sccsux Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 Really? What about an unmarried man raping an unmarried woman? Or an unmarried man raping a married woman? Or an unmarried man raping an unmarried man? Or .... Wait, I see a pattern emerging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkey Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 Surely, context is applicable throughout the bible; or not at all. You can't pick and choose where context is applicable, just because it suits your agenda. If the Bibkle is the word of God, the timeless almighty creator of the universe (as it claims to be) then how can it be open to any cultural interpretation? If it is not, then why would anyopne bother trying give a 'context' to the words of an ancient desert nomad community in an attempt to make it seem relevant to us in the modern Western world? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sccsux Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 apart from for sheer entertainment value Good enough reason for me:thumbsup: (it's why I post on most of the threads I do). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 It seemed (to me), that you were applying context to the love thy neighbour thing; then overlooking the fact that the meaning (of 'love thy neighbour') is related to a specific time and place, when arriving at the conclusion that the bible is condoning slavery (in this day and age). the meaning of love thy neighbor in the bible, in context, is referring to 'fellow Isrealites'. The context of the many verses which talk about how to treat slaves in context, and who you can take as slaves, are exactly that, they are regulations on how to treat slaves, and who you can take as slaves. I'm not interpreting either of them with modern day values, I'm being consistent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karis Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 Good enough reason for me:thumbsup: (it's why I post on most of the threads I do). Ha ha ha! Frakkin' awesome honesty! Personally, I think these posts are a worrying trend and there's a remarkable lack of sanity in these posters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 Sorry, I was under the mistaken impression that you were defending the rules set down in the bible because you believed they should be followed. Nope. I'm not defending anything! Although, in not defending, that doesn't imply that I'm either in disagreement or agreement, with any particular thing written in the bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 If the Bibkle is the word of God, the timeless almighty creator of the universe (as it claims to be) then how can it be open to any cultural interpretation? If it is not, then why would anyopne bother trying give a 'context' to the words of an ancient desert nomad community in an attempt to make it seem relevant to us in the modern Western world? Not sure I undestand your question or point. I think context is relevant everywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 the meaning of love thy neighbor in the bible, in context, is referring to 'fellow Isrealites'. The context of the many verses which talk about how to treat slaves in context, and who you can take as slaves, are exactly that, they are regulations on how to treat slaves, and who you can take as slaves. I'm not interpreting either of them with modern day values, I'm being consistent. Ah, I think I see what you mean now. Are you saying that the bible is saying slavery is okay; but, that that is only applicable to the specific context, that it relates to. Such that the bible is not advocating slavery etc; in this day and age? Maybe I'm coming across a little pedantic; suffering a little from 'bear with soar head' syndrome today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 (edited) Ah, I think I see what you mean now. Are you saying that the bible is saying slavery is okay; but, that that is only applicable to the specific context, that it relates to. Such that the bible is not advocating slavery etc; in this day and age? No. I'm saying that the bible says that slavery is ok. And that's it, there's no two ways about it. I'm not sure that you are using the word 'context' correctly to be honest. The context is the set of facts and circumstances that surround and event. The event in question is the writing of a great many verse which talk about how to treat slaves, and who can be taken as slaves. The context of these verses is that they are from a time and place where slavery was a huge part of life and was an extremely common practise. Thus, there is only one conclusion, that the authors of the bible did not have any problems with the principle of slavery, they accepted it, and even sought to regulate it. Edited April 25, 2011 by flamingjimmy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkey Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 (edited) Not sure I undestand your question or point. I think context is relevant everywhere. If you believe the Bible is the word of God, then surely it is above cultural context. If you do not believe the Bible is the word of God, then what is its' relevance, other than as an historical artifact? If the former, then the point about slavery stands. If the latter, its' context as a moral guide has no relevance to the modern world. There isn't a third option, so I suppose my point is that your point about the context is a red herring. Edited April 25, 2011 by donkey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts