645 réponses à ce sujet

[Queen Skadi]

Up until the past few centuries, all societies condoned slavery a normal moral institution. Is it so strange that an old text reflects that?

 

No not at all, the strange thing is that some people still consider the text relevant in today's society as a moral guideline.

 

And who here has been claiming that lack of religion is the basis for moral failings? You keep claiming that is the argument against you, but I've never seen it.

 

Might want to ask your buddy Elhanan, apparently things like greed, racism, slavery, murder, rape and jealousy all stem from a non-religious nature according to him.

[Heimdall]

No not at all, the strange thing is that some people still consider the text relevant in today's society as a moral guideline.

It can be, easily, when one isn't going out of their way to interpret it as the root of all evil.

Might want to ask your buddy Elhanan, apparently things like greed, racism, slavery, murder, rape and jealousy all stem from a non-religious nature according to him.

I haven't seen him say any such thing.

[X Equestris]

The new testament also condones slavery
 

Ephesians 6:5-8
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.
 
Also the crimes of one society do not absolve the crimes of another, just because cousin Boussy went out raping and murdering people does not mean it is ok for you to do it too. And despite what Elhanan might claim I am not sure there is any context that can make these passages sound any less abhorrent.
 
But hey I am more than willing to move off this subject if you are, just don't try to preach to me about how great the bible is as a basis for moral teachings and that a lack of religion is somehow responsible for the world's ills as this it just complete and utter ********.

And you then ignore the guidelines about how masters are supposed to treat their slaves. Coincidentally, those who tried to use the Bible to support slavery forget about those verses, just as you do. Further, the Book of Philemon also encourages emancipation. Fact is, the Bible takes slavery for granted as a social institution.

No one said lack of a religion is responsible for all the world's ills. Argue against a giant strawman if you wish, it won't do you any good. You, however, attempted to say that nothing bad ever happened because of a lack of religion which is...what was it you said? Ah yes, "complete and utter ********".

[Corto81]

No; the Bible speaks about rape and slavery, and may have been used to condone them, but it does not do so.

And you forget that a 'church' is made of sinners; hence the meaning assembly.

 

This is almost funny in how much denial is there.

 

Does God order, or does he not, Moses and the Isralites to defeat the Midianites?

To kill them, burn their houses, kill their men and children, but leave their virgins for themselves.

 

Also, the Bible has a whole SLEW of Laws about slavery - clearly mandating them and seeing nothing wrong with them.

(if they thought it was wrong, these people that put the Bible together, they'd simply have said "slavery is wrong")

 

Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy all have passages on this.

Killing a slave merited punishment, injured and crippled slaves were to be set free, it had differences between Hebrew and foreign slaves (Hebrew slaves were to be set free after 6 years, they had a day of rest per week, foreign slaves were slaves for life).

Oh, and another set of laws for female slaves. Naturally.

[Ariella]

This is almost funny in how much denial is there.
 
Does God order, or does he not, Moses and the Isralites to defeat the Midianites?
To kill them, burn their houses, kill their men and children, but leave their virgins for themselves.
 
Also, the Bible has a whole SLEW of Laws about slavery - clearly mandating them and seeing nothing wrong with them.
(if they thought it was wrong, these people that put the Bible together, they'd simply have said "slavery is wrong")
 
Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy all have passages on this.
Killing a slave merited punishment, injured and crippled slaves were to be set free, it had differences between Hebrew and foreign slaves (Hebrew slaves were to be set free after 6 years, they had a day of rest per week, foreign slaves were slaves for life).
Oh, and another set of laws for female slaves. Naturally.

Does the word "context" mean any such thing to you? We're talking about a bronze age culture. You cannot seem to grasp that fact, and you cannot compare a bronze age culture to a modern one. As I pointed out, the Torah is not as cut and dried as many make it out to because all the majority have access to is the Written Torah, not the Oral Torah.

It has been written down, and if you want to learn Hebrew and Aramaic in order to read the between 42 and 73 volumes of the Talmud (depending on publisher), you are more than welcome to do so. It also has various rabbinical commentaries and various other bits of interest.

People who knee jerk religion = evil are just as bad as those who condemn people for not being religious.

[Elhanan]

Moses had a wife from Midian, and her father advised Moses. But Midian became corrupt (Num 25) and was worshiping Baal, which used sexual immorality, and child sacrifices, as I recall.

