The Bible and women wearing veils.

[Hayabusa Rider]

It doesn't change whether I'm more Moral about the subject now one bit. It is clearly more moral to not condone Slavery. Sorry.

No it doesn't change whether it is moral or not. In fact you don't address that issue. You beg the question.

Yes, Rome would be different without Slavery, but it did not need to have Slavery, no Civilization did.

You make this claim with frightening certainty of that which you cannot know. Since history demonstrates that major civilizations used slavery and that we know what was done in most cases your statement of "fact" hinges on your saying it is true. Begging the question. In a debate is it the responsibility of those at odds with demonstrated facts to convince others that are indeed correct. You fail to do so.

You're having to defend, deflect, and make bad excuses for something that shouldn't need it.

Actually I am doing none of the above. I am examining the facts as they are, not as I'd like them to be. That's inspection, a statement of what was, not what I would like it to have been. That the facts do not support your contention is not my fault.

The reason is that it was the invention of people of an age that couldn't foresee the possibilities.

Perhaps, but you act as if they should have all your "wisdom" on the issue. If I asked you to foresee a definitive outcome of a quantum event, what would that require on your part? Being God of course, because you cannot possibly know. Now I can chide you for not having done so after the experiment since I can see the results. Why am I so much smarter than you? After all, I have the right to judge since your foresight was so bad.

I don't think they were Evil people, but they were clearly less Moral than us and it's quite vile that many of us continue to look upon them for guidance when we far surpass their knowledge/morals in every conceivable way.

They were clearly less moral than you because you know what they could not, did not have the luxury of building a civilization without machines. That's hubris. That they are "clearly less Moral" is entirely dependent on your personal judgement which you can only confirm by begging the question which you constantly do. You assign an absolute to morality that is applicable across the ages which is based on some unknowable to all but modern culture. On what is that absolutist argument made? That you say it is. Again that's, well everyone knows what that is by now. You go even further by claiming that the ancient world is inferior by far in knowledge/morals. They had a cruel existence and certainly people then who had to deal with not being at the top level knew it. They also created the fundamental basis for all you know, the way that we view the universe, they had art and literature, they developed the concepts of mathematics and science. They had something you seeming do not understand, which is wisdom, in spite of the mean conditions in which many lived. Your "house" is built on Greek academicians who in turn constructed a foundation based on the economic system of slavery which you decry as being completely superfluous based on your supposition of non-events.


Does that mean that I endorse slavery? No, and I believe that it should not exist. I also wish that the world and the people it contains had been different to allow what we benefit from to have been produced in other ways. I do not however presume to dare and make definitive claims based on nothing other than my fantasies. I will not be so intellectually lazy as to state that my sense of right and wrong apply equally to all people in all times in all situations. That's the job of a deity, not you or I, and since you deny the possibility of there being one there is no other judge than ourselves, set up as demigods and pronouncing that all past and future generations are subject to the standards we hold today. We are not Gods, not even close.

A point being missed is that ALL of morality is axiomatic. We say slavery is wrong. The difference is that I realize that I do so because I can afford to. That I was raised in a culture that no one else has had before. That my parents, my friends, my education, my "world" influenced me to form my contextual perception. I CHOOSE to make slavery immoral, because "I" want it to be. I do not try to weave it into the fabric of reality, nor do I hold the past responsible for its situation unless I do so by the standards of ITS day. Yes I have preferences, I have wishes, but I do not live a magical world where I define reality based on my beliefs. That is the job of theologians and of folks who think as you do. You and the religious have much in common. Inerrant in judgement, defining beliefs as reality.

You see things haven't changed much at all in many ways.

Perhaps I'm being harsh, but if one cannot put some emotional distance between a thing and one's reason then the end result must be ignorance based on illusion. People need to learn this.

A more interesting question to me is that of the trade off between where we are and the means by we got here. In short, was it worth it? Easy question that's not easily answer based on the absence of "what might have been".

 

[FerrelGeek]

An excellent response, sir!

To build on this... First century Christianity was actually RADICAL in how it advocated treating women, children, AND SLAVES. Yes, an avowed conservative freely uses that word in reference to Christians living in first century Roman culture. Women were generally uneducated compared to men and were pretty much allowed to be treated any way their husbands saw fit. Widowed women often resorted to prostitution to make a living. Children were the property of the father and Roman fathers could decide to let their newborn children live or die. Slaves were property - period. Read Ephesians 5 and the first part of chapter 6 to get a clue as to how men were supposed to treat their wives and children and how masters were supposed to treat slaves. Also, read the book of Phileman, which, in part, addresses the issue of a runaway slave.

