Monday, May 08, 2023

Answering charges about God and social oppression.

I was recently conversing with an atheist, who for lack of anything better to say, pulled out the old bit about how oprressive 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. Iike I was a political organizer in the central America movmenet 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 slaughter of the Amalektie infants was an interpolation. He responds with bo'd coup verses, one after another, all suppossedly saying the same things (of course they realy didn't say the same thing, just many things that offend the twentieth century sensiablity). Since there are just way too many veres to respond once for one, and it's all just mulitplying examples, I will list some general princples that I think answer the over all situtation viz God and social opression, especially as it realtes to the OT.

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

The atheist has to show that belief in God, speicifally 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 sourounding culture

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

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

We can't expect people in the ancinet world, who live prior to the modern western concepts of autonomy, indivuidualism and democracy and expect them to have leanred 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 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 th theory of germs and anticeptic surgery, he didn't write medical books to make their lives better. He did some religious thing and went away again. That's becuase 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 eveyrthing should be a vast revelation, unfolding of the new world before everyone's eyes. I've already sketched out my theory of soeteriologial 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 socieity to apply the principles we learn to internatlize on our spiritual search as part of our ethical understanding concerning living in the world. Thus God allows Society to evolve at it's own place and allows the understanding of people to guide social reform and revolution.

Naturally things will look a lot rougher at the begining than at the end. The ancient world will be a lot more primative and barbarck than the modern world. That's just the conept of social evolution.

(4)The Bible is personal revealation 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 enlightement. We forget a lot of those texts were polotical propaganda. The basic funciton of the OT is to form a cultural background so the mission of messiah makes sense. The real narue of Biblical revolation 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 sourrounding 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 a 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 thsemselves

*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 Jubalee year the captives could free themselves.

*court sysetm set up to hear compalints of people

actually most of this stuff is more progressive than Bush'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 sufferage group in America Pheobe Palmer and Methodist Woen's Association

* firstt organize Abolition groui in America, very same people, Methodist women

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

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

*Olypia, Deconess of Constantinople gave her personal fortune to free slaves. St. John Crysostom led social reform movment that was headed by many Deconeses of his diocesies.

*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 Boliva, all over Latin America Preists and nuns lead social and poltiical revolution against US cold war poltiics and social oppression.

*1930s America Chrsitians for socialism and industrial ation

*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 hte individual heart but it plays itself out in the way we relate to each other.

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

Joe: He responds with bo'd coup verses, one after another, all suppossedly saying the same things (of course they realy didn't say the same thing, just many things that offend the twentieth century sensiablity)

The phrase "many things that offend the twentieth century sensiablity" is a way to trivialise atrocities, but slavery offends the twentieth (and twenty-first) century sensibility, but was accepted as the norm back in the day.

Joe: The atheist has to show that belief in God, speicifally 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?

The objective is to show that Christianity is not coherent.

On the one hand it posits a perfect good God, and on the other it say God allows chattel slavery. A big contradiction. At least according to twenty-first century sensibility.

Joe: We can't expect people in the ancinet world, who live prior to the modern western concepts of autonomy, indivuidualism and democracy and expect them to have leanred 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 corner drug store and read about it in a teen magazine or a tabloid.

Of course not. They did not know any better.

They did not know any better because there was no perfectly good God telling them.

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

Jesus did not explain how to build nuclear power plants because he had no clue what one is. He was a man of his culture, and his words reflect that. He was not a social revolutionary because his people lived under the rule of the Romans, and nothing he said was going to change that.

Joe: But basically God keeps pace with the understanding of people.

No, our concept of God keeps pace with the understanding of people, and it does so because it reflects that understanding.

Modern Christians are sure God is ant-slavery because they are sure slavery is wrong. Mankind has worked out slavery is wrong, and we have adjusted our religion accordingly.

Pix

Anonymous said...

Joe: The atheists seem to think that eveyrthing should be a vast revelation, unfolding of the new world before everyone's eyes. I've already sketched out my theory of soeteriologial 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.

But according to the Bible there was a vast revelation. God communicated with man sufficiently to be clear that eating shellfish is an abomination, and we should not wear cloth made from different twines. And chattel slavery is allowed.

Joe: 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 enlightement. We forget a lot of those texts were polotical propaganda. The basic funciton of the OT is to form a cultural background so the mission of messiah makes sense. The real narue of Biblical revolation is the dialectical relationship between the reader and text. In other words, don't be suckered by ancient nationalism.

Well that was unexpected. Are you saying much of the OT is wrong - it was made up by the Hebrews for political reasons?

