even during the years of the African slave trade itself; buying and selling of human beings was still illegal in Europe, and for religious reasons. They had merely devised a workaround having to due with the then-recently invented concept of race and some tortured interpretations of some passages in Genesis. You couldn't enslave, say, a white Belgian. Or a Swede. Because that would be un-Christian. You could enslave an Irishman, but only if you pretended they were an indentured servant rather than a slave as such.

Deeply hypocritical, yes, but a bit odd considering your claim that the Biblical case for the pro-slavery position is airtight. If that is so, why didn't the pro-slavery crowd just say so, and resume open enslavement regardless of race? Are you claiming, like your forebears, that the Bible only clearly advocates the enslavement of people with black skin?

You write ”for religious reasons”. Can you tell what you believes these religious reason would be?

 

[Politesse]

From the 60s onward, Christian writers have railed against situation ethics. What is "God allowed you to do this because your hearts were hard" but situation ethics? I've heard the same horseshit explanation for the Bible on slavery, i.e., that was the way it was, back then, but God's law tried to make it a better world for the slave, and the NT provided for the eventual downfall of slavery. A total crock. The anti-abolitionist clergy of the pre-Civil War days had it absolutely right: the Bible sees it as completely moral to buy and sell people and beat them to the point of death if ya want. God lets ya. Go ahead and don't think twice.

Why, in your opinion, was it believed for centuries that slavery was against the law of God? Indeed, even during the years of the African slave trade itself; buying and selling of human beings was still illegal in Europe, and for religious reasons. They had merely devised a workaround having to due with the then-recently invented concept of race and some tortured interpretations of some passages in Genesis. You couldn't enslave, say, a white Belgian. Or a Swede. Because that would be un-Christian. You could enslave an Irishman, but only if you pretended they were an indentured servant rather than a slave as such.

Deeply hypocritical, yes, but a bit odd considering your claim that the Biblical case for the pro-slavery position is airtight. If that is so, why didn't the pro-slavery crowd just say so, and resume open enslavement regardless of race? Are you claiming, like your forebears, that the Bible only clearly advocates the enslavement of people with black skin?

You write ”for religious reasons”. Can you tell what you believes these religious reason would be?

You can read for yourself; here are some helpful primary documents from over the years:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120119.htm

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/230122.htm

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/eugene04/eugene04sicut.htm

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/greg16/g16sup.htm​

Slavery never really ended, but most Christians throughout history have believed, however hypocritically, that the enslavement of a fellow person is normally a sin. You are setting yourself up as the "Master" of someone who has only one true master, and for the sake of your own greed placing yourself in the seat of God. People have been creative in devising excuses and exceptions that supposedly justify their actions, and under many disguises has continued throughout European history well into the present day.

 

[repoman]

I am not sure that engaging in the debunking of God on moral and hypocrisy grounds is a good idea. Even if the Bible was mostly full of many more helpful suggestions and harmless bromides god would still not be real. Even the best possible god is still not real.

Us engaging in this debunking too much makes it look like we are sweating it, though we are not.

Also even without the concept of god there still would have been slavery, but maybe with more violent slave revolts since no promise of reward in the afterlife for being a good doggy.

But, it is a weird sell to tell a theist "even the good stuff in your in book is bullshit or if not it is just common sense anyway. There is no god and no god's mercy since he does not exist."

 

[whollygoats]

These two things are incompatible and also frequently used by christians who don’t see the contradiction.

Talking today with a Christian trying to justify the cruelty of having to marry your rapist - so that he can rape you for the rest of your life. But! But! You have to understand the times, she was now an outcast and he had to take care of her to keep her alive!

Dude. So maybe the bible should say, “if you rape, you have to pay for her needs for the rest of her life, and you have to stay away from her, oh and also, all you other people, don’t be dicks to her, it’s not her fault.”

But apparently the god of the times couldn’t manage that kind of foresight.

Also it admits that the god of the times had no control over the mores of the times. Sad!

There's a third option. An all powerful entity could continually update all Bibles to fit the times. The fact that the Bible stays the same and doesn't magically keep changing I think is evidence against the existience of God.

Ah....But if you talk to biblical scholars, you will find that the Bible has been changing over time. Bart Ehrman has built an entire career out of interpreting the changes and their implications. See: The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effects of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament. Oxford University Press, 1993.

Be careful with your suppositions.

 

[Jobar]

http://www.evilbible.com/

Marrying your rapist is far from the worst thing God instructs us to do, or does Himself, in the Bible.

 

[phands]

http://www.evilbible.com/

Marrying your rapist is far from the worst thing God instructs us to do, or does Himself, in the Bible.

Castrating yourself for one thing....

 

[Lion IRC]

These two things are incompatible and also frequently used by christians who don’t see the contradiction.

Talking today with a Christian trying to justify the cruelty of having to marry your rapist - so that he can rape you for the rest of your life. But! But! You have to understand the times, she was now an outcast and he had to take care of her to keep her alive!

Dude. So maybe the bible should say, “if you rape, you have to pay for her needs for the rest of her life, and you have to stay away from her, oh and also, all you other people, don’t be dicks to her, it’s not her fault.”

But apparently the god of the times couldn’t manage that kind of foresight.

Also it admits that the god of the times had no control over the mores of the times. Sad!

That rule benefitted rape victims and the deterrent prevented potential rapes.

Nobody would ever marry a woman who claimed to have been raped. So what else was she to do?

And what better way to punish a rapist than to make them pay lifelong alimony/maintenance and a dowry.

And let's not forget..."only the man who lay with her shall die. You shall do nothing to the young woman; the young woman has not committed an offense punishable by death"

Seems they took #MeToo allegations a lot more seriously back then. So yeah, you gotta understand the time it was written.

 

[Sarpedon]

So, you torture the victim in order to punish the rapist. Her suffering is irrelevant to 'deterring' future rape from the rapist.

Hey Lion, here's an idea: why not punish the rapist without making it any worse for the victim?

Or is that just un-biblical?

 

[Lion IRC]

Punish the rapist and ignore the plight of the victim?
The victim would have found it hard to marry - that meant poverty.
Think of it as a shotgun wedding.
Nobody is saying it was a win win win, happily ever after scenario.

I actually think the Israelite biblical punishment of male sex crimes against women was much harsher than neighboring societies. Considered from a secular point of view, a Hebrew woman was much safer than her counterparts in other patriarchal male-dominated societies.