I have. And most of it isn't done from Church or listening to our pastor speak. It's mostly done through self reading and weekly Bible studies with other people.

Some books are quite simple and easy to follow like Genesis, Psalms, Proverbs, pretty much all the New testament books. Then are some that are quite thought provoking and maybe even controversial like Revelations and especially the Book of Job. Even the book of John can have some thought provoking passages; such things have generate quite some conversations in our studies. We actually try to understand the Bible and it's underlying themes unlike what most bible bashing websites offer. Last month, me and friends spent over a month discussing the book of John and what the motives were behind Jesus' actions in many of its passages. Like in any english class; you don't just simply read those books they have you read; you figure out all those things like the message, theme, what the author is trying to tell us, etc.

And why I am not an atheist after doing so? Because I actually understand what the point and messages are behind the Bible. If one truly want to understand what the Bible talks about, I encourage them to join in on some Bible studies or sunday schools (this isn't the same as going to church). There are also books written by many people, like C.S. Lewis who offer their opinions and thoughts on the messages behind the Bible, all prove to be very interesting to read.
But do watch out for those cultish or fundamentalist groups though... their thoughts and opinions may prove to be quite harmful

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Dec 30 2008, 10:14 am by MillenniumArmy.

I understand I'm picking and choosing here and pretty much going strawman on this book; but seriously, in what context is this morally alright?:
There are many more passages like this throughout the book. It's not that I don't doubt there are stories I find rather acceptable, there are many wonderful stories in the Bible that do in fact teach 'correct' morals (correct being in the most general sense of universally agreeable); it's just that I can't use this book as a whole for my own moral compass. One could argue that the Bible shouldn't necessarily be taken from a fundamentalist standpoint, but then how do we interpret passages like the one I just presented? Ignore them since they don't apply to today's society? Should the Bible be 'updated'?

Ah, I remember something like that brought up a couple times. Here's my personal thought on it though.

Back in the time this book was written (like around 1000 BC or something, can't remember the exact date), slavery/servants was perfectly normal in its days. Whether such things in general are morally right or not isn't the point. That particular passage is just specifying the "doctrine of servants" or whatever. In today's culture we find slavery or servants to be wrong. The reason we find it wrong is because of our horrible past where the blacks were treated awfully by the southerners and such. But if we were to accept some form of it and when we look at what this passage is saying we can tell that these rules aren't bad at all.

However earlier in this same book of Exodus, the most famous thing about it is Moses leading his people out of Egypt to the promise land. The Egyptians held all of the Israelites as slaves, yes. But that wasn't it, they were treated horribly. They were whipped everyday, they were barely fed water, and the firstborns of every family were to be thrown into the rivers. Even more, they would never be let free, the Egyptians would go about killing people nonchalantly. This is horrible, the Israelites cried out to their God for so long and God told Moses to go free them.

So anyways, I don't believe this passage is saying that slavery or being sold as servants is something that we should practice or accept, it is just that this is happens to be one of many of the rules the Lord our God has provided for the Israelites. In Exodus Chapter 20, the one right before this, talks about the famous Ten commandments. There's a difference between "inapplicable" and "unacceptable," I believe this particular passage resembles the former.

How is it not 'unacceptable'? I understand that it is a completely outdated passage, but I still believe there is a moral issue. Basically it's saying, "Treat your slaves kindly!" Kindly doesn't suddenly eliminate the status of slave, so how is that possibly acceptable? How can you say that whether it is morally right or wrong is not the point, especially since the book we're talking about is supposed to be about morality? Even back in that time, what was the justification for slavery?

In today's society we find slavery wrong, we find any form of selling one's soul as a servant to another to be wrong, and we can write entire textbooks backing up our reasoning. But... so can the other side. They have their reasoning and they may or may not be just as right as we are. But like I said, that's not the point! This isn't saying that Slavery is right and that we should do it no matter what age and society we live in. In their society, slavery was acceptable so long as such horrible things like I mentioned weren't committed, and thus that's what this passage was saying.

The reason I say this passage is "inapplicable" rather than "unacceptable" is because the term unacceptable is actually inapplicable if we were to interpret this as if this is something we should or shouldn't be doing as a whole. Because this passage is NOT telling us that we should do slavery/servants this or slavery/servants that in general. I believe it's saying that IF, and only IF, slavery or servants were to exist, this is how they should be treated. And notice the timing of this, it was mentioned after Moses led all the Israelites out of such horrible treatment of slavery. Just like how the Bill of Rights was written after all the horrible treatment the colonists got from the British. If anything the Morality of Slavery is to be blamed on the culture and society back then, not what the Bible is telling us.


When I think of "ignoring" a passage or whatever, it would be more because we find what it's telling us to do "unacceptable."

So you do agree that there are unacceptable passages in the Bible? If that is the case, why are we taking this as the word of God? Is it acceptable to ignore some of the words of God even though he is supposed to be a supreme being that does no wrong?

I did not say that... I'm just referring to your comment made earlier about whether we should ignore certain passages in the Bible or not:
I was just saying that IF i were to ignore something from the Bible, it would be because of what I said.

I understand that slavery was, at the time, as normal as pet ownership. If one day, pet ownership were to be outlawed, then the people of the future will look on us as barbarians. But since it's so clear (due to passages such as the one Holysin provided) that this book was written by flawed, mortal human beings rather than some kind of deity, why not treat every word of it with similar skepticism? Christianity is the most widespread version of the type of religion that uses virgin-birthed carpenter saviors that were crucified and reborn. Apparently, that story had been used again and again in different parts of the world for a thousand years before the time when Jesus apparently existed. It's all human code. Human, human, human. Are empathy and common sense not enough of a moral compass for most people?

So it's fine to pick and choose passages depending on how much they apply to our lives? Because I then still have to ask whether or not it's acceptable to ignore God's word. Sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth, but I'm curious as to how you think.

This is exactly why weekly Bible studies and Sunday schools exist; to study every word of it and understand the message the "deity" has for us; they are there for everyone especially the ones skeptical about things. Although these books were written by imperfect people such as ourselves, we can still find messages and themes that come from God and not the people that wrote these. We can express our personal thoughts and views on these passages, but when we try to convince others that our interpretations or analysis' are the right one and that others should believe in them as well, it'll only harden their hearts.

You were kind of close to putting words in my mouth but it's perfectly fine . How I think? To me it's not a matter of "picking and choosing" passages, it's a matter of understanding what they are saying. Because when we "pick and choose" passages, I think it's more of a "we accept or don't accept this." I believe everything was written for a reason, whether it be based on the word of god or something that's based on the historical or cultural significance. I mentioned this in some other thread, but I believe there are two types of books in the Bible. Those that deal with morals and lessons, and those that deal with history and culture. When the people wrote these books, they try to illustrate or demonstrate the word they get from God using their own current culture. What happens many times is that in our Bible classes or studies we try to analyze what these guys from their point of views, as in if they lived in today's society how would their words be worded so that they portray the exact same message.

One may or may not agree with my thought process, but this is how I personally look at it.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Dec 30 2008, 12:00 pm by MillenniumArmy.

If you guys are done playing He-Said-She-Said, I'll be trying to dig a little deeper into some philosophical debate.
But why does god tolerate this sin, even temporarily? The bible describes a perfect god that can not and will not lower his standards for those who wish to be His People. God has never been abashed at pointing out the many things his people are doing wrong(idol worship, adultery, eating shell-fish, etc.) just because it might go against what they are used to. Did he not tell them to abandon it because he was afraid that they might abandon him? That is not the kind of timid God I read of in the bible.
The only logical conclusion I can get from this is that God does not oppose slavery, and that there is a right way to perform slavery that pleases God. Is there truly a good way to enslave someone?

I actually looked this up, and I like some of the answers some of these people/sites give:

http://www.rbc.org/questionsDetail.aspx?id=46110
http://www.maranathachapel.org/about/ray/articles/does_the_bible_condone_slavery.html
http://joeusesamac.wordpress.com/2008/04/19/addressing-slavery-in-the-bible-again/

What about history classes? Didn't they teach what went wrong with religion?

And lastly, you can easily be liar, are you not?

You're just wasting my time on this one. There's no way that I'm going to tell you, you need to look it up for yourself.

What the hell? I'm not talking the bible as a science book. Since when and where did I ever said that? And I didn't say that theists owe us a scientific explanation for god at all. What are you arguing here, Aedus? The real argument is asking why the hell are people trying to convince people to read the bible?

And?

...

Did you not read the first post? It's not George W. Bush that I was mainly talking about, it was the polls and comments. And again with the flaming, I'm a little short on my reading comprehension skills? Oh the irony.

...

Isn't it obvious in the comments on which certain set of individuals are at what side? Seriously now. Go argue with them for the lulz.

...

Oh the irony. You shouldn't have registered in StarEdit Network. And besides, the only thing I ever done is clicking your profile, then saw your registration date. Obviously not your posting history. Even if I did use the search engine on the forums, it did say all of your posts belonged to here after all. I assume you're just a guest who's like "OMG WTF" or someone's friend that wants you to argue.

Ahem, neglecting evolution?

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Dec 30 2008, 8:55 pm by KrayZee.

In California, we don't call them pets, we call them animal companions. Even though we call them pets anyways.