Joe: 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 a many cases be killed. In Hebrew culture she was protected form rape and in seven years had a chance to free herself.

Well if the Bible is right, the Hebrews slaughtered every living thing in the enemy's nation.

Compare that to the Babylonians who required the rulers and priests to live elsewhere, but as far as I know did not enslave anyone or rape anyone. They seem far more progressive.

Can you give the verse that protects the female POWs from rape? Deut 21 suggests otherwise - though the woman is to be either married or set free after the deed, so I guess that is some protection. Then again, this only covers women they want to marry; what of women they want to rape, but not marry?

Exodus 21 and Jeremiah 34 indicate it was only Hebrew slaves who were freed at the Jubilee; that would not include POWs.

Pix

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Anonymous said...
Joe: 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 sensiablity)

PIX: The phrase "many things that offend the twentieth century sensiablity" is a way to trivialise atrocities, but slavery offends the twentieth (and twenty-first) century sensibility, but was accepted as the norm back in the day.

JOE:>>>>>> I agree but that was not my intention. Let's say "things we now understand as barbaric."

Joe:(before) The atheist has to show that belief in God, speicifally 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?

PIX: The objective is to show that Christianity is not coherent.

On the one hand it posits a perfect good God, and on the other it say God allows chattel slavery. A big contradiction. At least according to twenty-first century sensibility.

Joe:>>>>>>> "It" does not say that. One boo implies but only one book. Nothing in the New Testament,

Joe: We can't expect people in the ancinet world, who live prior to the modern western concepts of autonomy, indivuidualism and democracy and expect them to have leanred 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 corner drug store and read about it in a teen magazine or a tabloid.

Pix: Of course not. They did not know any better.

They did not know any better because there was no perfectly good God telling them.

JOE: then how did we wind up known better? It's a dialectic and God is guiding us toward the goal.

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

Jesus did not explain how to build nuclear power plants because he had no clue what one is. He was a man of his culture, and his words reflect that. He was not a social revolutionary because his people lived under the rule of the Romans, and nothing he said was going to change that.

Joe: But basically God keeps pace with the understanding of people.

No, our concept of God keeps pace with the understanding of people, and it does so because it reflects that understanding.

Pix: Modern Christians are sure God is ant-slavery because they are sure slavery is wrong. Mankind has worked out slavery is wrong, and we have adjusted our religion accordingly.

Joe: right a dialectical relationship

tesr

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Anonymous said...
Joe: The atheists seem to think that eveyrthing should be a vast revelation, unfolding of the new world before everyone's eyes. I've already sketched out my theory of soeteriologial 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.

PIXBut according to the Bible there was a vast revelation. God communicated with man sufficiently to be clear that eating shellfish is an abomination, and we should not wear cloth made from different twines. And chattel slavery is allowed.

that is begging the question. It's not a vast revelation. Besides a simpler revelation is harder to screw up.

Joe: 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 enlightement. We forget a lot of those texts were polotical propaganda. The basic funciton of the OT is to form a cultural background so the mission of messiah makes sense. The real narue of Biblical revolation is the dialectical relationship between the reader and text. In other words, don't be suckered by ancient nationalism.

PixWell that was unexpected. Are you saying much of the OT is wrong - it was made up by the Hebrews for political reasons?

what took you so long?

Joe: 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 a many cases be killed. In Hebrew culture she was protected form rape and in seven years had a chance to free herself.

PIxWell if the Bible is right, the Hebrews slaughtered every living thing in the enemy's nation.

Compare that to the Babylonians who required the rulers and priests to live elsewhere, but as far as I know did not enslave anyone or rape anyone. They seem far more progressive.

that is pretty ridiculous. The Babylonians had slaves, they conquered, they killed women and children they did all that.


Can you give the verse that protects the female POWs from rape? Deut 21 suggests otherwise - though the woman is to be either married or set free after the deed, so I guess that is some protection. Then again, this only covers women they want to marry; what of women they want to rape, but not marry?

Exodus 22:21 "Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for ...
In Numbers, we are told “You and the foreigner shall be the same before the LORD: The same laws and regulations will apply both to you and to the foreigner."






Anonymous said...

Joe: I agree but that was not my intention. Let's say "things we now understand as barbaric."

Okay

Joe: "It" does not say that. One boo implies but only one book. Nothing in the New Testament,

It seems a pretty standard part of Christianity - whether Biblical or not. Many Christians even insist morality comes from God.

Joe: then how did we wind up known better? It's a dialectic and God is guiding us toward the goal.

I think people are capable of learning, both on an individual level, and collectively. Mankind know much more science than we did 200 years ago. It is not a stretch to suppose we know more morality. I see no reason to suppose we needed God to do that.

