How about a new Council of Nicea?

[dahermit]

The Hebrews were at war with the Midianites. All men and married women ( the unmarried women were supposed to be killed during battle too but the soldiers disobeyed by taking them captive - meaning that it was not commanded by God that they do so) were killed as a part of that war. Specifically because they were guilty individually and as a people of sin so that their deaths were deserved. The passage makes a clear distinction between spoils of war and captives so that MT's characterization of them as spoils of war would be completely opposite of what the passage said. Additionally, the assumptions that as captives they were raped is complete conjecture on the part of those who say that it happened. Given the context of the laws for treating captives if the Hebrews followed those laws then they were treated well. They would only have been raped if other laws were violated. We can only believe they were raped if we ignore other laws, laws that are given in earlier passages which make it illegal to rape and illegal for Hebrews to marry (or probably even to produce children with) Midianites.

Paraphrased: ...all have sinned and come short of the glory of God... Including the Hebrews. Why then were their sins overlooked and the sins of the male babies of the Midianites were not? What sin had those babies committed? Does who wrote the story (Hebrews or Midianites) have any bearing on the justification?

Taken in the context of the time where it was not adultery or rape to have a child with your wife's handmaiden, and the context of "...take all females who have not known man for yourselvels..." Just what do you think that they were going to do with them if it was not for sexual purposes? Of course, the Hebrews would not describe it as rape, they wrote the story and thou shall not commit adultery had not been invented yet.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Frankly you are just full of nonsense but you dress it up so it looks good.

The slavery in the bible was nothing like the slavery in America. It was much more like employment. And it provided an institutional means for people who would starve otherwise to be gainfully employed.

Things should be taken out if they were not written in the originals. Otherwise it is just revisionist history. If revisionism were allowed the bible would indeed have been changed many times like you imagine it was.

I know of no place that the bible supports bashing of babies before mothers eyes. In the real world, describing an event (even a future event) is not the same as endorsing it. In fact, I suspect this proves you are biased to the point of being nuts.

Bashing babies before their mother's eyes: Isaiah 13:11-16 In God's fierce anger He orders that babies be killed as I noted, everyone shall be run through, their houses despoiled, and their wives ravished.

Murder of virgin's families, kidnapping of the virgins, and the subsequent rape of them. And if the virgins do not please their rapist they will be turned out to die since no one will touch them after they have been raped. Deuteronomy 21:10-14

Slavery was just employment? Since when could you sell your employees? Since when could you beat your employees--even to death? You can buy and sell children as well. Leviticus 25:44-46, Exodus 21:20-21

I don't post things that I make up, I have scriptures from the Bible for the things I say. I don't have to make things up, the Bible has a lot of crap in it--hence my idea that we should take out the crap and leave in the good things.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I have already said this in the other forum -- use your CONSCIENCE -- its a god-given faculty to discern right from wrong.

If, in all honesty, your conscience does not permit you to follow any of the commandments in the bible, then by all means, don't follow them.



What exactly do you want me to say? I am in no position to judge the political necessities of the social millieu more than three thousand years ago against what I know to be moral imperatives.

Besides, what emerged as the 'jewish' people from the time of the patriarchs, were, in all likelyhood, not entirely the descendants of abraham. There certainly was assimilation of other peoples during that turbulent time. And if there was some sort of assimilation, then it couldn't have been all murder and mayhem as you would like to believe, now, could it?



There you go again. Why are you hell-bent on ascribing mosaic law to christians? Not all mosaic law is adhered to by christians. In fact, the only mosaic law pertinent as far as christians are concerned, is the decalogue.

There certainly isn't anything remotely supporting slavery in the ten commandments, now, is there?

I think it is enough that the gospels and the acts of the apostles superseded mosaic law. And if that is still not clear to you, then you should read augustine's civitas dei. Clearly, being a 'slave' is a socio-political and economic relation that has nothing to do with the divine order.

The difference between the city of man and the city of god was so well expounded, I would even venture to say that it was the prototypical separation of church and state -- that is, after jesus' 'give to ceaser...'.

You are missing the point, and you do it so often and so completely that I have to think it's deliberate on your part.

