Sunday, January 28, 2024

The Dark Side of the Bible: "wipe them out" passages.





I was recently conversing with an atheist, who for lack of anything better to say, pulled out the old bit about how oppressive the Bible is. Of course he had to multiply examples with quote after quote about stoning the women and killing others and making slaves obey, yada yada yada, like I haven't thought about this. Like I was a political organizer in the central America movement for years and a seminary student in a very liberal seminary, and I never gave a thought to the social relations in the Bible!

I said the verse about the slaughter of the Amalektie infants was an interpolation. He responds with bo'd coup verses, one after another, all supposedly saying the same things (of course they really didn't say the same thing, just many things that offend the twentieth century sensibility). Since there are just way too many verses to respond once for one, and it's all just multiplying examples, I will list some general principles that I think answer the overall situation viz God and social oppression, especially as it relates to the OT.

(1)But first, it's important to recognize the objective.

The atheist has to show that belief in God, specifically the Hebrew God, made the situation worse. If it didn't worsen the lot of the people of that era, then where's the blame? To do that they have to do two things:

(a) compare to surrounding culture

(b) show that the problem comes directly from belief in the kind of God the Hebrews had, as opposed to other types of the day.

(2) Can't hold up ancient world people to modern standards.

We can't expect people in the ancient world, who lived prior to the modern western concepts of autonomy, individualism and democracy and expect them to have learned better at Woodstock. They didn't have Woodstock to learn from and they weren't hippies, they had no sexaul revoltuion and they couldnt' go to a corner drug store and read about it in a teen magazine or a tabloid.

(3) Social Evolution not Revoltuion

Christ didn't explain to people how to build nuclear power plants or the theory of germs and antiseptic surgery, he didn't write medical books to make their lives better. He did some religious thing and went away again. That's because his mission was primarily spiritual. He was not a social revolutionary, even though what he said would be very revolutionary if it were practiced.

But basically God keeps pace with the understanding of people. The atheists seem to think that everything should be a vast revelation, unfolding of the new world before everyone's eyes. I've already sketched out my theory of soteriological drama in which God wants an individual search in the heart, and that's why he doesnt' pull back the veil of the sky, reveal heaven and set up shop on earth.

God allows us to make the journey. He allows us to set up our own society to apply the principles we learn to internalize on our spiritual search as part of our ethical understanding concerning living in the world. Thus God allows Society to evolve at its own place and allows the understanding of people to guide social reform and revolution.

Naturally things will look a lot rougher at the beginning than at the end. The ancient world will be a lot more primitive and barbaric than the modern world. That's just the concept of social evolution.

(4)The Bible is personal revelation not a guide to social utopia

What throws a lot of people off is that God seemed to be leading a nation in the OT. One would then expect that he would introduce that nation to the proper social enlightenment. We forget a lot of those texts were political propaganda. The basic function of the OT is to form a cultural background so the mission of the messiah makes sense. The real nature of Biblical revelation is the dialectical relationship between the reader and text. In other words, don't be suckered by ancient nationalism.

(5) The God led society was progressive

When you compare those barbaric practices of the Hebrews with those of surrounding cultures they were better. They were more progressive. Consider the nature of war; most slaves were captives taken in war, for most nations around that day a woman captured in war was just a thing to be used as the captor saw fit. She would never again have any kind of rights or consideration and in many cases be killed. In Hebrew culture she was protected form rape and in seven years had a chance to free herself.

*poor people could glean parts of the harvest for themselves

*everyone got land *women went to Moses and demanded their fair share and it was given them

*Women takne in slavery protected from rape

*in Jubilee year the captives could free themselves.

*court system setup to hear complaints of people

Actually most of this stuff is more progressive than Trump's social agenda.

