A better question

[NJCubScouter]

Ed Mori says:

 

Morality can't be relative and change with the times. If that were the case, then morality would have no purpose.

 

Whether "what is right and wrong" changes is a philosophical question that is, frankly, irrelevant. What is beyond dispute, however, is that society's understanding of what is right and wrong does change. I can guarantee you that you do not live by the "moral" standards that were accepted and enforced by society 1,000 years ago, or 200 years ago, and unless you are very unusual, probably not 50 years ago either.

 

Our understanding of most values does not change. Murder and theft will always be wrong. Being trustworthy, loyal, helpful etc. will always be right. But 50 years ago, denying someone a job or the ability to drink at a public water fountain because of the color of his skin was not considered wrong by many, nor was it considered wrong by the law. Now it is universally understood to be wrong. On a more drastic level but going further back in time, slavery is specifically permitted under certain circumstances by the law handed down by God to Moses in the book of Leviticus. Now, again, we have a different understanding of what is right and wrong.

 

Similarly, more and more people are accepting that to exclude people based on sexual orientation is wrong. Fifty years from now, this will not be an issue. (My God will be just fine with it, and if yours won't, that's your problem.) It would be best for society, and its premier male youth organization, if we could reach that point, and put this issue behind us, a lot sooner than that.

[Quixote]

 

Rooster - stick to your guns on this - i happen to agree with you regarding religion as well. My faith requires me to witness to others and to acknowledge no other gods; it also requires me to believe that there is ONE way to the Father and that is through the Son. There is one truth, not many. It does not require me to respect other religions, neither does being an american - it DOES require me to respect your choice of how you want to worship.

 

YIS

Quixote

 

btw, Mickey Mouse, Pooh and Tigger all say hello to everyone...just back from the happiest place on earth.

[Rooster7]

NJ,

 

On a more drastic level but going further back in time, slavery is specifically permitted under certain circumstances by the law handed down by God to Moses in the book of Leviticus.

 

If you read the Old Testament carefully, it does not condone slavery. Yes, the bible does reference slavery. However, if you want an honest interpretation, read it in context and don't add anything to those verses. For more on slavery and the Bible, reference this link:

 

http://downloads.members.tripod.com/medicolegal/feeasm1851.htm#p30-alif

 

I posted this back in May under the thread "A Rather Interesting Comment".

 

Similarly, more and more people are accepting that to exclude people based on sexual orientation is not be an issue. (My God will be just fine with it, and if yours won't, that's your problem.) It would be best for society, and its premier male youth organization, if we could reach that point, and put this issue behind us, a lot sooner than that.

 

It should come as no surprise that I vehemently disagree with this statement. The day this becomes reality, BSA will no longer be the uncompromising, character building organization that so many parents and boys have come to love. It would become just another organization that fell victim to political correctness.

 

[NJCubScouter]

Rooster, as for the Biblical endorsement of slavery, I don't think the issue is one of context, but one of translation. The site you link to quotes a passage from an unspecified (that I could find) version, that uses the word "bondmen" instead of "slave." I do not know what version you use, but I looked up on the Internet 2 editions that, to my knowledge, are commonly used Christian bibles, and here is the passage in question from both:

 

New International Version:

 

44 " 'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

 

New King James Version:

 

44And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have--from the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves. 45Moreover you may buy the children of the strangers who dwell among you, and their families who are with you, which they beget in your land; and they shall become your property. 46And you may take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them as a possession; they shall be your permanent slaves. But regarding your brethren, the children of Israel, you shall not rule over one another with rigor.

 

So both these versions refer to slaves, not "bondmen." Now, I did find another version, the American Standard Version:

 

44 And as for thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, whom thou shalt have; of the nations that are round about you, of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they have begotten in your land: and they shall be your possession.

46 And ye shall make them an inheritance for your children after you, to hold for a possession; of them shall ye take your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel ye shall not rule, one over another, with rigor.

 

This refers to "bondmen," but talks about buying them and passing ownership through inheritance. Sure sounds like slavery to me, whichever word is used.