Your response here seems to assume God is perfectly good, despite your protest earlier that the Bible does not say that.

Joe: that is begging the question. It's not a vast revelation. Besides a simpler revelation is harder to screw up.

Okay, vast is a relative term, but it was certainly vast enough that it could include a prohibition against slavery, which is what it comes down to.

Joe: that is pretty ridiculous. The Babylonians had slaves, they conquered, they killed women and children they did all that.

The issue here is how they treated civilians after conquering another nation. I do not doubt women and children were killed; the Allies killed women and children in WW2. However, after the fighting, they did not slaughter the entire population, they did not enslave them all. Most of the Hebrews were allowed to live on pretty much as normal, with only the rulers and priests going into exile.

That is far more advanced than the reports in the Bible of what the Hebrews did. I appreciate those stories are probably not true, but they do reflect the morality of the people nevertheless - that is what they would do, and would consider the right thing to do, if they were in that situation.

Joe: Exodus 22:21 "Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for ...
In Numbers, we are told “You and the foreigner shall be the same before the LORD: The same laws and regulations will apply both to you and to the foreigner."


And yet Lev 25 says something quite different.

Lev 25:44 As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. 45 You may also acquire them from the sons of the foreign residents who reside among you, and from their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. 46 You may also pass them on as an inheritance to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with [ac]severity over one another.

Gentile slaves are to be treated very differently to Hebrew slaves.

Pix

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Anonymous said...
Joe: I agree but that was not my intention. Let's say "things we now understand as barbaric."

Okay

Joe: "It" does not say that. One boo implies but only one book. Nothing in the New Testament,

It seems a pretty standard part of Christianity - whether Biblical or not. Many Christians even insist morality comes from God.


Morality does come from God as does life and existence. We are created with moral capacity although our understading is colored by culture.



Joe (before): then how did we wind up known better? It's a dialectic and God is guiding us toward the goal.

PixI think people are capable of learning, both on an individual level, and collectively. Mankind know much more science than we did 200 years ago. It is not a stretch to suppose we know more morality. I see no reason to suppose we needed God to do that.

there has to be a standard for what is moral Teleological morals don't work. Deontological morality requires standard to set duty.


PixYour response here seems to assume God is perfectly good, despite your protest earlier that the Bible does not say that.

the upshot there is that interpolations have been worked into some of the text. That doesn't mean God wrote bad bible.

Joe (before): that is begging the question. It's not a vast revelation. Besides a simpler revelation is harder to screw up.

PxOkay, vast is a relative term, but it was certainly vast enough that it could include a prohibition against slavery, which is what it comes down to.

Joe (before): that is pretty ridiculous. The Babylonians had slaves, they conquered, they killed women and children they did all that.

Px The issue here is how they treated civilians after conquering another nation. I do not doubt women and children were killed; the Allies killed women and children in WW2. However, after the fighting, they did not slaughter the entire population, they did not enslave them all. Most of the Hebrews were allowed to live on pretty much as normal, with only the rulers and priests going into exile.

The Hebrews were forced to relocate to Babylon and to live as slaves. they left behind the rag tag sick and old. they had destroyed their means of lively hood. Those guys were the top empire in the most brutal time ib history. They did not get there by being nice..


That is far more advanced than the reports in the Bible of what the Hebrews did. I appreciate those stories are probably not true, but they do reflect the morality of the people nevertheless - that is what they would do, and would consider the right thing to do, if they were in that situation.
you think the little desert tribe was brutal and the major world power was kind, that's ridiculous, Think about modern politics.

Joe: Exodus 22:21 "Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for ...
In Numbers, we are told “You and the foreigner shall be the same before the LORD: The same laws and regulations will apply both to you and to the foreigner."

And yet Lev 25 says something quite different.

Lev 25:44 As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. 45 You may also acquire them from the sons of the foreign residents who reside among you, and from their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. 46 You may also pass them on as an inheritance to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with [ac]severity over one another.

Gentile slaves are to be treated very differently to Hebrew slaves.

That passage does not say how to treat them. It say how to aquire the, It doesn't not say you can hurt them there was prohabition on that,

Anonymous said...

Joe: Morality does come from God as does life and existence. We are created with moral capacity although our understading is colored by culture.

Right. And do you think that that morality comes from a perfectly good God? Or a God who sometimes gets it wrong?

Joe: there has to be a standard for what is moral Teleological morals don't work. Deontological morality requires standard to set duty.

Standards...

Where is that standard? I assume you are not going to say the Bible, as it says chattel slavery is allowed, and we both agree that that is wrong.