(6) Christian principles led to modern concepts of personhood and human rights.

the slave owners in the American south followed their econimic interest. But the workers int he underground RR who tended to be christains, and quakers and abolitinoists over all followed their reilgious princples,and they oppossed salvery, and closed down the slave trade in the 1820's before the civil war, and latter supported the union and helped end the insittution of slavery in the Confederacy and went on to push for women's rights as well.

*First Women's suffrage group in America Phoebe Palmer and Methodist Women's Association

* first organized Abolition group in America, very same people, Methodist women

*Chrarles Finney crusaded against slavery and supported the abolition movement,and brought the entire second great awakening into the cause. He said "revolution is of God when the intelligence and understanding of the people exceeds the oppression being done to them."

* *Pesant revolts in south Germany for rights of the poor

*Olympia, Deaconess of Constantinople gave her personal fortune to free slaves. St. John Crysostom led a social reform movement that was headed by man Deaconesses of his diocese.

*Christians for Socialism in 20th century chile

*CLamb Central america

*Snadinistas printed bibles tought Bible in literacy campign

*Father Ernesto Cardinal in Nicaragua, Father Camillio Tores in Bolivia, all over Latin America Priests and nuns lead social and poltiical revolution against US cold war poltiics and social oppression.

*1930s America Christians for socialism and industrial action

*Dorothy Day supports christian socialism and starts comminites to bring soup kitchens to poor and share all goods in common.

In every time and place, in every social setting some chrsitrians have wored against the oppression to be the salt and light.

It's a journey of the individual heart but it plays itself out in the way we relate to each other.

 

32 comments:

Cuttlebones said...

The atheist has to show that belief in God, specifically the Hebrew God, made the situation worse.
Why? In what way does the benefit or lack, of belief in a certain God, support the existence of that God? Even if the Hebrews managed to create a social utopia, it wouldn't prove God.
Having said that, to show that Hebrew beliefs, had a greater benefit than belief in any other God would require an equal record of the lives of other peoples in order to make a fair comparison.
And if the Bible is full of propaganda, how do we ascertain with certainty what life was like for the Hebrews and those around them? They would naturally talk themselves up and talk down their enemies.

In Hebrew culture she was protected from rape and in seven years had a chance to free herself.
How do you know this? According to the Bible women captured in war were either killed, probably after being raped, or forced into marriage. Legalised rape. Only Hebrew slaves were freed after 7 years not foreign slaves.

God's keeping pace with the understanding of people sounds like just a remodelling of the definition of God in line with the changing social mores. Just as we do today. It sounds like God was actually doing nothing special when it came to the Hebrews.

To say that "The basic function of the OT is to form a cultural background so the mission of the messiah makes sense" is to take a consequentialist view of their actions.
You like the idea of Jesus so you have to somehow justify what it took to get him.

Anonymous said...

Worth noting that the Babylonians were much more advanced that the Hebrews with regards to dealing with conquered people. The Babylonians just transplanted them to a new location to stop them making trouble; once they seem to have been pretty much free, and at least some attained high positions in government.

The Hebrews, on the other hand, just killed everyone, even the cattle!

Joe: the slave owners in the American south followed their econimic interest. But the workers int he underground RR who tended to be christains, and quakers and abolitinoists over all followed their reilgious princples,and they oppossed salvery, and closed down the slave trade in the 1820's before the civil war, and latter supported the union and helped end the insittution of slavery in the Confederacy and went on to push for women's rights as well.

Of course, those slave-owners were Christians too. The "Bible-belt" was the stronghold of slavery. The South Baptist Convention (now the largest Protestant denomination in the US) was set by four men who broke away from the Baptist Convention specifically because they wanted to own slaves.
https://www.sbts.edu/history/southern-project/

James Thornwell was an American Presbyterian preacher at the time of the Civil War:

"The parties in the conflict are not merely abolitionists and slaveholders. They are atheists, socialists, communists, red republicans, Jacobins on the one side, and friends of order and regulated freedom on the other. In one word, the world is the battleground – Christianity and Atheism the combatants; and the progress of humanity at stake."

