The flaws of NT-based morality

[Darth Executor]

Perhaps tribalism might be a better term. It's certainly discrimination to have slavery apply only to other tribes.Not the same. OT law discriminates against all non-Jews, not just against members of specific other groups.We can (and often do) do that now. But that's dislike based on individuals, which is very different from dislike based on group.

The meaning of the word racism is broad and covers all sorts of situations, including tribalism.

[One Bad Pig]

Would you say this applies to humans too? That humans only have whatever rights humans decide upon?

The difference is that humans decide their own rights (as a society).

[Adrift]

You've omitted the passage about treatment of indentured Hebrews vs foreign slaves.

No, I definitely mentioned that distinction about half way down in my post.

You've also not noticed that this one:

Scripture Verse: Leviticus 25:35

If your brother becomes impoverished and is indebted to you, you must support him; he must live with you like a foreign resident.

© Copyright Original Source

suggests that foreign residents and natives were treated differently.

To the contrary, by treating the impoverished brother as a resident alien, the impoverished individual avoids being shamed for his circumstances. As the esteemed Old Testament scholar Gordon Wenham points out in his commentary on Leviticus,

Source: The Book of Leviticus by Gordon J. Wenham

35 You must maintain him as if he were a resident alien. Family pride may sometimes make for vindictiveness when one member of the family falls on hard times. For disgracing the family name he may be shunned instead of helped. The Israelites are not to let such feelings determine their behavior. They must be as generous to members of their own family who are in need as they would be to aliens. Biblical law is most insistent that aliens should be well treated. If the family steps in to help in this way, the man who has sold his land may not have the further disgrace of slavery imposed on him.

© Copyright Original Source

That argument would require as a premise that there is no god capable of spreading the message anyway.

I don't know what you mean by this. The argument would require that there is a God, and that in his divine wisdom and foreknowledge, this was the best way for him to spread this concept among free will beings in a fallen state.

[seer]

No, he said that the NT was silent on the issue of animal rights. He did not say that animals had rights.

And now you're doing everything you can to avoid taking responsibility for supporting your claim, while simultaneously insisting that others prove things they never said.

If he didn't believe that animals had rights then why did he bring it up in the context? He was speaking of moral questions that the bible failed to address. Like the rights of women, so now he doesn't believe in those rights either? And I quote:

Torture; conduct in war; abortions; treatment of women (aka women's rights); treatment of animals (aka animal rights); the use of methods to attempt to prevent pregnancy (aka contraceptives); the destruction of entire people groups (aka genocide); setting minimum standards for the treatment of all people in our society to attempt to ensure everyone is treated well (aka human rights).

And when I said that animals don't have rights he said:

Wow dude, seriously? Firstly you're just plain wrong on the animal rights thing. Secondly, I rephrased it for you as "treatment of animals" and you still threw this tantrum. Surely you can agree and accept that any complete theory of morality should say at least something about how we are to treat animals? The OT laws say some stuff about being nice to animals (e.g. "don't muzzle the oxen as they are treading out the grain", prescribing some relatively painless methods of slaughter, etc), so it's not like it's expecting too much for the NT to give some comments on the matter. And thirdly, don't accuse me of making stuff up when I'm not.

Hypocrite.

Roy, stop playing the pedantic juvenile.

[seer]

NT assigns value to animals as living creatures (lesser than the value of humans), and it does cite the Old Testament with regard to its assignment of rights to certain animals - "You shall not muzzle the ox while it threshes the grain" (or words to that effect). I would be surprised if they were the only references.

Right, but that would be God given worth.

[Darth Executor]

No it wasn't. All of Israel's Semitic neighbors generally had the same racial make up as they did (ignoring for now that "race" is a relatively modern construct).

Race is not a modern construct, it just has a broader meaning today because communications technology gives us access to larger territories and its people. By the nature of their primitive technology the ancient Israelites would have only been exposed to their neighbours.

As far as the treatment of foreigners living among Israelites, we get passages in scripture that calls for their equal and positive treatment,

We also get passages in scripture that calls for their unequal and negative treatment. It's impossible to make the case for equality based on OT law.

[Sparko]

Perhaps tribalism might be a better term. It's certainly discrimination to have slavery apply only to other tribes.Not the same. OT law discriminates against all non-Jews, not just against members of specific other groups.We can (and often do) do that now. But that's dislike based on individuals, which is very different from dislike based on group.

You are going to nitpick this to death aren't you?

Not interested. buh-bye.

[Sparko]

The Nazis were not an ethnic group, like other tribes would be.

not all tribes were a different ethnic group, unless you want to define ethnic group as "another tribe"

[Adrift]

Race is not a modern construct, it just has a broader meaning today because communications technology gives us access to larger territories and its people. By the nature of their primitive technology the ancient Israelites would have only been exposed to their neighbours.



We also get passages in scripture that calls for their unequal and negative treatment. It's impossible to make the case for equality based on OT law.

Yeah, I figured my post would ruffle your racist feathers. The majority of sociologist, historians, and anthropologists (see Richard T. Schaefer, Peter Wade, Frank Snowden, and Nancy Shoemaker) believe that the idea of racism didn't really exist until the Renaissance, and didn't develop into an actual scientific concept until the 18th century. There is some indication that there may have been some sort of proto concept of racism in ancient Greece and Rome, but it appears to have been relatively nebulous.