But if you think about it with an open-mind.. Isn't that exactly what The Holy Bible does? Enslave people by threatening their 'eternalness'?

I don't agree with anything the war book says because I honestly believe its just a way to show morals, and how to live a life that society wants you to live in/by...

I believe in God. Why do I have to believe in a book to believe in God?

That's where I start to believe that The Holy Bible is just a way for organized religion to 'enslave' if you so wish to call it that, people.

My beliefs are simple: Everyone is a part of God and our souls go through our Universal journeys through space and time, to learn everything there is to know about the Universe so we may return to the source.

Call me a loony, I don't care. I don't call you a loony for believing in a book. (I'm just generalizing when I say you)

Even your book states we're all 'part of god' and are here to 'learn'...


Anyways, hopefully someone can discuss this with me like an adult like Clans has been trying to do. I'm not saying what I believe is truth, its what I believe. I can't force anyone to believe what I believe, and to do that is ludicrious.

Krazyee, seriously stop the one-liner bickering with aeduos/Falkoner about how 'ironic' and stupid it is that neither of you can seem to understand each other when you're both trying to be as obvious as you can. If it really s that stupid don't exalt him by bothering to respond or acknowledging him. I know I should probably just be reporting both of your posts, but I thought I'd give it a shot.
Anyways...
The first link pretty much says that it would be too dangerous for god to explicitly condemn slavery because of the day's culture. Again, I am saying that the God of the bible does not make excuses for himself, does not lower his standards, and does not change his position because it might be unpopular.

The second link only brings up one new point - God does not treat the master any more favorable than the servant and they are spiritually equal in his eyes. I believe the bible to be coherent on that point(which is no small feat), but it is not the point I am making. It does not concern the matter of Earthly servitude.

Your third link gave the best argument, I found this line the most stimulating.
That makes a lot of sense to me, but I can still attack the assumption that the rules were fair and kept the servant from being abused.
At the risk of sounding emotional I have to say this is sick sick coercion. The master keeps the child and wife hostage too make the man consent to eternal enslavement.
This is the more popular verse that an apologetic like yourself regularly sees so I expect the equally played out response, but I just can't see how laws like these really help the slave at all, let alone have them be perfect moral compasses direct from God.

With these facts I still must stand my ground that the only logical conclusion I can admit to is that slavery is acceptable in the eyes of god as long as you are absolutely abhorrent to your 'property'.

To me, that is one of the healthier ways to look at the Bible; but then why do we take this book as the word of God? Why can't we just say it is a bunch of stories compiled together by the people who created morals through "empathy and common sense"?

So in what historical context is this passage okay?
Or even this:
I can understand slavery was fundamental to their economy, but what about putting people to death over things like the sabbath and disobedience? How does time and their culture make passages like this okay?

I ignored Aedus before (Because other people had that covered), but he grabbed my attention by calling me an "atheist supremacist" (Which goes way too far with the word "supremacist"). I'm not bickering, but why the hell did Aedus registered to SEN just to argue with me? And lastly, I fully understand whatever they're trying to write, but whatever they write just makes me place my hand to cover my face.

Everyone has their ways of embracing such passages but here's how I see them:
So using only three words, what is the theme of this passage? In other words what is Moses trying to tell us from these four versus? Simple:

"Obey your elders."

That is what the passage is saying. That is what we look for, and that is the historical context/lesson in which we embrace even into today's society. Yes the language used is harsh. However this does not change our understanding of the passage. The reason for the follow up harsh statements are to emphasize the importance of obeying your elders (like we're all aware of, society was quite different and most everyone's viewpoint of God was more a "fearsome" God.)

Again, let's ask ourselves the same question. What is the theme/summary of this verse?

It's saying that Sundays should be a day to worship God (hence people going to church). The purpose of that last "harsh phrase" is to emphasize the importance of spending the the seventh say as a sabbath of rest to the Lord. Again, this book like with Deuteronomy, was written by Moses with the same tone and reasoning mentioned above.


So then the question might be "Well if we disobey any of these rules, what will our consequences be? Will we be stoned to death? Will we have to suffer the same way the people back then do?" My take to this would be that by disobeying these law you are therefore (indirectly you can say) rejecting the importance of the entity that has brought forth these laws, thus refusing the salvation the lord God has offered us. This may actually have been a little bit of a stretch, but I could be wrong, hence why I still go to church, sunday schools, and bible studies to clear up this skepticism.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Dec 30 2008, 11:42 pm by MillenniumArmy.

Why would a loving God use death to show the importance of something or as a tool of motivation? To me, the passages look like scare tactics such that telling the reader to obey words at the cost of a life, which is perhaps the harshest and unreasonable punishment for things like working on the sabbath or disobedience. Are these simply the words of very early philosophers, rather than the word of a God?