As to 1 Corinthians 12, the overall context is in maintaining orderly worship and how people should be conducting themselves during a worship service.

Peace out.

It's interesting that you presume to speak for the entire christian spectrum of beliefs, and obviously haven't done your homework. This is a matter of faith. You presume correctness in the absence of knowledge. You assign your personal criteria which others must abide by. You don't even understand slavery because it's too emotional an issue for you to grasp in the context of other times. Yes there is such a thing as historical context. I will point out something you probably have not considered. Assuming humans exist in some equally distant future generation you will be held to and unknowable standard of morality and may be found as wanting as those in the past are to you. I suggest looking into a Michael Palin documentary which describes what Rome was like to the ordinary citizen. It was not a "bad" place, it was horrific, and that was for citizens. Slaves? You have no idea what treatment of them was like. They weren't people.

Educate yourself then pontificate later.

 

[cybrsage]

I do not see any mysogony in requiring a prayer cover during prayer. Outrage and hate not found.

I also noticed JoS stopped just short of quoting these passages:

1 Corinthians
11 But among the Lord’s people, women are not independent of men, and men are not independent of women. 12 For although the first woman came from man, every other man was born from a woman, and everything comes from God.

Ephesians 5
25 For husbands, this means love your wives, just as Christ loved the church. He gave up his life for her 26 to make her holy and clean, washed by the cleansing of God’s word.[b] 27 He did this to present her to himself as a glorious church without a spot or wrinkle or any other blemish. Instead, she will be holy and without fault. 28 In the same way, husbands ought to love their wives as they love their own bodies. For a man who loves his wife actually shows love for himself. 29 No one hates his own body but feeds and cares for it, just as Christ cares for the church. 30 And we are members of his body.

I wonder why? Could it be that it makes his point suddenly specious? I say yes. It is stupid for people to selectively quote, out of context, information and not expect to be found out. Seriously, the ability for everyone to find the actual context came into being when google opened its search engine to the masses.

 

[Ktulu]

An excellent response, sir!

To build on this... First century Christianity was actually RADICAL in how it advocated treating women, children, AND SLAVES. Yes, an avowed conservative freely uses that word in reference to Christians living in first century Roman culture. Women were generally uneducated compared to men and were pretty much allowed to be treated any way their husbands saw fit. Widowed women often resorted to prostitution to make a living[\B]. Children were the property of the father and Roman fathers could decide to let their newborn children live or die. Slaves were property - period. Read Ephesians 5 and the first part of chapter 6 to get a clue as to how men were supposed to treat their wives and children and how masters were supposed to treat slaves. Also, read the book of Phileman, which, in part, addresses the issue of a runaway slave.

As to 1 Corinthians 12, the overall context is in maintaining orderly worship and how people should be conducting themselves during a worship service.

Peace out.

Do you have any evidence that first century christian widows resorted to prostitution? Also, do you have any prove of it being "RADICAL" in its treatment of those groups especially compared to how the other surrounding cultures were treating the same groups?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Do you have any evidence that first century christian widows resorted to prostitution? Also, do you have any prove of it being "RADICAL" in its treatment of those groups especially compared to how the other surrounding cultures were treating the same groups?

They didn't resort to prostitution because if they had no respectable means they were put on the "list of widows". In that time women who lost their husbands often had nothing whatsoever. If there was no family they were on their own, without property and income. That meant whatever means necessary to feed oneself and that meant anything. That was his point. This was one of the first "safety nets", something virtually unknown at the time.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Do you have any evidence that first century christian widows resorted to prostitution? Also, do you have any prove of it being "RADICAL" in its treatment of those groups especially compared to how the other surrounding cultures were treating the same groups?

I wasn't talking about Christian widows, I was speaking in general terms. I'm not saying that all widows did this, but some did have to resort to this as they had no family to take care of them or their family wouldn't take care of them. Read James 1:27 to get an idea of what the Christians were directed to do regarding orphans and widows.

 

[cybrsage]

Yep, and that is based on the principals of Judaism, where widows and orphans were to be taken care of by the community (the individuals in it, not the government). People who owned fields were required to let them glean from the fields, collecting everything the harvesters did not take in their first pass. A second pass was not allowed, since some had to be left behind for the widows and orphans.

 

[Ktulu]

I wasn't talking about Christian widows, I was speaking in general terms. I'm not saying that all widows did this, but some did have to resort to this as they had no family to take care of them or their family wouldn't take care of them. Read James 1:27 to get an idea of what the Christians were directed to do regarding orphans and widows.