There aren't really any OT passages that call for unequal and negative treatment of resident aliens, so I'm not sure where you're getting that idea. The closest we get to anything like that is some passages that discuss charging foreigners interest, no requirement to cancel debt during the Jubilee, offering and selling foreigners animals that are found dead, and preventing uncircumcised foreigners from entering the sanctuary.

But OT scholar Daniel Block points out that distinctions ought to be made in scripture between the transient foreigner and resident aliens. So, for instance, in the passage concerning interest charged to the foreigner he points out,

Source: Deuteronomy by Daniel Block

Unlike the "alien" who lived among the Israelites, albeit with limited rights, the "foreigner" remained an outsider with no intention of settling down in Israel. The persons envisioned here might have been merchants who bought and sold goods for profit rather than the sheer need for survival. If their business ventures did not succeed, they could always go home.

© Copyright Original Source

Throughout the New Testament we get passage after passage that commands the Israelites to do no wrong to the resident alien, to treat them well, and to bless them with by doing things like allowing them to glean the harvest.

[Adrift]

Wow, lots of questions.

I don't think animals, or indeed humans, have rights other than any granted to them and enforced through societal agreements.
People who believe that there are such things as God-given rights might disagree.

Does that cover it?

Pretty much.

[Darth Executor]

not all tribes were a different ethnic group, unless you want to define ethnic group as "another tribe"

well yeah, that's literally how they are defined. tribes were (and are) mostly genetic lineages. Scientists today usually use the word "populaton", rather than the politically loaded "race", but the concept is the same.

[Darth Executor]

Yeah, I figured my post would ruffle your racist feathers.

Your post should ruffle the feathers of anyone who loves the truth.

The majority of sociologist, historians, and anthropologists (see Richard T. Schaefer, Peter Wade, Frank Snowden, and Nancy Shoemaker) believe that the idea of racism didn't really exist until the Renaissance, and didn't develop into an actual scientific concept until the 18th century. There is some indication that there may have been some sort of proto concept of racism in ancient Greece and Rome, but it appears to have been relatively nebulous.

There is no "the" idea of racism, it's a term loaded with countless different meanings, and whose scope increases and decreases depending on what suits the anti-rayciss.

The idea that there are different ethnic groups and people should put theirs above others is not new (and is something that is labeled "racist" today), it probably predates Homo Sapiens and it's reinforced repeatedly through both the old and especially the new testament.

There aren't really any OT passages that call for unequal and negative treatment of resident aliens, so I'm not sure where you're getting that idea. The closest we get to anything like that is some passages that discuss charging foreigners interest, no requirement to cancel debt during the Jubilee, offering and selling foreigners animals that are found dead, and preventing uncircumcised foreigners from entering the sanctuary.

What do you mean "the closest", that is exactly what those things are: unequal and negative treatment. The native population is given rights and privileges that are not extended to foreigners. You also mentioned another one (they could be bought and used as slaves), for which you make the absurd "progressive revelation" argument (one loved by heretics and non-Christians like those trying to peddle gay marriage), as if God was every shy about demanding counter-cultural things and severely punishing the Jews when they did not comply.

But OT scholar Daniel Block points out that distinctions ought to be made in scripture between the transient foreigner and resident aliens. So, for instance, in the passage concerning interest charged to the foreigner he points out,

Source: Deuteronomy by Daniel Block

Unlike the "alien" who lived among the Israelites, albeit with limited rights, the "foreigner" remained an outsider with no intention of settling down in Israel. The persons envisioned here might have been merchants who bought and sold goods for profit rather than the sheer need for survival. If their business ventures did not succeed, they could always go home.

© Copyright Original Source

"Might have"

He's trying to syncretise Christianity with the parasitical enemy religion of liberalism by making stuff up, because he's been raised on both. Just like you do. A man cannot serve two masters, Adrift. Pick one.

Throughout the New Testament we get passage after passage that commands the Israelites to do no wrong to the resident alien, to treat them well, and to bless them with by doing things like allowing them to glean the harvest.

You mean Old Testament? Anyway, this doesn't cause me any trouble, because I don't believe someone should mistreat foreigners or people of other ethnicities (I mean, I AM a non-Anglo foreigner). The verses that give natives more rights and privileges to the natives ARE lethal to you though, because you insist they should not be treated any differently. I can see how that might ruffle your Babelist feathers.

[Starlight]

stuff like this is what makes the rest of us think you are such a hypocrite. You won't kill or eat a cow because you think it is an intelligent and conscious being, but you think it should be legal to kill a todder.

At least be consistent in your principals, Starlight. please?

Please don't disingenuously pretend to others that I'm not 100% consistent on this. As I've said dozens of times here, I believe the important thing is level of mental function. Thus the point at which having an abortion is worse than killing an animal is the point at which the mental function of the fetus is higher than the animal. Cows have more mental function, more sense of self, more memories, more intelligence, than a human fetus, hence killing a cow is morally worse than abortion. Clear?

[Starlight]

So you are a vegetarian? And which is more intelligent - a cow or a toddler?

Yes I'm a vegetarian, because I think killing animals is wrong. I would say that a human infant would surpass a cow in intelligence somewhere between 6 months and 4 years in age - I'm not a childhood development expert so I am hesitant to give a narrower window than that, but perhaps around 2 years of age on average?

[Starlight]

I doubt it, my two year old grandson can count to ten. I bet a cow can't even count to two...

Sure, however cows have extremely long memories, wheres your 2 year old grandson will forget everything that happens to him at that age.