 

So Rooster, slavery was considered ok, by the word of God to Moses on Mount Sinai no less. Now it's considered wrong. This proves that our understanding of morality changes, and if you believe that this was really the word of God, I would say it proves that morality itself can change.

[Mike Long]

You all misunderstand my point and intent, perhaps I could have worded it better but I doubt it would make a difference.

 

 

[Rooster7]

NJ,

 

You quote the bible, but you do not provide any history or background to the verses. This is quoting out of context. To those folks who do not read the bible regularly, you have made a great case for your argument. For those who read the bible, and know the appropriate history, your argument seems foolish if not outright deceptive.

 

The link that I referenced provides much more than the verses you quoted. It provides a 178-page biblical argument against slavery. It specifically refutes the pro-slavery "Christians" who referenced Leviticus to support their arguments. The author, Rev. John G. Fee, demonstrates how these verses were taken out of context. When Leviticus is viewed with proper respect to the true condition of these "slaves" (or more appropriately bondmen) and the history of the Jews, it is plain to see that these individuals were not slaves. He devotes over 30 pages to those verses that you so glibly quote.

 

CHAPTER IV-SERVITUDE UNDER THE MOSAIC ECONOMY

 

Argument from Lev. xxv. 44-46; its fallacy 30

Proofs that bondmen were not slaves 31

Word buy 34

Words possession and inheritance 35

Word for ever 38

Year of jubilee 39

Nature of the servitude 44

Voluntary with Jew and Gentile 44

Facilities for escape of servants 51

Their return forbidden 52

Legal protection of servants 54

Right of property secured to them 60

Design of this bondservice 63

No warrant for us at any rate 64

 

Prior to this chapter, Rev. Fee says in part:

 

Now different relations or conditions should always be distinguished by different terms. Propriety and justice require it. And as "a definition of any thing is that which distinguishes it from every thing else," slavery is not defined, until it is distinguished from every thing else.

 

Great confusion is made, and false impressions given, even by anti-slavery men, in calling the bond-service of the Mosaic economy slavery, when in reality it was something else. It was simple bond-service, in which children were bound [apprenticed] by parents until they should be "of age," and in the case of adult servants, they bound themselves for a term of years, as we shall show. And if it is insisted that these servants were placed in the hands of the Jew without their wills being consulted, we shall show that the Jew might not hold the servant so-in involuntary servitude. Mere bond-service is not slavery.*

 

But slavery is that relation in which one innocent man, without his consent, is made, for lifetime, the property of another, or others. The slave is held in such manner that his person, time, labor, and all natural rights may be controlled by his master, irrespective of the wish of the slave.

 

The question then is, whether this relation is sanctioned by the Bible.

 

*A late writer, referring to some valuable articles which he had written, says: "We have sometimes used the terms slave and slavery in the preceding discussion, but any one can see that the Mosaic servitude had none of the characteristics of modem slavery." Why then, we ask, confound things entirely dissimilar by using the same terms? As long as our [pro-slavery] teachers [fraudulently] call the Mosaic servitude slavery, the people will be likely to infer that it is what it is called.

 

I did not post the above quotes the first time because 1) I meant to spare other posters who were not interested in the details, 2) There are other and perhaps more convincing arguments presented in this book and I did not want to diminish them, and 3) I assumed you would read a little more, at least enough to know that what you were saying was not truly representative of the bible. It is out of context and without thorough analysis.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[evmori]

NJ,

Just because a particular behavior or way of life becomes more common doesn't make it moral! Popularity & morality are mutualy exclusive!

 

Rooster7,

Excellent Excellent! I would love to sit down with you sometime around a campfire with a cup of coffee & chew the fat.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

[NJCubScouter]

Rooster, I will readily admit that I am not a Biblical scholar, but I can read, and for better or for worse, I am trained in reading and interpreting the law. And that is what these passages are, part of the Mosaic law. They are not taken out of context, in fact the verses preceding the ones I quoted only confirm that the idea that you may not make slaves of your fellow Israelites, but only from the surrounding tribes and strangers.