A battle between Christianity and atheism, with Christianity fighting for slavery.

Pix

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

CB good to see you

Cuttlebones said...
The atheist has to show that belief in God, specifically the Hebrew God, made the situation worse.
Why? In what way does the benefit or lack, of belief in a certain God, support the existence of that God? Even if the Hebrews managed to create a social utopia, it wouldn't prove God.

what is the point of brining up all those socially oppressive passages? It is to show that Christianity has a lot of bad teachings and leads to social oppressions but if they can't actually link the story to behavior they can't make that argument.



Having said that, to show that Hebrew beliefs, had a greater benefit than belief in any other God would require an equal record of the lives of other peoples in order to make a fair comparison.

Ho just they have the teaching and make the assumption the atheist do. If neither one can show a link to behavior it's a moot point.

And if the Bible is full of propaganda, how do we ascertain with certainty what life was like for the Hebrews and those around them? They would naturally talk themselves up and talk down their enemies.

Tt is the skeptic's burden to prove. Just because there is some propaganda doesn't mean it's overwhelming.

In Hebrew culture she was protected from rape and in seven years had a chance to free herself.
How do you know this? According to the Bible women captured in war were either killed,

I was speaking of women in general.

probably after being raped, or forced into marriage. Legalised rape. Only Hebrew slaves were freed after 7 years not foreign slaves.

what slaves were free by the other guys> still could be progress,

God's keeping pace with the understanding of people sounds like just a remodelli
ng of the definition of God in line with the changing social mores. Just as we do today. It sounds like God was actually doing nothing special when it came to the Hebrews.


poor choice of works. It males God seem to be following to catch up with man. I meant to say God is leading humanity into each new step taking them as far as they can accept. One step at a time. like teaching a baby to walk

To say that "The basic function of the OT is to form a cultural background so the mission of the messiah makes sense" is to take a consequentialist view of their actions.

Not overall but in the specifics of the effects of teaching.

You like the idea of Jesus so you have to somehow justify what it took to get him.
12:59 AM

that last statement I don't know what yu mean, it took the incanate logos.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

CB consequentialism thing is very cleaver observation, that gives me pause I will research.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

great to see you again Pix

Anonymous said...
Worth noting that the Babylonians were much more advanced that the Hebrews with regards to dealing with conquered people. The Babylonians just transplanted them to a new location to stop them making trouble; once they seem to have been pretty much free, and at least some attained high positions in government.

that may be a different time period like the Hebrew exile to Babylon, God is working in all cultures and other cultures can be enlightened

The Hebrews, on the other hand, just killed everyone, even the cattle!

they didn't kill everyone "What does Deuteronomy 21 14 mean?
The biblical text of Deuteronomy 21:10-14 deals with the treatment of sexually desirable non-Jewish women who are captured in war. It addresses the sexual privileges of the captors, as well as the legal rights and the process of the socialization into Israelite society of the captives.
University of Toronto
http://sites.utoronto.ca › wjudaism › journal
".....the Israelites going into captivity and not being killed fits the progressive model because learned not to kill captives.



Joe: the slave owners in the American south followed their econimic interest. But the workers int he underground RR who tended to be christains, and quakers and abolitinoists over all followed their reilgious princples,and they oppossed salvery, and closed down the slave trade in the 1820's before the civil war, and latter supported the union and helped end the insittution of slavery in the Confederacy and went on to push for women's rights as well.

Of course, those slave-owners were Christians too. The "Bible-belt" was the stronghold of slavery. The South Baptist Convention (now the largest Protestant denomination in the US) was set by four men who broke away from the Baptist Convention specifically because they wanted to own slaves.
https://www.sbts.edu/history/southern-project/

I don't think you get my point. christians owning slaves is not just a matter of fllowing one's understanding of the bible

James Thornwell was an American Presbyterian preacher at the time of the Civil War:

"The parties in the conflict are not merely abolitionists and slaveholders. They are atheists, socialists, communists, red republicans, Jacobins on the one side, and friends of order and regulated freedom on the other. In one word, the world is the battleground – Christianity and Atheism the combatants; and the progress of humanity at stake."

A battle between Christianity and atheism, with Christianity fighting for slavery.

Pix
You already agreed that the underground railroad was full of christians as was the abolition movement, typical artiest, mupoia. "a man only sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest"

im-skeptical said...

"God is leading humanity into each new step taking them as far as they can accept. One step at a time. like teaching a baby to walk
"

- Interesting. God gives commandments to be followed without question. The bible spells out all manner of punishments for disobeying. In the time of Noah, most of humanity (as well as animal life) was wiped out because God was unhappy about the wickedness of people. Then came the Hebrews, and God had to handle them with kid gloves, because they couldn't accept a commandment like "be humane to your slaves".

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

- Interesting. God gives commandments to be followed without question.

I know o no verse that says follow we without question. Atheism have turned doubt into a virtue but it's stupid to doubt perfection and goodness. God enjoins us to trust. that's logical and understandable given who God is and given that faith is the engine that drives a prelateship with God.

The bible spells out all manner of punishments for disobeying.

such as? give me examples of three,


In the time of Noah, most of humanity (as well as animal life) was wiped out because God was unhappy about the wickedness of people.

Of course that did not happen. It was an ancient story borrowed from other people and used to relate an idea about God.


Then came the Hebrews, and God had to handle them with kid gloves, because they couldn't accept a commandment like "be humane to your slaves".

Yes because they had a special mission, to produce the Messiah. God taught them to be good to slaves by making them slaves in Babylon,

Cuttlebones said...

CB: You like the idea of Jesus so you have to somehow justify what it took to get him.


MC: that last statement I don't know what you mean, it took the incanate logos.

What I was trying to say is that you've embraced the idea of a self sacrificing saviour, reconciling you to God.
That is tied to the person of Jesus, a claimed messiah rooted in the Hebrew tradition.
So in embracing Jesus as the incarnate logos, you have to reconcile the supposed actions of God as recorded in the OT. That leads to a lot of dismissing and justifying.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

hey CB your superhero persona should captain obvious. Of course I have to defend the Bible from accusations that it champions social oppression. I think I do a good job too.

im-skeptical said...

"Atheism have turned doubt into a virtue but it's stupid to doubt perfection and goodness."
- It's called skepticism. If I didn't doubt, I wouldn't be a skeptic.

"such as? give me examples of three,"
- Hmm. I ask you for evidence to support your claims (see previous post, for example), and I hear crickets. Now you're demanding that I prove to you that the bible says what it says. What are you - some kind of skeptic?
https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Punishment,-By-God
https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/encyclopedia-of-the-bible/Crimes-Punishments

"Of course that did not happen. It was an ancient story borrowed from other people and used to relate an idea about God."
- Agreed, it didn't happen. But the story presumably does relate an idea. What idea is that, you might ask? Something about God's goodness and loving? Or about how the good father guides the child to moral improvement, step by step?

"Yes because they had a special mission, to produce the Messiah. God taught them to be good to slaves by making them slaves in Babylon"
- "The laws governing non-Hebrew slaves were more harsh than those governing Hebrew slaves: ... Explanations for the differential treatment include all non-Hebrew slaves being subject to the curse of Canaan and God not wanting Hebrews to be enslaved again after freeing them from Egyptian enslavement.[28] Other explanations include God having exclusive ownership rights over the Hebrews. Thus, to enslave a Hebrew was akin to misappropriation.[29]" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_slavery)
-“When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod, and he dies there and then, he must be avenged. But if he survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, since he is the other’s property.” (Exodus 21:2-11, 20-21).


Anonymous said...

Joe: Yes because they had a special mission, to produce the Messiah. God taught them to be good to slaves by making them slaves in Babylon,

What evidence is there that they were slaves in Babylon?

See here:
https://journals.co.za/doi/pdf/10.10520/EJC85644

Pix

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

im-skeptical said...
"Atheism have turned doubt into a virtue but it's stupid to doubt perfection and goodness."
- It's called skepticism. If I didn't doubt, I wouldn't be a skeptic.

Well sure but why be one?


"such as? give me examples of three,"
- Hmm. I ask you for evidence to support your claims (see previous post, for example), and I hear crickets. Now you're demanding that I prove to you that the bible says what it says. What are you - some kind of skeptic?

No I want you to prove the Bible says what YOU say it says! just tell me clear ad simple what do you want me to document?

https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Punishment,-By-God
https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/encyclopedia-of-the-bible/Crimes-Punishments

"Of course that did not happen. It was an ancient story borrowed from other people and used to relate an idea about God."
- Agreed, it didn't happen. But the story presumably does relate an idea. What idea is that, you might ask? Something about God's goodness and loving? Or about how the good father guides the child to moral improvement, step by step?

you are convoluting different issues here.

"Yes because they had a special mission, to produce the Messiah. God taught them to be good to slaves by making them slaves in Babylon"


- "The laws governing non-Hebrew slaves were more harsh than those governing Hebrew slaves: ... Explanations for the differential treatment include all non-Hebrew slaves being subject to the curse of Canaan and God not wanting Hebrews to be enslaved again after freeing them from Egyptian enslavement.[28] Other explanations include God having exclusive ownership rights over the Hebrews. Thus, to enslave a Hebrew was akin to misappropriation.[29]" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_slavery)
-“When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod, and he dies there and then, he must be avenged. But if he survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, since he is the other’s property.” (Exodus 21:2-11, 20-21).

you are just taking out one moment in their history and assuming it was always like that. you can't know that because we dont have records of post exile salve keeping. I am talking about their progress through time.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...


skyp- "Hmm. I ask you for evidence to support your claims (see previous post, for example), and I hear crickets."
I have looked at every post by you i can't find an example where you wanted me to show evidence.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...


What evidence is there that they were slaves in Babylon?

See here:
https://journals.co.za/doi/pdf/10.10520/EJC85644

I read that article it does not prove were not slaves. So another source:


Were the Israelites slaves in Babylon?
There are scholars on the one hand, who argue that Jews were subjected to slavery practices in Babylon. Smith argues that there is evidence that Babylonians practiced slavery. We have cuneiform inscriptions suggesting that Nebuchadnezzar II did initiate building campaigns using labour from conquered territo- ries.

A sociological analysis of Israelites in Babylonian exile

journals.co.za
https://journals.co.za › doi › pdf › EJC85644

Cuttlebones said...

MC: Of course I have to defend the Bible from accusations that it champions social oppression. I think I do a good job too.

Keep telling yourself that. All I see is downplay, dismissal and excuses. I'm sure if you could keep Jesus and jettison the OT you would.

Anonymous said...

Joe: I read that article it does not prove were not slaves. So another source:

That is the same article!

Joe quotes the article: There are scholars on the one hand, who argue that Jews were subjected to slavery practices in Babylon. Smith argues that there is evidence that Babylonians practiced slavery. We have cuneiform inscriptions suggesting that Nebuchadnezzar II did initiate building campaigns using labour from conquered territories.

So Smith says they had slaves, and then leaps to the conclusion that the Israelites must therefore have been slaves? Great scholarship.