Ah okay, I must have misunderstood you post. Thanks for clearing it up for me.

 

[OutHouse]

You forgot to put in the new testament passage that says it's a man's duty to beat his wife if she disobeys him.

Please tell us what book, chapter verse says that.

 

[Incorruptible]

I find it odd that *some* (you know who) Christians are so against women wearing the veil considering what the Bible has to say on the matter:

1 Corinthians 11:
But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head--it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil. For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.) That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels.

Regarding the obvious misogyny in Islam, there is plenty in the Bible too:

1 Timothy 2:

Also that women should adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly attire but by good deeds, as befits women who profess religion. Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.

Ephesians 5:22-24:

Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

As i read through these verses it becomes obvious for me that regardless of version the three Abrahamic religions have all justifications for misogyny embedded in their holy texts.

So when Muslim women are forced to wear the veil your not interested in defending them but if its Christians your all in on the attack

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So when Muslim women are forced to wear the veil your not interested in defending them but if its Christians your all in on the attack

If I read him right thats not what he's saying. He is using verses to make the contention that Christianians are obliged to follow them. If he were correct he would have made a strong argument for hypocracy on the part of those who claim to be Christian and have problems with Muslim women being required to wear a veil as a religious requirement. I have insufficient knowledge as to whether it is genuinely so or a cultural one of mostly ME origin. The applicability of the verses cited in reference to Christianity has already been addressed.

 

[sandorski]

No it doesn't change whether it is moral or not. In fact you don't address that issue. You beg the question.


You make this claim with frightening certainty of that which you cannot know. Since history demonstrates that major civilizations used slavery and that we know what was done in most cases your statement of "fact" hinges on your saying it is true. Begging the question. In a debate is it the responsibility of those at odds with demonstrated facts to convince others that are indeed correct. You fail to do so.

Actually I am doing none of the above. I am examining the facts as they are, not as I'd like them to be. That's inspection, a statement of what was, not what I would like it to have been. That the facts do not support your contention is not my fault. Perhaps, but you act as if they should have all your "wisdom" on the issue. If I asked you to foresee a definitive outcome of a quantum event, what would that require on your part? Being God of course, because you cannot possibly know. Now I can chide you for not having done so after the experiment since I can see the results. Why am I so much smarter than you? After all, I have the right to judge since your foresight was so bad. They were clearly less moral than you because you know what they could not, did not have the luxury of building a civilization without machines. That's hubris. That they are "clearly less Moral" is entirely dependent on your personal judgement which you can only confirm by begging the question which you constantly do. You assign an absolute to morality that is applicable across the ages which is based on some unknowable to all but modern culture. On what is that absolutist argument made? That you say it is. Again that's, well everyone knows what that is by now. You go even further by claiming that the ancient world is inferior by far in knowledge/morals. They had a cruel existence and certainly people then who had to deal with not being at the top level knew it. They also created the fundamental basis for all you know, the way that we view the universe, they had art and literature, they developed the concepts of mathematics and science. They had something you seeming do not understand, which is wisdom, in spite of the mean conditions in which many lived. Your "house" is built on Greek academicians who in turn constructed a foundation based on the economic system of slavery which you decry as being completely superfluous based on your supposition of non-events.


Does that mean that I endorse slavery? No, and I believe that it should not exist. I also wish that the world and the people it contains had been different to allow what we benefit from to have been produced in other ways. I do not however presume to dare and make definitive claims based on nothing other than my fantasies. I will not be so intellectually lazy as to state that my sense of right and wrong apply equally to all people in all times in all situations. That's the job of a deity, not you or I, and since you deny the possibility of there being one there is no other judge than ourselves, set up as demigods and pronouncing that all past and future generations are subject to the standards we hold today. We are not Gods, not even close.

A point being missed is that ALL of morality is axiomatic. We say slavery is wrong. The difference is that I realize that I do so because I can afford to. That I was raised in a culture that no one else has had before. That my parents, my friends, my education, my "world" influenced me to form my contextual perception. I CHOOSE to make slavery immoral, because "I" want it to be. I do not try to weave it into the fabric of reality, nor do I hold the past responsible for its situation unless I do so by the standards of ITS day. Yes I have preferences, I have wishes, but I do not live a magical world where I define reality based on my beliefs. That is the job of theologians and of folks who think as you do. You and the religious have much in common. Inerrant in judgement, defining beliefs as reality.

You see things haven't changed much at all in many ways.