Stating how to live during slavery is not condoning it. Violent civil disobedience is not supported, but fellowship and changing minds is a common theme.

Etc. Read more than hand picked references, and apply actual study.

[Corto81]

Does the word "context" mean any such thing to you? We're talking about a bronze age culture. You cannot seem to grasp that fact, and you cannot compare a bronze age culture to a modern one. As I pointed out, the Torah is not as cut and dried as many make it out to because all the majority have access to is the Written Torah, not the Oral Torah.

It has been written down, and if you want to learn Hebrew and Aramaic in order to read the between 42 and 73 volumes of the Talmud (depending on publisher), you are more than welcome to do so. It also has various rabbinical commentaries and various other bits of interest.

People who knee jerk religion = evil are just as bad as those who condemn people for not being religious.

 

Well, church was mandating slavery when secularists like Franklin and Paine were saying that slavery was morally wrong.

 

And besides, if it's all in the context of time, do we need more evidence that these ancient texts were written by men (ignorant and uninformed as they were)?

Or was if God telling them slavery was okay, but then changed his mind 200 years ago?

[Corto81]

Moses had a wife from Midian, and her father advised Moses. But Midian became corrupt (Num 25) and was worshiping Baal, which used sexual immorality, and child sacrifices, as I recall.

Stating how to live during slavery is not condoning it. Violent civil disobedience is not supported, but fellowship and changing minds is a common theme.

Etc. Read more than hand picked references, and apply actual study.

 

Stating "slavery is wrong" would be opposing it. Creating guidelines on how to do it is, yes, condoning it.

[Elhanan]

Well, church was mandating slavery when secularists like Franklin and Paine were saying that slavery was morally wrong.
 
And besides, if it's all in the context of time, do we need more evidence that these ancient texts were written by men (ignorant and uninformed as they were)?
Or was if God telling them slavery was okay, but then changed his mind 200 years ago?

Folks have been mistranslating the Bible for a long time; nothing new there. And like other religions, some use such false knowledge to support various agendas.

And I believe in divine inspiration; too much evidence to support it, but that is for another forum. And God never changes, but is open to mercy instead of justice.

Recommend proper study.

[Ellana of clan Lavellan]

What I like more about DAI is that its set in a high fantasy setting, while introducing realism into it by e.g. portraying different points of morality in a certain scenario.

 

The Witcher does the reverse, it takes it background setting from the real world and then injects flavors of dark fantasy that I do not find very appealing. It works well with their depiction of the world, but it kinda makes you forget that the world can be beautiful too.

 

Also, IYHSB in DAI was really amazing, it represents Act 2 being the hero's fall from grace and subsequent recovery. The Witcher 3 lacks this certain character arc (maybe it spans the whole Witcher trilogy, perhaps, but I only played TW3).

Modifié par Ellana of clan Lavellan, 21 août 2015 - 07:21 .

[Queen Skadi]

And you then ignore the guidelines about how masters are supposed to treat their slaves. Coincidentally, those who tried to use the Bible to support slavery forget about those verses, just as you do. Further, the Book of Philemon also encourages emancipation. Fact is, the Bible takes slavery for granted as a social institution.

 

I ignored the guidelines because I don't care if there are guidelines to how treat your slaves, it does not make the practice any less abhorrent, it is like saying rape is ok so long as you have guidelines in place that tell you when and who it is ok to rape.

 

No one said lack of a religion is responsible for all the world's ills. Argue against a giant strawman if you wish, it won't do you any good. You, however, attempted to say that nothing bad ever happened because of a lack of religion which is...what was it you said? Ah yes, "complete and utter ********".

 

Nothing bad did even happen because of a lack of religion, sure there may be non-religious people who did bad things but it wasn't their lack of religion that was the cause, you might as well blame Stalin's mustache with the amount of credibility that argument has.

 

You know what the scary thing is though? Hitler had a mustache as well! OMG Mustache theory confirmed!

[Queen Skadi]

It can be, easily, when one isn't going out of their way to interpret it as the root of all evil.

 

So are you advocating the reinstatement of slavery and stoning kids for disobedience? Or are you merely cherry picking the parts you like and throwing out the rest? If you can decide for yourself which parts of the bible you think are good and which are bad then why do you need the bible in the first place? Why not go by your own moral code and do away with religious dogma?