If you actually read the article, it does not prove they were not slaves, but it very much comes down on that side. Some salient excerpts:

It appears as though exile in Babylon was not too harsh an experience, since the people taken into captivity were allowed to build their own houses and to form their own communities under their own chiefs
...
It looks as though after some initial difficulties, the legal and economic situation was by no means oppressive for the exiles from Judah. The archive of the agricultural trading and credit house of Murashu from Nippur attests, though strictly speaking only for a later period (455-403), that the people of Judah were legally fully integrated in Babylonia and got along quite reasonably in their businesses
...
However, later sources reveal that some elements of the Jewish society in Mesopotamia eventually established themselves in other areas, such as trade and banking (Lemche 1988:180). They took part in trade in their new homeland, and some became wealthy (Hinson 1973:139). The records of the Murashu family, a Babylonian banking firm of the fifth century BC, list several prominent Jewish families among their clients about the years 450 to 400 BC (Boadt 1984:384). And as early post-exilic biblical texts indicate, some few found their way to the highest political offices, such as, Sheshbazzar, Zerubbabel, Nehemiah, Ezra et cetera (Albertz 1994:373-4).
...
The prosperity of the exilic community may explain both the donation lists of this time (Ezr 2:69; 8:30) and why many Jews preferred to remain in the Dispersion, unwilling to leave their possessions, as they were already living comfortable and prosperous lives.


Pix

im-skeptical said...

"Well sure but why be one?"
- Why be a skeptic? Because I like to think for myself. A good little sheep doesn't question, doesn't doubt. He just obediently follows his leader to the slaughter.

"No I want you to prove the Bible says what YOU say it says!"
- I gave you a couple of articles that describe biblical punishments for for following God's commands.

"just tell me clear ad simple what do you want me to document?"
- In the previous post, I explained that the "evidence" you provided for belief among scientists wasn't what you claimed. I asked what other evidence you had. Crickets.

"you are convoluting different issues here."
- Oh, sorry. But you said the story of Noah provides some kind of message. I am merely asking what that message is.

"you are just taking out one moment in their history and assuming it was always like that. ... I am talking about their progress through time."
- Well, it sounds to me as if you are making excuses for the atrocities condoned in the bible. Perhaps by the time the New Testament was written, they might have advanced to the point where slavery was forbidden. But alas, it never happened. If God wants to take us step by step, why would he leave the state of human morality hanging with slavery still being condoned? And when did they ever back off from ownership and harsh treatment for non-Hebrew slaves? The bible says what it says, and many Christians say it is their source of morality. But let's be honest about this. They pick and choose which parts they believe, which parts they accept as meaningful, and which parts they brush off.

Cuttlebones said...

MC: God taught them to be good to slaves by making them slaves in Babylon.

Why couldn't he just teach them not to have slaves?

im-skeptical said...

"Christian principles led to modern concepts of personhood and human rights."
- Correction: Christians claim credit for modern concepts of personhood and human rights.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

im-skeptical said...
"Christian principles led to modern concepts of personhood and human rights."
- Correction: Christians claim credit for modern concepts of personhood and human rights.

10:55 AM

I was taught that in doctoral work, at UT Dallas by a gay Scotsman who became an atheist while studying for the priesthood. But he was honest,,Upi might read Charles Taylor sources of the self. Think about it, Newton and Boyle and all the major early science guys were christians. w

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

im-skeptical said...
"Christian principles led to modern concepts of personhood and human rights."
- Correction: Christians claim credit for modern concepts of personhood and human rights.

10:55 AM

I was taught that in doctoral work, at UT Dallas by a gay Scotsman who became an atheist while studying for the priesthood. But he was honest,,You might read Charles Taylor sources of the self. Think about it, Newton and Boyle and all the major early science guys were christians. w

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Blogger Cuttlebones said...
MC: God taught them to be good to slaves by making them slaves in Babylon.

Why couldn't he just teach them not to have slaves?

why didn;r he teach then all about modern science?

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Blogger im-skeptical said...
"Well sure but why be one?"
- Why be a skeptic? Because I like to think for myself. A good little sheep doesn't question, doesn't doubt. He just obediently follows his leader to the slaughter.


I was an atheist already when I found Jesus. Si by your logic I was thinking for myself,

"No I want you to prove the Bible says what YOU say it says!"
- I gave you a couple of articles that describe biblical punishments for for following God's commands.

there are mp punishments for following God's commands

"just tell me clear ad simple what do you want me to document?"
- In the previous post, I explained that the "evidence" you provided for belief among scientists wasn't what you claimed. I asked what other evidence you had. Crickets.

half the people with scientific degrees n America belief om God."According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.Nov 5, 2009

Scientists and Belief | Pew Research Center

Pew Research Center
https://www.pewresearch.org › Research Topics › Science"


"you are convoluting different issues here."
- Oh, sorry. But you said the story of Noah provides some kind of message. I am merely asking what that message is.

Trust God and have faith

JOE"you are just taking out one moment in their history and assuming it was always like that. ... I am talking about their progress through time."


- Well, it sounds to me as if you are making excuses for the atrocities condoned in the bible.

making excuses would be to say God commanded it but it was for good reason. since I have always said I am not an inerrantist why should I make excuses?

Perhaps by the time the New Testament was written, they might have advanced to the point where slavery was forbidden. But alas, it never happened. If God wants to take us step by step, why would he leave the state of human morality hanging with slavery still being condoned?


obviously he didn't since we did develop abolition.

And when did they ever back off from ownership and harsh treatment for non-Hebrew slaves?

you don't find it in rebuilding o temple or inter or new testaments

The bible says what it says, and many Christians say it is their source of morality. But let's be honest about this. They pick and choose which parts they believe, which parts they accept as meaningful, and which parts they brush off.


Atheist game, if they follow everything they can't think for themselves. if they do not follow everything then they pic and choose. i would rather pick and choose the inspired stuff. what is wrong with it?

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Anonymous said...
Joe: I read that article it does not prove were not slaves. So another source:

That is the same article!

Joe quotes the article: There are scholars on the one hand, who argue that Jews were subjected to slavery practices in Babylon. Smith argues that there is evidence that Babylonians practiced slavery. We have cuneiform inscriptions suggesting that Nebuchadnezzar II did initiate building campaigns using labour from conquered territories.

So Smith says they had slaves, and then leaps to the conclusion that the Israelites must therefore have been slaves? Great scholarship.

If you actually read the article, it does not prove they were not slaves, but it very much comes down on that side. Some salient excerpts:

It appears as though exile in Babylon was not too harsh an experience, since the people taken into captivity were allowed to build their own houses and to form their own communities under their own chiefs

not being harsh does not prove they didn't undergo it
...
It looks as though after some initial difficulties, the legal and economic situation was by no means oppressive for the exiles from Judah. The archive of the agricultural trading and credit house of Murashu from Nippur attests, though strictly speaking only for a later period (455-403), that the people of Judah were legally fully integrated in Babylonia and got along quite reasonably in their businesses
what I said
...
However, later sources reveal that some elements of the Jewish society in Mesopotamia eventually established themselves in other areas, such as trade and banking (Lemche 1988:180). They took part in trade in their new homeland, and some became wealthy (Hinson 1973:139). The records of the Murashu family, a Babylonian banking firm of the fifth century BC, list several prominent Jewish families among their clients about the years 450 to 400 BC (Boadt 1984:384). And as early post-exilic biblical texts indicate, some few found their way to the highest political offices, such as, Sheshbazzar, Zerubbabel, Nehemiah, Ezra et cetera (Albertz 1994:373-4).
...
The prosperity of the exilic community may explain both the donation lists of this time (Ezr 2:69; 8:30) and why many Jews preferred to remain in the Dispersion, unwilling to leave their possessions, as they were already living comfortable and prosperous lives.

that stuff proves they slaves in Babylon otherwise what are they doing rising to high places in other lands,? Just because over time they did good does not mean there was no time in the beginning when it was horrible or that there was a segment of working class who were appressed.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

correction: Oppressed

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

pix how does your argumemt change my thesis?

im-skeptical said...