Do we have to live according to how Jesus lived? That is to say, should we give away all our worldly goods except the clothes we stand in? That is what Jesus did, and what he told his followers to do.

Any other supposed standard is really just how we perceive God, which ultimately is personal opinion. Plenty of Americans in the ante-bellum south believed God supported slavery, so they perceived that standard to include slavery.


Teleological morality...

Why? Can you give an example of an act that is immoral, but would not be considers such under any teleological morality?


Deontological morality...

Is God moral? What duties are God obliged to follow?


Pix: Your response here seems to assume God is perfectly good, despite your protest earlier that the Bible does not say that.

Joe: the upshot there is that interpolations have been worked into some of the text. That doesn't mean God wrote bad bible.

That does not address the issue. We were debating whether Christianity posits a God who is perfectly good. You said previously that that is not Biblical, which I will take your word on, but nevertheless it is still a Christian belief, and other comments you have made support that.

Joe: That passage does not say how to treat them. It say how to aquire the, It doesn't not say you can hurt them there was prohabition on that,

The last bit, "But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another", makes it clear that Hebrews were to be treated differently, and very much implies that they could rule over gentile slaves with severity.

Pix

Anonymous said...

Joe: The Hebrews were forced to relocate to Babylon and to live as slaves. they left behind the rag tag sick and old. they had destroyed their means of lively hood. Those guys were the top empire in the most brutal time ib history. They did not get there by being nice..

Yes, those guys were the top empire in the most brutal time in history, which really shows just how advamced they were.

Only a relatively small number of Hebrews were forced to relocate. The majority were allowed to stay.

"Nebuchadnezzar, the king of the Chaldeans, only deported the most prominent citizens of Judah: professionals, priests, craftsmen, and the wealthy. The "people of the land" (am-hares ) were allowed to stay."
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-babylonian-exile

It is not clear how they were treated, but some of them rose to have considerable influence in the royal court, so it was not that bad for many of them.

"It is assumed that they had to render labour to the Babylonians, but generally they enjoyed a great deal of freedom (Noth, 1996: 296). Some of the exiles, like Daniel and his three friends rose to positions of power within the Royal Court of Babylon (Dan. 2:48-49) and many others became wealthy (cf. Ezra 1:4, 6; 2:68-69). Later, during the Persian period Jews like Mordecai (Esther 2:19-23), Esther (7:1-10) and Nehemiah (Neh. 2:1-10) all found themselves in key positions in the government and were able to act on behalf of their people because they took Jeremiah's advice."
https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_exile.html

See also:

"According to Pearce, despite the melancholic tone of Psalm 137, life in Babylon was actually pretty good for many of the Judahite deportees."
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/ancient-near-eastern-world/how-bad-was-the-babylonian-exile/


Also of note is that the Jewish king was, eventually, released from prison and given considerable honours.

2 Kings 25:27 Now it came about in the thirty-seventh year of the exile of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the twelfth month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, that Evil-merodach king of Babylon, in the year that he became king, [q]released Jehoiachin king of Judah from prison; 28 and he spoke kindly to him and set his throne above the throne of the kings who were with him in Babylon. 29 So [r]Jehoiachin changed his prison clothes, and [s]had his meals in [t]the king’s presence regularly all the days of his life; 30 and as his allowance, a regular allowance was given to him by the king, a portion for each day, all the days of his life.

See if you can find any evidence of Hebrews treating prisoners of war this well.

Pix

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Joe:(before) The Hebrews were forced to relocate to Babylon and to live as slaves. they left behind the rag tag sick and old. they had destroyed their means of lively hood. Those guys were the top empire in the most brutal time ib history. They did not get there by being nice..

PXYes, those guys were the top empire in the most brutal time in history, which really shows just how advamced they were.

You are making an assumption not in evidence. Knowing what we do about power and human history it's not likley that their prowess indicates they were good guys


PXOnly a relatively small number of Hebrews were forced to relocate. The majority were allowed to stay.

"Nebuchadnezzar, the king of the Chaldeans, only deported the most prominent citizens of Judah: professionals, priests, craftsmen, and the wealthy. The "people of the land" (am-hares ) were allowed to stay."
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-babylonian-exile

he ripped the heart out of the civilization and took the movers and shakers. Leaving pesants to starve. They had a very hard time.

PXIt is not clear how they were treated, but some of them rose to have considerable influence in the royal court, so it was not that bad for many of them.