The issue here is that the Bible is billed as God's Word, and in the Bible God endorses certain actions and activities that are wrong according to all that we know--things like slavery, genocide, rape, kidnapping, virgins taken as spoils of war, and many other things. God orders people to do these things or says that these things are okay. Therein lies the problem. Our country was divided and had a major Civil War because Christians on both sides of the war could point to the Bible and God's Word to justify their position. We need to change the Bible to reflect current reality and stop supporting illegal activities falsely attributed to God.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Did you really think christians, following the dictates of their individual consciences, and acting in what they percieve to be divine revelations in the bible, were not part of the over-all effort to abolish slavery from the world?????

The same people who were being targeted as slaves were the same people who were being converted to christianity by its missionaries. And that social order simply cannot withstand the blatant contradiction from the christian imperative -- not only in europe or the americas, but in asia as well.

Twaddle! Look at how many people fought on the side of the Confederacy, how many people joined the Ku Klux Klan, and they all called themselves Christian and justified their actions with scripture. High time we took out the scriptures that are used to justify cruel and violent behavior.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Good people like me and bad people like you? Are you even reading the same language that I am writing?

Yes, I think I am, here are quotes from one of your previous posts:

"Our understanding of the bible is progressing today and new versions or translations are being produced to keep up with that fine tuning. No need for a council to accomplish what is being done."
Okay, the people who have been fine tuning the Bible whom you apparently agree with, ie "good" people.

"I much prefer the more credible scholars doing that work today than I would ever trust the likes of you to be involved in any way in such a project."
And myself, whom you would not trust, ie one of the "bad" people.

 

[numinus]

You are missing the point, and you do it so often and so completely that I have to think it's deliberate on your part.

The issue here is that the Bible is billed as God's Word, and in the Bible God endorses certain actions and activities that are wrong according to all that we know--things like slavery, genocide, rape, kidnapping, virgins taken as spoils of war, and many other things. God orders people to do these things or says that these things are okay. Therein lies the problem. Our country was divided and had a major Civil War because Christians on both sides of the war could point to the Bible and God's Word to justify their position. We need to change the Bible to reflect current reality and stop supporting illegal activities falsely attributed to God.

Your nonsense is the product of your own ignorance, and not some deliberate action on my part.

For instance, the last ecumenical council (in the catholic church at least) occured in the 1960's -- vatican 2.

To give an idea on the subject matters involved in this ecumenical council:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Vatican_Council

Ecclesiology
Perhaps the most famous and most influential product of the council is the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium.

In its first chapter, titled "The Mystery of the Church," is the famous statement that "the sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority, which He erected for all ages as 'the pillar and mainstay of the truth.' This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him" (Lumen Gentium, 8). The document immediately adds: "Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines."


Sacred Liturgy
Main article: Sacrosanctum Concilium

One of the first issues considered by the council, and the matter that had the most immediate effect on the lives of individual Catholics, was the revision of the liturgy. The central idea was that there ought to be greater lay participation in the liturgy.


Scripture and Divine Revelation
Main article: Dei Verbum

The council sought to revive the central role of Scripture in the theological and devotional life of the Church, building upon the work of earlier popes in crafting a modern approach to Scriptural analysis and interpretation. A new approach to interpretation was approved by the bishops. The Church was to continue to provide versions of the Bible in the "mother tongues" of the faithful, and both clergy and laity were to continue to make Bible study a central part of their lives. This affirmed the importance of Sacred Scripture as attested by Providentissimus Deus by Pope Leo XIII and the writings of the Saints, Doctors, and Popes throughout Church history but also approved historically conditioned interpretation of Scripture as presented in Pius XII's 1943 encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu.

