15 Oct 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadthat's not what I said, but I think you know that. Your being purposefully obtuse and it doesn't do you or your argument any good; my point stands that morality is culturally relevant.
So your country does not allow diversity of culture? What a horrible country you live in.
15 Oct 10
Originally posted by duecerWas slavery morally acceptable in the United States back in the day?
I hate to say it but.... morality is culturally relevant, it is not an absolute
Is persecution of Christians and lopping off of pretty girls' noses in Muslim countries morally acceptable because that's their culture?
15 Oct 10
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayI have indeed been following the discussion. I am also quite familiar with the arguments. And I still find myself surprised that there are people who consider themselves right-thinking individuals and yet who are prepared to suggest that the almighty, all-powerful and all-knowing christian god would condone slavery simply because of the popular opinion of his subjects. As for the idea of morality being 'culturally relevant' and not 'absolute', I agree, however I would still suggest that slavery, even in antiquity, was perceived as a "wretched and degrading condition for one who had known freedom" William Linn Westermann, American Philosophical Society 1955 edit (I think he got this quote from Homer's Odyssey). And lets not forget that the practice of making 'graven images' of one's gods was also commonly accepted in antiquity, and yet god felt happy to proscribe this activity.
I guess you have not been following the discussion.
Kelly
15 Oct 10
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWas slavery morally acceptable in the United States back in the day?
Was slavery morally acceptable in the United States back in the day?
Is persecution of Christians and lopping off of pretty girls' noses in Muslim countries morally acceptable because that's their culture?
yes, according to their culture, at a certian point the balance swung the other way, but yes people found it morally acceptable. Like it or not its the truth.
Is persecution of Christians and lopping off of pretty girls' noses in Muslim countries morally acceptable because that's their culture?
Yes, according to their cultuiral values, absolutely. Do we Westerners find it abhorent? of course, but we are not a part of their culture.
Culture is the pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior. It further involves symbolic thought processes (thinking in terms of ideas), and is learned socially from parents, peers, and authorities. It is also the set of attitudes, morals, and practices that are shared by a common group.
15 Oct 10
1 edit
Originally posted by avalanchethecatI think the main argument that remains is whether one believes that the Almighty actually condoned slavery or simply permitted it. God gave us free will, how we exercise that will is up to us. I do not agree with some here who say that God condoned it. Semantically they cannot prove it, and exegetically they cannot prove it.
I have indeed been following the discussion. I am also quite familiar with the arguments. And I still find myself surprised that there are people who consider themselves right-thinking individuals and yet who are prepared to suggest that the almighty, all-powerful and all-knowing christian god would condone slavery simply because of the popular opi lso commonly accepted in antiquity, and yet god felt happy to proscribe this activity.
15 Oct 10
Originally posted by duecerBut why would a just god permit the exercise of free-will in this sphere without cautioning against it, for instance as I said, in a commandment?
I think the main argument that remains is whether one believes that the Almighty actually condoned slavery or simply permitted it. God gave us free will, how we exercise that will is up to us. I do not agree with some here who say that God condoned it. Semantically they cannot prove it, and exegetically they cannot prove it.
15 Oct 10
9 edits
Originally posted by duecerYou are disingenuously conflating the distinct concepts of passively "allowing something to happen" versus actively "giving approval to take action".
I think the main argument that remains is whether one believes that the Almighty actually condoned slavery or simply permitted it. God gave us free will, how we exercise that will is up to us. I do not agree with some here who say that God condoned it. Semantically they cannot prove it, and exegetically they cannot prove it.
Clearly in the following it is the latter:
Leviticus 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‘Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. 46‘You may even bequeath them 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 severity over one another.
Clearly approval of the action of acquiring and possessing slaves is actively given above. As such, such action was condoned / sanctioned / endorsed.
15 Oct 10
1 edit
Originally posted by duecerMorality is deeper than culture. Morality is biological.
Was slavery morally acceptable in the United States back in the day?
yes, according to their culture, at a certian point the balance swung the other way, but yes people found it morally acceptable. Like it or not its the truth.
Is persecution of Christians and lopping off of pretty girls' noses in Muslim countries morally acceptable because es. It is also the set of attitudes, morals, and practices that are shared by a common group.
In 2001, a research team led by philosopher and neuroscientist Joshua Greene released a paper detailing the work of using functional MRI to scan the brains of people wrestling with a moral dilemma. Greene and his team wanted to see if there was a conflict between areas of the brain that deal with emotion and those that deal with reason.
