Religion Slavery and the Bible

[strongvoicesforward]

The setting of limits may not be at all condoning slavery, just as a parent telling their child that if they must sleep around, they really should use a condom probably isn't condoning the kid's sleeping around.

Hi Revenant,

That rationalization rests on very falty logic, let alone callousness.

So, can all things be judged acceptable even if it doesn`t explicitly condone something? If so, then the same logic would make it acceptable that virgins taken as booty from battle should be forced to Marry their rapists. After all, it would be for their own good, wouldn`t it?

Not that Bible God condoned raping, but if you are going to rape some virgin, you should at least consider forcing her to marry you. Does that sound right?

Would you suggest that ethics are conditional and not a constant? I think child rape is unethical no matter which time we live in. If there is a state in which one does not wish to exist in, then it is not any stretch of the imagination for any person, be it now or 3,000 years ago could not conceive that it was not right to impose on someone.

Of all beings, if in actuality existing, Bible God could have spoke against slavery as he spoke against other things that rankled him and forbid them.

 

[Revenant]

So, can all things be judged acceptable even if it doesn`t explicitly condone something?

If something was going to exist regardless of whether it was objectionable, as it was a part of the system of justice, system of debt paying, and even a part of the economy, then how would condemning the practice do any good? Perhaps if something is going to exist regardless of condemnation, it would be better to set limits on it, and a letter of the law in which cases involving slavery could be judged.
I'm certain that there are current situations in which condemning isn't practical, and just the setting of limits is.

By the way, I'm not working on defending this as a perfect law from the Lord (not even apologetics does that, but you can read the apologetics I put down earlier in this thread in the last quote in this post), but rather at understanding what appear to us as inhumane laws, and how they would make more sense within a background different from ours.

I don't believe the leaders of that day lacked morality, but rather that they attempted to practice more of a practical morality (not idealistic).

If so, then the same logic would make it acceptable that virgins taken as booty from battle should be forced to Marry their rapists. After all, it would be for their own good, wouldn`t it?

How would it be for their own good?

Not that Bible God condoned raping, but if you are going to rape some virgin, you should at least consider forcing her to marry you. Does that sound right?

Not in today's world, no. We know that women generally were dependent on the husbands, cause widows had a difficult time eking out a living. I'm also just theorizing here but perhaps the parents searched for a good husband to take care of their daughter, so that they could rest easy knowing she was in good hands when they were no longer fit to take care of her.

But do we know how a raped woman would've been treated? Do we know that they could still find a husband? Or would finding a good husband after it was generally known that the woman had been raped be beyond possible?

A lot of background info we don't know, and perhaps within some cultures it would've been more compassionate to the raped woman for the rapist to be forced to take care of her, and also a form of justice, in that the man took on the financial burden of taking her as wife, and treating her with all the clothing, food, and perhaps honored duties that came with marriage.

I don't know, I'm just saying that we don't have enough actual background info to judge everything, and shouldn't do so according to our current cultural norms and standards.

Would you suggest that ethics are conditional and not a constant?

I would suggest that the feeling of being ethical is constant, even if the way it manifests itself under different conditions and cultural norms could be quite different at times.

I think child rape is unethical no matter which time we live in.

I would hope so.

If there is a state in which one does not wish to exist in, then it is not any stretch of the imagination for any person, be it now or 3,000 years ago could not conceive that it was not right to impose on someone.

I think we could see some of the laws making sense, and perhaps even as being compassionate in a strange way, if we understood the culture and their standards.

The imperfect Levitical laws were given to the Israelites first as a guide, and second as a measure that they were to attempt to fulfil. The Israelites thought, hey, we can attain eternal life by living this law, but after centuries of failing to live up to the imperfect law, would they realize upon recieving the perfect law of love, just how much they needed God's redemption, and that they really couldn't do it on their own.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

If something was going to exist regardless of whether it was objectionable, as it was a part of the system of justice, system of debt paying, and even a part of the economy, then how would condemning the practice do any good?

If Bible God condemned it then it would go a long way in doing good because those who believe in Bilbe God would view its condemnation as the word or order of the lord -- not to say that some would still ignore it, but at least the blue print foundation for eliminating it would be set.

If Bible God or other religions' god can cause their believers to not eat pork simply by condemning the practice of doing so, then simply by condemning the practice of keeping slaves could have caused larger adherance to not keeping slavery.