Now, if this particular ecumenical council failed to address your concerns with ot slavery, then, tough luck.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Your nonsense is the product of your own ignorance, and not some deliberate action on my part.For instance, the last ecumenical council (in the catholic church at least) occured in the 1960's -- vatican 2.To give an idea on the subject matters involved in this ecumenical council:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Vatican_Council
EcclesiologyPerhaps the most famous and most influential product of the council is the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium.
In its first chapter, titled "The Mystery of the Church," is the famous statement that "the sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority, which He erected for all ages as 'the pillar and mainstay of the truth.' This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him" (Lumen Gentium, 8). The document immediately adds: "Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines."Sacred Liturgy
Main article: Sacrosanctum ConciliumOne of the first issues considered by the council, and the matter that had the most immediate effect on the lives of individual Catholics, was the revision of the liturgy. The central idea was that there ought to be greater lay participation in the liturgy.
Scripture and Divine RevelationMain article: Dei VerbumThe council sought to revive the central role of Scripture in the theological and devotional life of the Church, building upon the work of earlier popes in crafting a modern approach to Scriptural analysis and interpretation. A new approach to interpretation was approved by the bishops. The Church was to continue to provide versions of the Bible in the "mother tongues" of the faithful, and both clergy and laity were to continue to make Bible study a central part of their lives. This affirmed the importance of Sacred Scripture as attested by Providentissimus Deus by Pope Leo XIII and the writings of the Saints, Doctors, and Popes throughout Church history but also approved historically conditioned interpretation of Scripture as presented in Pius XII's 1943 encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu.Now, if this particular ecumenical council failed to address your concerns with ot slavery, then, tough luck.

The Rat-Pope and his minions have nothing to do with what I'm talking about. They have monkeyed with the Bible since the beginning, twisting it, adding and subtracting from it, and all the while making vast amounts of money and committing crimes against humanity--only the latest of which is the sheltering of pedophile priests.

Being buried alive in Catholicism as you are it's not suprising that you cannot begin to fathom that which I am trying to address. Don't play, Nums, you don't know the rules, in fact you don't even know which game is being played. And I think you know this because you keep posting your family motto: Duh?

 

[numinus]

Then you will agree that it is time to have a new council to update the meaning of slavery in that period inasmuch as it cannot be compared to what we have come to know as slavery in current context? Sounds more like indentured servants.

You are 40 years to late. From lumen gentium, the dogmatic constitution of the church:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumen_Gentium

One of the key portions of Lumen Gentium is its second chapter, with its declaration that the Church is "the People of God":

At all times and in every race God has given welcome to who so ever fears Him and does what is right. God, however, does not make men holy and save them merely as individuals, without bond or link between one another. Rather has it pleased Him to bring men together as one people, a people which acknowledges Him in truth and serves Him in holiness… Christ instituted this new covenant, the new testament, that is to say, in His Blood, calling together a people made up of Jew and gentile, making them one, not according to the flesh but in the Spirit. This was to be the new People of God. For those who believe in Christ, who are reborn not from a perishable but from an imperishable seed through the word of the living God, not from the flesh but from water and the Holy Spirit, are finally established as "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people . . . who in times past were not a people, but are now the people of God". (LG 9)

In the second chapter, the Council teaches that God wills to save people not just as individuals but as a people. For this reason God chose the Israelite people to be his own people and established a covenant with it, as a preparation and figure of the covenant ratified in Christ that constitutes the new People of God, which would be one, not according to the flesh, but in the Spirit and which is called the Church of Christ (Lumen Gentium, 9).

All human beings are called to belong to the Church. Not all are fully incorporated into the Church, but "the Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christ, but who do not however profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter" (Lumen Gentium, 15) and even with "those who have not yet received the Gospel," among whom Jews and Muslims are explicitly mentioned (Lumen Gentium, 16). The idea of any opening toward Protestantism caused a major controversy among traditionalist Catholic groups.

 

[numinus]

The Rat-Pope and his minions have nothing to do with what I'm talking about. They have monkeyed with the Bible since the beginning, twisting it, adding and subtracting from it, and all the while making vast amounts of money and committing crimes against humanity--only the latest of which is the sheltering of pedophile priests.

Being buried alive in Catholicism as you are it's not suprising that you cannot begin to fathom that which I am trying to address. Don't play, Nums, you don't know the rules, in fact you don't even know which game is being played. And I think you know this because you keep posting your family motto: Duh?

It is you who are utterly clueless of what you are talking about.