The subjects in the study were presented with a scenario that involved killing a person with his or her own hands in order to save a large group of people, such as the circumstances with the crying baby we discussed on the first page. In wrestling with the dilemma, several areas of the subjects' brains lit up, including two parts of the frontal lobe. The scans showed activity in the part of the frontal lobe that regulates our emotions toward other people as well as the part of the frontal lobe that does mental computation such as reasoning [source: Pinker]. Additionally, the anterior cingulate cortex lit up, which is the part of the brain that recognizes that there's conflict in the brain. This suggests that people weighed the benefit of saving the group against their emotions about killing an innocent baby.
http://health.howstuffworks.com/mental-health/human-nature/perception/morality-located-in-brain1.htm
15 Oct 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYou left out -why-
You are disingenuously conflating the distinct concepts of passively "allowing something to happen" versus actively "giving approval to take action".
Clearly in the following it is the latter:
[quote]Leviticus 25
44‘As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—[b]you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are aroun ...[text shortened]... g slaves is actively given above. As such, such action was condoned / sanctioned / endorsed.[/b]
Leviticus 25:38-48 (King James Version)
38I am the LORD your God, which brought you forth out of the land of Egypt, to give you the land of Canaan, and to be your God.
39And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant:
40But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubile.
41And then shall he depart from thee, both he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return.
42For they are my servants, which I brought forth out of the land of Egypt: they shall not be sold as bondmen.
43Thou shalt not rule over him with rigour; but shalt fear thy God.
~~~ 44Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
45Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
46And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.~~~
This is from one of the links in possibly this thread, however I am not sure, and it could have been a different one, but I had cpy pst'd it when I clicked the link and had read it. Just a part of it
The Bible does not specifically condemn the practice of slavery. It gives instructions on how slaves should be treated (Deuteronomy 15:12-15; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1), but does not outlaw slavery altogether.
Many see this as the Bible condoning all forms of slavery. What many fail to understand is that slavery in biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world. The slavery in the Bible was not based exclusively on race. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was more a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their masters.
The slavery of the past few centuries was often based exclusively on skin color. In the United States, many black people were considered slaves because of their nationality; many slave owners truly believed black people to be inferior human beings. The Bible most definitely does condemn race-based slavery. Consider the slavery the Hebrews experienced when they were in Egypt. The Hebrews were slaves, not by choice, but because they were Hebrews (Exodus 13:14). The plagues God poured out on Egypt demonstrate how God feels about racial slavery (Exodus 7-11). So, yes, the Bible does condemn some forms of slavery. At the same time, the Bible does seem to allow for other forms. The key issue is that the slavery the Bible allowed for in no way resembled the racial slavery that plagued our world in the past few centuries.
Now, this HAD BETTER NOT be removed, as I have done just as the latter post!
15 Oct 10
Originally posted by tacoandlettuceit makes some great points Taco, it will not be removed, do not worry.
You left out -why-
Leviticus 25:38-48 (King James Version)
38I am the LORD your God, which brought you forth out of the land of Egypt, to give you the land of Canaan, and to be your God.
39And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant:
40But as an hired ...[text shortened]... few centuries.
Now, this HAD BETTER NOT be removed, as I have done just as the latter post!
15 Oct 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungumm I think you misunderstood the article, re-read it. It simply talks about brain function. The brain functions and thought processes around morality are part of the socialization and nurturing process, so yes morality is still relative to culture.
Morality is deeper than culture. Morality is biological.
In 2001, a research team led by philosopher and neuroscientist Joshua Greene released a paper detailing the work of using functional MRI to scan the brains of people wrestling with a moral dilemma. Greene and his team wanted to see if there was a conflict between areas of the brain that d ...[text shortened]... lth.howstuffworks.com/mental-health/human-nature/perception/morality-located-in-brain1.htm
15 Oct 10
Originally posted by tacoandlettuceWhat you've pasted is misleading at best. For example, non-Hebrew slaves could be acquired and kept by virtue of being non-Hebrew. See Leviticus 25:44-45. Much of the rest is misleading as well since there is no distinction made between what was true for Hebrew slaves vs. what was true for non-Hebrew slaves.
You left out -why-
Leviticus 25:38-48 (King James Version)
38I am the LORD your God, which brought you forth out of the land of Egypt, to give you the land of Canaan, and to be your God.
39And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant:
40But as an hired ...[text shortened]... few centuries.
Now, this HAD BETTER NOT be removed, as I have done just as the latter post!
15 Oct 10
Originally posted by tacoandlettuceYes, I read it.
Had you read the KJ version of your 44 and 45 as I posted?
Theres nothing misleading to what was posted from me, and the below share of that link brings the attention to the way they viewed what were called "bondmen".
The text you posted after the verses from Leviticus (or something very similar) was posted earlier in the thread. It was misleading at best then and it is misleading at best now.
15 Oct 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneWhat do we benefit from yours and mine argument here?
Yes, I read it.
The text you posted after the verses from Leviticus (or something very similar) was posted earlier in the thread. It was misleading at best then and it is misleading at best now.
Slavery is for sure wrong!