 

I haven't seen him say any such thing.

 

You liked the very post I was referring to sweetie.

[Shechinah]

You liked the very post I was referring to sweetie.

 

I'll admit I may have lost track somewhere but which of the posts did you refer sweetie to and who is sweetie?

 

[Shechinah]

*snip*

 

I find your post pleasent and well-formulated but alas, I do not believe this thread has been about Dragon Age: Inquisition and Witcher 3 for some pages now.

 

Though if you are feeling a bit lucky, you can participate in the betting pool; it's about how many pages this thread can reach before it meets it's end at either the moderator's lockdown or from waning interests. 

 

Feeling a bit daring myself, I've decided on sixty pages. 
 

[X Equestris]

Nothing bad did even happen because of a lack of religion, sure there may be non-religious people who did bad things but it wasn't their lack of religion that was the cause, you might as well blame Stalin's mustache with the amount of credibility that argument has.

You know what the scary thing is though? Hitler had a mustache as well! OMG Mustache theory confirmed!

So the priests sent to the gulags for "mental illness" for following their religion, by a rabidly atheist Soviet government, aren't bad? The targeting of various religious groups in China and Cambodia by atheists isn't bad? Those things happened explicitly because the targets were religious and not atheist. But if those aren't good enough for you, how about the self described "atheist preacher" who murdered two Muslims in South Carolina? That one was, last I heard anything, being investigated as a hate crime. Face it, anything can prompt someone to do bad things. To claim that a lack of religion can't do so as well is disingenuous at best.

For one last, almost certainly vain attempt to put this thread back on track, DAI shows very well how every group can have good and bad. It does not pretend that groups are monolithic entities.

[Queen Skadi]

So the priests sent to the gulags for "mental illness" for following their religion, by a rabidly atheist Soviet government, aren't bad? The targeting of various religious groups in China and Cambodia by atheists isn't bad? Those things happened explicitly because the targets were religious and not atheist. But if those aren't good enough for you, how about the self described "atheist preacher" who murdered two Muslims in South Carolina? That one was, last I heard anything, being investigated as a hate crime. Face it, anything can prompt someone to do bad things. To claim that a lack of religion can't do so as well is disingenuous at best.

For one last, almost certainly vain attempt to put this thread back on track, DAI shows very well how every group can have good and bad. It does not pretend that groups are monolithic entities.

 

It wasn't their lack of religion that caused them to do these things, it was their intense dislike for it, big difference.

[X Equestris]

It wasn't their lack of religion that caused them to do these things, it was their intense dislike for it, big difference.

Would they have still done it if they hadn't had that intense dislike ingrained into them by their ideology?

[Queen Skadi]

Would they have still done it if they hadn't had that intense dislike ingrained into them by their ideology?

 

What Ideology? There is only one belief associated with atheism and that is that there is no god, it isn't a complex system of beliefs that dictates right and wrong and it isn't a religion, we don't have a list of commandments that say "thou shalt not believe in any gods whatsoever and he who praises the name of a false god shall be put to death", it is merely the name give to those who through one means or another come to believe that there is no god.

[Heimdall]

So are you advocating the reinstatement of slavery and stoning kids for disobedience? Or are you merely cherry picking the parts you like and throwing out the rest? If you can decide for yourself which parts of the bible you think are good and which are bad then why do you need the bible in the first place? Why not go by your own moral code and do away with religious dogma?

As I told you, the bible has historically been used on both sides of the slavery debate. You saying "the bible supports slavery" is laughable, considering the vast numbers of people that have used it to make the opposite argument. The bible is subject to interpretation and some of the sections you've quoted yourself are overruled by latter sections. Many verses also extol the virtues of mercy, helping one's fellow man, forgiveness and not being selfish. Are those things also abhorrent to you? Because those are the lessons emphasized by every preacher I've met or listened to. Whatever the others have been trying to tell, this is what I've been trying to tell you: a religion is not static. God might not change, but the interpretations and placement of emphasis on his teachings do.

People don't build moral codes in a vacuum. Honestly, most people just believe what they're taught to believe. The rest assemble and discard what they think fits. Some people use the Bible to help put pieces together. Is that really such a terrible thing? Worse than any other source?

You liked the very post I was referring to sweetie.

I don't know what post you're referring to so I'm going to assume that's you misinterpreting again.