Nothing less than the dogmatic constitution of the church forbids ANY form of 'slavery' you could imagine -- simply by defining the catholic church as the 'people of god' and consequently naming everyone as a member of that church -- even the muslims and the jews.

Now, run along to your gay activist friends and tell them to fashion another rhetorical nonsense since this particular one simply doesn't fly.

 

[Dr.Who]

It states that all males were to be killed (Regardless to age, all mothers were to be killed). Does it really matter if they were killed in front of their mothers? Male babies(innocent) were killed, that is the point. Do you really think that the babies were taken gently from their mothers to be dispatched? Is that what you have convinced yourself to believe?

Now that we have removed the rhetoric about "bashing" and "in front of" we can discuss the issue.

Which is: Does God have the authority to determine who lives and dies? Did he have the authority when an area was flooded and many died (including children)? Did he have the authority when Sodom was destroyed and many died (including children)? Did he have the authority when an infant was born with a terminal disease and it later died? In this case the child may have (I say may have because I am not God and I don't know) died because God just knows best. That death may just be better than the alternative. You and I do not have the authority to determine life and death but God does.

And it does not really matter if you think he has the authority or not because he is the one in control and will do what he does regardless of what you think - that is what it means to have authority.

He made everyone and he gets to decide when they die (which we all do either sooner or later). When they are guilty then it just might be an act of judgment. That was the case with the adult Midianites (because the story clearly says that they were destroyed because they were enemies who would destroy Israel). When it is a child it is pretty certain that it is not an act of judgment against that child but God still has the authority to end a life. And when it is not an act of judgment then they individual misses out on 50 or 80 years of life but gains an eternity in heaven.


So what did God command and what did Moses do?

God commanded the war in which all the Midianites were to be killed. But the soldiers disobeyed and took the woman captive along with children. Moses then had to make a decision that would have a down side no matter what choice he made. His choices were:

* Leave them all alive to die a slow death in the desert of hunger, thirst and wild animals, with the prospect of being made slaves by the Moabites or used for child sacrifice to their god Chemosh as was their practice. There is no one to look after the children and the towns were burnt (Num 31:10).

* Kill them all.

* Kill the boys and assimilate the virgin girls.

* Assimilate all of them into the Israelite tribes. Then the boys would take vengeance upon the Israelites when they became men.


He. Moses, a human, chose option #3. I would agree that it was the best of four poor choices that were the result of the soldiers disobedience.

 

[Dr.Who]

Then you will agree that it is time to have a new council to update the meaning of slavery in that period inasmuch as it cannot be compared to what we have come to know as slavery in current context? Sounds more like indentured servants.

I see no need for a council but if you want to have one go at it.

Any one of us can research the meaning of slaver in that period and see the differences and similarities and the pros and the cons of it. No need for a council.

Yes it does sound much more like indentured servitude. Though I would add that the most I know of Indentured servitude was what was practiced at the founding of this nation and the motives of those who instituted it do not seem to be that ethical.

Slavery in OT times was a way to provide for the basic needs of people who could not support themselves at best. Was it ever abused? I suppose it was. Which would be why they would make laws on how slaves were to be treated. If the law provides that slaves are not to be mistreated does that condone it? No it merely fails to oppose it. And if opposing it were to result in millions dying of starvation wouldn't it be better to permit it without abuse (including provisions for slaves to be freed both when they earn it and also at regularly scheduled times (various times called jubilee) even when they don't earn it)?

 

[Dr.Who]

Paraphrased: ...all have sinned and come short of the glory of God... Including the Hebrews. Why then were their sins overlooked and the sins of the male babies of the Midianites were not? What sin had those babies committed? Does who wrote the story (Hebrews or Midianites) have any bearing on the justification?

To this day God still decides to whom He will extend grace and to whom he will carry out judgment. It could be that the sacrifices that cover sin were the reasons that the Hebrews were not killed. That is the explanation that the bible gives as to the main purpose of sacrifices. And since the Midianites worshiped Balaam they did not have their sins covered. A discussion of the "innocents' was in a former post.