"It is assumed that they had to render labour to the Babylonians, but generally they enjoyed a great deal of freedom (Noth, 1996: 296). Some of the exiles, like Daniel and his three friends rose to positions of power within the Royal Court of Babylon (Dan. 2:48-49) and many others became wealthy (cf. Ezra 1:4, 6; 2:68-69). Later, during the Persian period Jews like Mordecai (Esther 2:19-23), Esther (7:1-10) and Nehemiah (Neh. 2:1-10) all found themselves in key positions in the government and were able to act on behalf of their people because they took Jeremiah's advice."
https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_exile.html


they increased the effientcy of slaves by giving them position that enabled them to purpose their tasks, doesn't mean they good guys.

See also:

"According to Pearce, despite the melancholic tone of Psalm 137, life in Babylon was actually pretty good for many of the Judahite deportees."
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/ancient-near-eastern-world/how-bad-was-the-babylonian-exile/


totally missing the point, Hebrew could do they same things with their slaves. The Babes weren't any better, they did not have a higher standard it was all about their convenience not the good of the slaves.


Also of note is that the Jewish king was, eventually, released from prison and given considerable honours.

prelude to letting them return

2 Kings 25:27 Now it came about in the thirty-seventh year of the exile of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the twelfth month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, that Evil-merodach king of Babylon, in the year that he became king, [q]released Jehoiachin king of Judah from prison; 28 and he spoke kindly to him and set his throne above the throne of the kings who were with him in Babylon. 29 So [r]Jehoiachin changed his prison clothes, and [s]had his meals in [t]the king’s presence regularly all the days of his life; 30 and as his allowance, a regular allowance was given to him by the king, a portion for each day, all the days of his life.

that passage assured the defeat of the ainti missomaires om CARM

See if you can find any evidence of Hebrews treating prisoners of war this well.

they Herews didin't have the state apparatus to need that much silled foreign workers. Letteing the thing go is not idicative of high moral starndared.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

As for as teleological ethics. that means the good is determined by the outcome. Every ethicist I've known, not all christians, has intimated that modern ethical theory smiles less on teleological ethics. There are some built in problems. For one thing it allows for end justifies the means, It also requires a moral stander before the goal is sought so the goal is understood as moral. Then why assert the end result gives the moral?

The most famous teleologocal ethics system was utilitarianism.

Anonymous said...

Pix: Why? Can you give an example of an act that is immoral, but would not be considers such under any teleological morality?

Joe: As for as teleological ethics. that means the good is determined by the outcome. Every ethicist I've known, not all christians, has intimated that modern ethical theory smiles less on teleological ethics. There are some built in problems. For one thing it allows for end justifies the means, It also requires a moral stander before the goal is sought so the goal is understood as moral. Then why assert the end result gives the moral?

Okay, so you cannot give an example of an act that is immoral, but would not be considers such under any teleological morality.

Can you say why it requires a moral standard?

With regards to "it allows for end justifies the means", consider the case of torturing a member of a terrorist cell for information to prevent a bombing. Can you tell me how deontological morality handles that. We can see how it compares.

Pix

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

If you read the rest of my post, you will see it is not an assumption, but grounded firmly in evidence.

The only thing you prove is that if one was useful to them one could find rewards. Everyone doe that. That is not evidence that thy were enlightened.

Meanwhile, the best you seem able to bring to the table is that they were the most powerful nation around, and therefore must have been especially brutal.

Have you ever heard of the cold war? We Americans saved the Brits from Hiter, then established the bastian of democracy. The keepers of freed and justice. We bombed the hell out of children in Hanoi, then Cetral America.

the evidence I quoted said we don't know how the Bablonians treated their slaves.



Anonymous said...

Joe: The only thing you prove is that if one was useful to them one could find rewards. Everyone doe that. That is not evidence that thy were enlightened.

I am only saying they were enlightened relative to other cultures of the time, including the Hebrews. This is fully supported by the evidence.

Joe: Have you ever heard of the cold war? We Americans saved the Brits from Hiter, then established the bastian of democracy. The keepers of freed and justice. We bombed the hell out of children in Hanoi, then Cetral America.

You certainly lent a helping hand to the British, who were doing their best to save the rest of Europe from Hitler.

But what has that to do with the Babylonians?

Joe: the evidence I quoted said we don't know how the Bablonians treated their slaves.

You have yet to support your contention that they were slaves.

Pix

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

I think it has been common knowledge that the Israelis were slaves in Bablyon. But the new vie sees to them more as hired help. albe it forced hired help. this is new info from recently discovered tablets.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-archaeology-babylon/ancient-tablets-reveal-life-of-jews-in-nebuchadnezzars-babylon-idUSKBN0L71EK20150203

I'm not sure my point doesn't still stand