"I was taught that in doctoral work,"
- It's pure hubris. That doesn't mean they taught you about non-western or non-Christian concepts.

"You might read Charles Taylor sources of the self"
- Another theist pushing his theistic beliefs.

"Think about it, Newton and Boyle and all the major early science guys were christians"
- Newton was regarded as a heretic, as were others who challenged or diverged from Christian beliefs. Not to mention the non-Christian origins and influences on scientific thinking.

"I was an atheist already when I found Jesus. Si by your logic I was thinking for myself"
- You don't know what skepticism is. Following the ideological dictates of Marxism doesn't mean you think for yourself, and It certainly doesn't make you a skeptic.

"there are mp punishments for following God's commands"
- There are punishments for NOT following God's commands, as those articles indicate.

"half the people with scientific degrees n America belief om God."
- No. One third believe in something that you would call God, and in hard-science fields like physics, it is fewer than that.

"Trust God and have faith"
- ... or you will suffer the wrath of an angry God.

"since I have always said I am not an inerrantist why should I make excuses?"
- I don't know. But that's what you are doing.

"obviously he didn't since we did develop abolition."
- You didn't get that from the bible. You are proof that morality progresses regardless of what the bible teaches. And it's not the sole province of Christians, either.

"you don't find it in rebuilding o temple or inter or new testaments"
- Why can't you admit that the bible expresses an outdated world view, and society has progressed beyond that? We are capable of seeing the good and the bad according to our own world view, and it doesn't really matter what the bible says.

"i would rather pick and choose the inspired stuff. what is wrong with it?"
- Nothing wrong with picking and choosing. But see my previous comment.

Cuttlebones said...

MC: God taught them to be good to slaves by making them slaves in Babylon.

CB: Why couldn't he just teach them not to have slaves?

MC: why didn't he teach then all about modern science?

Are you suggesting that teaching them not to have slaves, as opposed to simply being good to them, is comparable to going from bronze age technology to modern science?

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

CB You can't just say don't have slaves, they would rationalize their way around it. You have to give them a theoretical foundation for valuing freedom. the individual and democracy, they were not ready.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Skep: Why can't you admit that the bible expresses an outdated world view, and society has progressed beyond that? We are capable of seeing the good and the bad according to our own world view, and it doesn't really matter what the bible says.

The bible is an ink blot. Of course it presents the cultural framework of those writing it. It also leaves space for progress. The OT is null and void in terns of law, it doesn't matter that's is ancient world in mentality, The new Testament is oriented about Jesus' teaching and leaves space for modern sthought in fact it brought us where we are. It's led modern though

im-skeptical said...

During every phase of biblical authorship, the scriptures have reflected the thinking of the time, and in some cases, disagreements on social issues (such as women's rights, which made advancements in the earlier NT books, but got dialed back again in later works). You'd think God could have settled issues like that before coming out with a mixed message. What we don't see in the bible is new thinking that pushes beyond what was already present. So I don't think it's right to say the bible brought us to where we are. In fact, in some ways, it has held us back from reaching what we might have achieved.

Cuttlebones said...

MC: You can't just say don't have slaves, they would rationalize their way around it. You have to give them a theoretical foundation for valuing freedom. the individual and democracy, they were not ready.

So it sounds like the ancient Hebrew's "special" relationship with God had no special effect on them, that lead to their being any better than their neighbours.

MC: The bible is an ink blot. Of course it presents the cultural framework of those writing it. It also leaves space for progress. The OT is null and void in terns of law, it doesn't matter that's is ancient world in mentality, The new Testament is oriented about Jesus' teaching and leaves space for modern thought in fact it brought us where we are. It's led modern thought.

Yes, The Bible is an ink blot. You can see in it, whatever you want to see.
Where we are is where we are, regardless of Jesus' teaching. Peoples thinking has changed over time and as always, people find in the Bible, support for their ideas.
There's nothing to show that it has led modern thought.