Common misconceptions about Christianity.

[pearljammer]

richardhutnik said:

pearljammer said:

 

I really do hate getting involved in debates about religions, but I'm genuinely curious about something.

In the case where God had punished this particular man by allowing his neighbour to have his way with his wife, does God pretty much strip the (apparently?) innocent woman of her free will and has her raped by another man? I'm unsure how anyone could accept that simply as chaulking it up to context?

Fighting barbarism with barbarism. It's a rather ineffective and primitive line of thinking if your goal is to change behaviour. Even if I'd believed that God existed, this'd be something far too ridiculous for me to think that a benevolent being had decided.

My intention isn't to come off as confrontational, just curious if what I had based my judgments on are accurate or not. The rest are just my thoughts based on my interpretation of what I'd read, there's no need to feel compelled to respond to it.

Secondarily, you are very likely modern and western in your thinking, and you think in terms of people as individual agents and likely operate under the concept of rights, and think of personal freedom.  Well, that is just one mindset.  There is also a tribal mindset to, where people are judged by who they belong with, and everything is by group identity.  This is the mindset seen in the Old Testament, and things would seem to be barbaric to people now was how people thought then.  Now, the question is whether or not a tribal thinking is wrong.  Is it more wrong than people not thinking of themselves as belonging to any particularly group, and deciding they need to relate to others.  In that set, who cares for the least of those in a group?

I'm cognizant to the fact that there were different mindsets at that time and applying our values and morals is useless. For instance take many modern day tragedies: women's status in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The UN promotes their values of equality with little progress. The UN, however, are not benevolent; nor are they a god.

I simply cannot imagine a benevolent entity 'giving' a woman to another man as punishment of her husband's deeds. Perhaps in the context of the time, where women were likely seen as property, it would have been seen as a justifible punishment delivered by a human authority, but surely not a benevolent god?

As to the second part of your post: I think that may be oversimplifying things. A tribal mindset, as you define it, is not wrong. However, if there is inequality in that group where both women and children are treated as property, then yes, I'd say it is wrong. Would it seem absurd for a benevolent being, claiming to love all equaly, to accomodate such a mindset? I think so.

I can certainly appreciate that punisments would have to be accomodated to match any particular culture or time period, but these are changes in core values (to the being as well as the society), it would seem. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that I can understand the changing of punishments, however, I fail to how how one's values can simply be adjusted to the times, or the 'context.' I can't imagine a god's moral authority being sp thin and malleable.

Again, I hope I'm not coming off as abrasive or anything. It's not my intention.