Perhaps I'm being harsh, but if one cannot put some emotional distance between a thing and one's reason then the end result must be ignorance based on illusion. People need to learn this.

A more interesting question to me is that of the trade off between where we are and the means by we got here. In short, was it worth it? Easy question that's not easily answer based on the absence of "what might have been".

You keep saying you don't endorse Slavery, yet you are endorsing Slavery. Yes, it is true that many civilizations used Slavery in History and I'll even concede that they would not have advanced as far as they did, especially in regards to Architectural Wonders, but my point is that they did not Need Slavery. It was, as I stated, a convenience for them. Their Survival did not make Slavery a necessity.

You seem to have a magical view of Morality. Or should I say, thinking that I have a Magical view of Morality, for some odd reason. There really isn't much mystery about it, our Morals are merely accepted Social Norms. So Yes, I would have been ok with Slavery at different points in History, most likely. So most likely would you or anyone else on AT. There could be the odd exception, but the majority usually will accept the contemporary Social Norm of their time.

We Know, beyond a doubt, that Slavery is wrong. It is a pretty straight forward violation of basic Human Rights. By not practicing it, we are by default in a more Moral position than many of our Ancestors. They can be forgiven for being unaware of that fact, regardless, their Morality was still < Ours. Guess what though, provided we continue to advance, future generations will be saying the same thing about Us. I can live with that, I'm trying to better things, but undoubtedly have blind spots that some future peoples will address properly.

That said, you are really missing the point here. It is not what the Social Norms were that is in contention. It is the alleged Super Natural guidance that is in contention. If this "god" really was who people claim it was, then it would clearly see what we can easily see. It didn't, simply because it was the invention of those living within a world where Slavery was considered acceptable and perfectly normal.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You keep saying you don't endorse Slavery, yet you are endorsing Slavery. Yes, it is true that many civilizations used Slavery in History and I'll even concede that they would not have advanced as far as they did, especially in regards to Architectural Wonders, but my point is that they did not Need Slavery. It was, as I stated, a convenience for them. Their Survival did not make Slavery a necessity.

You seem to have a magical view of Morality. Or should I say, thinking that I have a Magical view of Morality, for some odd reason. There really isn't much mystery about it, our Morals are merely accepted Social Norms. So Yes, I would have been ok with Slavery at different points in History, most likely. So most likely would you or anyone else on AT. There could be the odd exception, but the majority usually will accept the contemporary Social Norm of their time.

We Know, beyond a doubt, that Slavery is wrong. It is a pretty straight forward violation of basic Human Rights. By not practicing it, we are by default in a more Moral position than many of our Ancestors. They can be forgiven for being unaware of that fact, regardless, their Morality was still < Ours. Guess what though, provided we continue to advance, future generations will be saying the same thing about Us. I can live with that, I'm trying to better things, but undoubtedly have blind spots that some future peoples will address properly.

That said, you are really missing the point here. It is not what the Social Norms were that is in contention. It is the alleged Super Natural guidance that is in contention. If this "god" really was who people claim it was, then it would clearly see what we can easily see. It didn't, simply because it was the invention of those living within a world where Slavery was considered acceptable and perfectly normal.

Using the dictionary definition of "endorse", show where I approve of it. I can show where I say I do not.

You confuse understanding with approval. I understand how Nazis came to power. I understand the purges of Stalin and Mao. I know about Operation Ajax. In all those cases and more, comprehension does not mean embracing any of the above.

Your entire argument hinges on "everybody knows". No we know no such thing. WE arbitrarily define morality and it's necessary to so and have a functional society. You insist on moral absolutism. It does not exist. Further, there is no biblical compulsion that society adapt your view. There was no prohibition be sure, but the humane treatment of anyone was not dependent on status, and that was an incredible concept at the time. Even now with the absence of slavery we have the problem.

Regarding your claims about slavery and the rise of civilization- show a non emotional and compelling fact that say Greece had real alternatives that allowed it to rise as it did. That is, an amoral, rational, fact based thesis which is logical and coherent, and please do not beg the question once again.

 

[spittledip]

I for one struggle with God allowing slavery. However, knowing the scriptures, I know He did not like it, He merely allowed it for whatever reason. I know He didn't like it b/c it was ultimately His desire for all slaves to go free in the year of Jubilee- 7 sets of seven years. Every Jubilee the slaves from foreign nations were to be set free to go to their homes. Jewish slaves were to be freed after only 7 years.