But, Bible God and Juses are mute on that.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
If so, then the same logic would make it acceptable that virgins taken as booty from battle should be forced to Marry their rapists. After all, it would be for their own good, wouldn`t it?​

How would it be for their own good?

I don`t think it would be. But why are you asking when further below you go on to explain perhaps how it could be.

Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
Not that Bible God condoned raping, but if you are going to rape some virgin, you should at least consider forcing her to marry you. Does that sound right?​

Not in today's world, no. ...
But do we know how a raped woman would've been treated? Do we know that they could still find a husband? Or would finding a good husband after it was generally known that the woman had been raped be beyond possible?
A lot of background info we don't know, and perhaps within some cultures it would've been more compassionate to the raped woman for the rapist to be forced to take care of her, and also a form of justice, in that the man took on the financial burden of taking her as wife, and treating her with all the clothing, food, and perhaps honored duties that came with marriage.
I don't know, I'm just saying that we don't have enough actual background info to judge everything, and shouldn't do so according to our current cultural norms and standards.

Revenant, you are setting up or hinting at moral relativism -- which I, and many, find repugnant. That is the philosophy that allows for the possibilities of horrendous crimes against others to rais their ugly head. With moral relativism anything can be justified because after all -- it`s all relative.

I reject that.

I would suggest that the feeling of being ethical is constant, even if the way it manifests itself under different conditions and cultural norms could be quite different at times.

Yes, I think we are all wired to believe that the violation of the integrity of another`s body is ethically wrong, and therefore like I wrote above, no matter what the conditions of society at the time, there is no justification for forcing a raped woman to marry her rapist. I wouldn`t even suggest the perverted logic behind it.

SVF:
I think child rape is unethical no matter which time we live in.​

I would hope so.

Why wouldn`t you defend it based on moral relativism? You hinted at its perhaps beneficial intent. Perhaps someone could paint the construct in which child rape would be ethical. After all, they may first start with defining what is a child at any period in history and then perhaps physiologically, and then culturally. They could make all kinds of arguments to make it seem like a 12 year old is not a child at some point in time and then it could be explained away with being relative to the time in question.

I would never paint that construct but moral relativists would. You seemed to have been on that path above. Your "I would hope so" in agreeing with me just seems contradictory to what you posted further above. Why not construct the wiggle room for it like you did above?

I think we could see some of the laws making sense, and perhaps even as being compassionate in a strange way, if we understood the culture and their standards.

Again, moral relativism.

In philosophy, moral relativism takes the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect absolute and universal moral truths, but are instead relative to social, cultural, historical or personal references. Moral relativism also suggests that no single standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth. Relativistic positions often see moral values as applicable only within certain cultural boundaries or in the context of individual preferences.

...

Moral relativism, in contrast, contends that opposing moral positions have no truth-value, and that no preferred standard of reference exists by which to judge them.

...

Those who support positions of moral absolutism or universalism often express trenchant criticism of moral relativism; some sometimes equate it with outright "immorality" or amorality. Various historical and cultural events and practices, including the Holocaust, Stalinism and communist atrocities of the 20th century, Apartheid in South Africa, genocide, unjust wars, genital mutilation, slavery, terrorism, Nazism, etc., present difficult problems for relativists. An observer in a particular time and place, depending on his outlook (e.g., culture, religion, background), might call something good that another observer in a particular time and place would call evil.

Source: Wikipedia on Moral Relativism​

 

[Revenant]

strongvoicesforward, I'm not suggesting moral relativism, please give it a lot more thought before you post your next response.

Try looking at some of the other laws concerning women, and see for yourself if the lawmakers lacked any compassion towards women, or if there are some laws that were there that gave consideration to women.

Why would the lawmakers create such a law?

Do you actually think they were ignorant to the woman's feelings?

Are the conditions the same today as they were back then?

Women's opportunity for employment?

Life expectancy of parents?

Marriage opportunities for victims of rape?

Welfare programs?

Abundance of food, clothing?

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Revenant, I have given it more thought, and your follow up questions, if you are meaning for the answers to make horrendous things acceptable at a given point in time, IS right dead on moral relativism.

Please, give it a lot more thought, yourself.

 

[Revenant]

Have you got a better and practical solution to a society that placed a premium on virginity, very limited if any opportunity for women to work for pay, a welfare system of alms and forgotten harvest, parents that wouldn't live past thirty to forty, and a time when food and clothing were neither abundant nor cheap?

Knowing what is morally ideal, but making a necessary choice less than morally ideal due to limiting circumstances doesn't fit the definition of Moral Relativism, does it?