Taken in the context of the time where it was not adultery or rape to have a child with your wife's handmaiden, and the context of "...take all females who have not known man for yourselvels..." Just what do you think that they were going to do with them if it was not for sexual purposes? Of course, the Hebrews would not describe it as rape, they wrote the story and thou shall not commit adultery had not been invented yet.

I suppose that as other chapters describe they were distributed about one for each soldiers family with the rest distributed among families that did not have soldiers as the family head. I suppose that since they were under the age of about 12 they were treated as daughters and then as they matured they were allowed to marry according to the same customs that natural born daughters married. The Hebrew laws of war did allow for adult woman taken captive to be married but none of these were adults.

 

[Dr.Who]

Bashing babies before their mother's eyes: Isaiah 13:11-16 In God's fierce anger He orders that babies be killed as I noted, everyone shall be run through, their houses despoiled, and their wives ravished.

You love of seeing the worst in God really gets the better of you.

The passage in Isaiah says that God predicts the event will happen not that God orders the event to happen.

Murder of virgin's families, kidnapping of the virgins, and the subsequent rape of them. And if the virgins do not please their rapist they will be turned out to die since no one will touch them after they have been raped. Deuteronomy 21:10-14

When a soldier kills a soldier it is not murder.

when a child who would die otherwise because her father was killed in war is taken in it is not kidnapping.

When she gets married it is not rape. Even if it is an arranged marriage like most in the world still are today. (and this did not happen to the midianite women because they were all dead) you can put your own slant on events that happened thousands of years ago but at the time it seemed right to those who were involved.

Slavery was just employment? Since when could you sell your employees? Since when could you beat your employees--even to death? You can buy and sell children as well. Leviticus 25:44-46, Exodus 21:20-21

I said it was more like employment not exactly like it.

Take things out of context and you will get them wrong.

In Exodus when it describes the death penalty for killing a man it says if a person strikes someone and they die (manslaughter) that person must be put to death. And it goes on to say that if they strike a slave and the slave does not die then they are not to be put to death. It makes sense to me that one would not receive the punishment for killing a person if that person does not actually die. The passage goes on to describe how compensation must be paid to any slave for injuries caused to that slave. So we see that corporal punishment that results in any injury is punishable. In fact the passage is a part of the passage that describes the exact same scenario and punishment for men who strike each other even if one is not a slave:

"If men quarrel and one hits the other with a stone or with his fist and he does not die but is confined to bed, 19 the one who struck the blow will not be held responsible if the other gets up and walks around outside with his staff; however, he must pay the injured man for the loss of his time and see that he is completely healed. If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property (ksph--"silver"; not the normal word(s) for property[]"

What would motivate a person to read only the last half of that passage and ignore the first half? how can they not see that the slave is being treated the same under the law as the non-slave?

 

[Dr.Who]

Yes, I think I am, here are quotes from one of your previous posts:

"Our understanding of the bible is progressing today and new versions or translations are being produced to keep up with that fine tuning. No need for a council to accomplish what is being done."
Okay, the people who have been fine tuning the Bible whom you apparently agree with, ie "good" people.

"I much prefer the more credible scholars doing that work today than I would ever trust the likes of you to be involved in any way in such a project."
And myself, whom you would not trust, ie one of the "bad" people.

Clearly you are NOT reading the same language I am writing because you just inserted the words "good" and "bad" into what I said.

I would advise all reading these threads to consider the level of logic that is being practiced by Mare Tranquility and to realize that even she MT seems to be saying something that makes sense there is a whole backgound of illogic behind it.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

It is you who are utterly clueless of what you are talking about.

Nothing less than the dogmatic constitution of the church forbids ANY form of 'slavery' you could imagine -- simply by defining the catholic church as the 'people of god' and consequently naming everyone as a member of that church -- even the muslims and the jews.

Now, run along to your gay activist friends and tell them to fashion another rhetorical nonsense since this particular one simply doesn't fly.

Then why is the endorsement by God for slavery still in the Bible? Is the Bible still the infallible Word of God? If so, then see question #1.

I'm sorry this is so complex for you though I'm not sure why removing blasphemy from the Bible should be so daunting to you.