 

I read a chunk of what was on the web site you refer to. It doesn't change what the words say, or the fact that 2 of 3 Christian bible versions chosen at random use the word "slave" instead of "bondmen" as does the writer of that article.

 

I can fully understand why an anti-slavery religious scholar, writing in the 1850s, would do everything he could to refute biblical arguments that were being used to justify slavery. In this case, the ends justify the means.

 

But it still doesn't change what it says, or means. Slavery was once accepted and now it is not. Our understanding of morality changes, and not just about slavery.

 

[NJCubScouter]

Ed says:

 

Popularity & morality are mutualy exclusive!

 

I see. So, since 95 percent of people are heterosexual, then heterosexuality must be extremely immoral. Right?

 

That was just too easy.

 

[evmori]

NJ,

Wrong. Just because body piercing is NOW popular doesn't make it moral.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

[Rooster7]

NJ,

 

I REPEAT (from my previous post):

 

"We have sometimes used the terms slave and slavery in the preceding discussion, but any one can see that the Mosaic servitude had none of the characteristics of modem slavery." Why then, we ask, confound things entirely dissimilar by using the same terms? As long as our [pro-slavery] teachers [fraudulently] call the Mosaic servitude slavery, the people will be likely to infer that it is what it is called.

 

Why?

 

In the case of the pro-slavery crowd, it was to justify behavior that they knew was immoral and against God's teachings, yet was beneficial to them (free labor). They twisted the history of the bible in order to justify their desires.

 

In the case of NJ, it's to discredit God's word (the bible) and portray as it being inconsistent, so he can justify relative morality (changing morals for changing times). He does not appear to be interested in the facts, only what gives his viewpoint credibility.

 

No my friend, God knew what he was saying 5,000 years ago. What was true then, is true today. Man's laws and your interpretation thereof (as a lawyer) have nothing to do with God's laws. You are merely picking verses that on the surface support your claim. You are not considering the facts or the history of these particular people (the so-called "slaves" and the Jews). A tactic or strategy that is not too uncommon with some lawyers, but certainly as a Scouter I thought you'd do better. I challenge posters to go to the link that I referenced and learn more. God did not endorse the enslavement of innocent peoples.

 

[littlebillie]

How does Islam regard slavery? What is its view of the modern trade?

[tjhammer]

It is remarkable how you can stake 100% of your claim that homosexuals are immoral on a verse from the Bible, and refuse any discussion about whether those versus could possibly be misinterpreted. Yet on the issue of slavery, suddenly the verses of the Bible are not to be taken so literally or specifically. The hypocrisy knows no bounds.

[Rooster7]

TJ,

 

It is remarkable how you can stake 100% of your claim that homosexuals are immoral on a verse from the Bible, and refuse any discussion about whether those versus could possibly be misinterpreted.

 

1) Never said I staked 100% of my claim on any one bible verse. In fact, I have pointed out on numerous occasions how it homosexuality is an obvious perversity of nature.

 

2) When I interpret the bible, I reference many verses, not just one as you claimed.

 

3) You've never offered any specific examples or logic as to how a bible verse condemning homosexuality could be interpreted different. How can you accuse me of not listening to your interpretation when you haven't offered any?

 

yet on the issue of slavery, suddenly the verses of the Bible are not to be taken so literally or specifically.

 

1) I never claimed that every bible verse was to be taken literally.

 

2) I did state that one needs to read other verses and know the history of the people in the bible.

 

The hypocrisy knows no bounds.

 

I think most people know hypocrisy when they see it. Your statement seems more self-indicting than anything else.

 

Ed

 

I would love to sit down with you sometime around a campfire with a cup of coffee & chew the fat.

 

I appreciate the sentiment. I think it is apparent that we fairly like-minded. It may make for some boring conversation though (i.e., "right", "right", "but of course", "right again")...but that's a dilemma that I willing to risk. Perhaps we can get together one day. Let me know the next time you're in the DC area, and I will do the same for you the next time I'm in PA

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[evmori]

God destroyed an entire town because the men of the town were having sex with each other. I can't recall God destroying an entire town because of slavery.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1