Again, I am not sure why God allowed this, I myself would have to study more on it, but I am not sure if there is an answer to be found. From reading the passages, it was almost like God wanted the Israelites to have slaves partially to be able to free them at the year of Jubilee as a symbol of God freeing man from slavery to sin and death. The fact that the year of Jubilee started on the Day of Atonement almost convinces me of this. At any rate, this probably is not a satisfying answer for everyone, but we don't always have all the answers for everything we hold to, which is actually just a part of being human- I think we can all relate to this.

 

[Jaskalas]

Veils are a small thing, though they are quite stupid.

The real issue is that immigration into European nations from Muslim areas should be halted, full stop.

Haha.. right, and Americans should halt Mexicans. Neither will happen. Islam is now a permanent fixture entrenched deep into the heart of Europe. They will have to deal, first hand, in all the hard work of remedying the evil and hatred of 7th century ideology.

We've got the better end of the stick. Someone makes an OP with some reference to covering woman, or something... the nation yawns. We face no serious threat here. They aren't so lucky. Veiled woman in Europe are materialized, and some areas it's best to cover up or incite the local immigrants.

 

[cybrsage]

I for one struggle with God allowing slavery. However, knowing the scriptures, I know He did not like it, He merely allowed it for whatever reason. I know He didn't like it b/c it was ultimately His desire for all slaves to go free in the year of Jubilee- 7 sets of seven years. Every Jubilee the slaves from foreign nations were to be set free to go to their homes. Jewish slaves were to be freed after only 7 years.

Again, I am not sure why God allowed this, I myself would have to study more on it, but I am not sure if there is an answer to be found. From reading the passages, it was almost like God wanted the Israelites to have slaves partially to be able to free them at the year of Jubilee as a symbol of God freeing man from slavery to sin and death. The fact that the year of Jubilee started on the Day of Atonement almost convinces me of this. At any rate, this probably is not a satisfying answer for everyone, but we don't always have all the answers for everything we hold to, which is actually just a part of being human- I think we can all relate to this.

This is my understanding. Slavery was allowed to remind the Jews that they were once slaves in Egypt. Along with that reminder is a reminder to treat the slaves fairly (a novel concept) due to having been mistreated as slaves in Egypt.

God allows some things due to our fallen nature, but put limitations on them. While He would express his dislike of it, he allowed it anyway. IMO, if God dislikes it we should not do it, even if it is allowed...but God does not view it that way and He is the boss.

 

[sandorski]

Using the dictionary definition of "endorse", show where I approve of it. I can show where I say I do not.

You confuse understanding with approval. I understand how Nazis came to power. I understand the purges of Stalin and Mao. I know about Operation Ajax. In all those cases and more, comprehension does not mean embracing any of the above.

Your entire argument hinges on "everybody knows". No we know no such thing. WE arbitrarily define morality and it's necessary to so and have a functional society. You insist on moral absolutism. It does not exist. Further, there is no biblical compulsion that society adapt your view. There was no prohibition be sure, but the humane treatment of anyone was not dependent on status, and that was an incredible concept at the time. Even now with the absence of slavery we have the problem.

Regarding your claims about slavery and the rise of civilization- show a non emotional and compelling fact that say Greece had real alternatives that allowed it to rise as it did. That is, an amoral, rational, fact based thesis which is logical and coherent, and please do not beg the question once again.

You "endorse" it by making excuses for it. By arguing that past Civilizations had no choice but to use it. They had a choice, but rarely took it.

I think I can make the best example of why the Greeks, Egyptians, Romans, whomever didn't need Slavery by using a more recent example. That example is Western North American Settlers. These Settlers didn't have technology much different than any of the Ancient Civilizations. They had simple Agriculture, Architecture, Tools more or less on par with the Ancients. Despite this, they did not Starve or die out without the use of Slavery. In fact, they thrived from nothing more than their own labour.

Here is a video that sums up Biblical Slavery: Slavery in the Bible

 

[spittledip]

This is my understanding. Slavery was allowed to remind the Jews that they were once slaves in Egypt. Along with that reminder is a reminder to treat the slaves fairly (a novel concept) due to having been mistreated as slaves in Egypt.

God allows some things due to our fallen nature, but put limitations on them. While He would express his dislike of it, he allowed it anyway. IMO, if God dislikes it we should not do it, even if it is allowed...but God does not view it that way and He is the boss.

This reminds me of divorce- God does not like divorce- He even stated that He hates divorce (I believe this is in Malachi). However, He allowed it, as Christ stated, due to the hardness of the hearts of the Israelites. The only case divorcing and remarrying is not considered actual sin is in the case of adultery (uncleaness, sexual immorality)as stated in the Old Testament and New.