[X Equestris]

What Ideology? There is only one belief associated with atheism and that is that there is no god, it isn't a complex system of beliefs that dictates right and wrong and it isn't a religion, we don't have a list of commandments that say "thou shalt not believe in any gods whatsoever and he who praises the name of a false god shall be put to death", it is merely the name give to those who through one means or another come to believe that there is no god.

I'm well aware of that. However, there are various schools of thought within atheism itself. Among those schools of thought are ones that encourage hatred of the theistic, characterizing them as stupid, sheep, evil, etc. Those are the ideologies at play here.

[Ariella]

What I like more about DAI is that its set in a high fantasy setting, while introducing realism into it by e.g. portraying different points of morality in a certain scenario.
 
The Witcher does the reverse, it takes it background setting from the real world and then injects flavors of dark fantasy that I do not find very appealing. It works well with their depiction of the world, but it kinda makes you forget that the world can be beautiful too.
 
Also, IYHSB in DAI was really amazing, it represents Act 2 being the hero's fall from grace and subsequent recovery. The Witcher 3 lacks this certain character arc (maybe it spans the whole Witcher trilogy, perhaps, but I only played TW3).

This.

DAI does have a feel of the archetypal hero's journey. I think Witcher lacked this because Geralt isn't a hero, he's a protagonist, if that makes any sense? I wouldn't call him an anti hero, but he's not really a hero either.

[Heimdall]

This.

DAI does have a feel of the archetypal hero's journey. I think Witcher lacked this because Geralt isn't a hero, he's a protagonist, if that makes any sense? I wouldn't call him an anti hero, but he's not really a hero either.

Its one of the flaws of the plot in my opinion. He spends most of the time wandering about looking for Ciri and it starts feeling aimless. He certainly doesn't feel like he's achieving much a lot of the time.

[Queen Skadi]

I'm well aware of that. However, there are various schools of thought within atheism itself. Among those schools of thought are ones that encourage hatred of the theistic, characterizing them as stupid, sheep, evil, etc. Those are the ideologies at play here.

 

It is true that there are a lot of atheist that feel that way but hatred of the theistic is not an atheist belief, as I said the only belief that falls under atheism is that there is no god.

 

It is not the lack of a belief in god that causes most Atheists to hate religion but the conduct of the religions themselves, after seeing the horrors religion has caused and is still causing I don't think it is too hard to see why they don't like religion.

[Queen Skadi]

As I told you, the bible has historically been used on both sides of the slavery debate. You saying "the bible supports slavery" is laughable, considering the vast numbers of people that have used it to make the opposite argument. The bible is subject to interpretation and some of the sections you've quoted yourself are overruled by latter sections. Many verses also extol the virtues of mercy, helping one's fellow man, forgiveness and not being selfish. Are those things also abhorrent to you? Because those are the lessons emphasized by every preacher I've met or listened to. Whatever the others have been trying to tell, this is what I've been trying to tell you: a religion is not static. God might not change, but the interpretations and placement of emphasis on his teachings do.

 

Considering that there are a good number of verses that support slavery (I have already posted a few of them) I am not sure how saying that the Bible supports slavery is humorous? Sure there might be the odd verse that condemns the taking of certain slaves under certain circumstances but for the most part it would not be inaccurate to say that the bible for the most part condones slavery.

 

As for the few verses that preach kindness to your fellow man there is nothing wrong with that, however I do have to wonder why it is such a foreign concept that the only way you could figure it out is if you read it in a book? Besides acts of kindness are not the sole providence of religion and I am pretty sure the act of kindness was not an invention of the bible.  

 

People don't build moral codes in a vacuum. Honestly, most people just believe what they're taught to believe. The rest assemble and discard what they think fits. Some people use the Bible to help put pieces together. Is that really such a terrible thing? Worse than any other source?

 

Depends, perhaps religious people just believe what they are told but there are many who prefer to make up their own mind by studying the evidence and forming their own conclusions.

 

As for building moral codes are you honestly telling me that unless you had the bible to tell you right from wrong you would not have been able to figure it out for yourself? Would you honestly be out there raping, murdering and stealing because you could not figure out internally that the person you are doing these things to might not appreciate it? Have you no sense of empathy?

[Elhanan]

Showing how to live when slavery exists is not supporting it, in either Testament. Reading bias into the text is not wise, either. Recommend actual study.