re is morality constant was re biblical rape this frayed thread has turned into a patented alt atheism on ping pong game and i don t have any strong disagreement so i ll try to stick to the one thing i don t quite follow about the argument it seems to me that there is a contradiction in arguing that the bible was enlightened for its times i e closer to what we would consider morally good based on our standards and past experience on the one hand i hope this summarizes this argument adequately and on the other hand in article apr watson ibm com strom watson ibm com rob strom writes in article phpe inn g dsi dsinc com perry dsinc com jim perry writes disclaimer i m speaking from the jewish perspective where the bible means what many call the old testament and where the interpretation is not necessarily the raw text but instead the court cases commentaries and traditions passed down through jewish communities this seems the crux to me if you judge the bible according to a long line of traditions and interpretations coming down to the current day rather than on its own merits as a cultural artifact then of course it will correspond more closely with more contemporary values but if that s how the bible is actually being used today shouldn t that be how we should judge it if most people use scissors to cut paper shouldn t consumer s reports test scissors for paper cutting ability even though scissors may have been designed originally to cut cloth that s possibly a good way to judge the use of the bible in teaching jewish morality today but it hardly seems fair to claim that this highly interpreted version is what was enlightened for its times to attempt to extend the analogy this is like saying that the original scissor makers were unusually advanced at paper cutting for their times even though they only ever cut cloth and had never even heard of paper i m not arguing that the bible is disgusting though some of the history depicted in it is by modern standards however history is full of similar abuses and i don t think the biblical accounts are worse than their contemporaries or possibly ours on the other hand i don t know of any reason to think the history described in the bible shows less abuse than their contemporaries or ours that complex and benign moral traditions have evolved based on particular mythic interpretations of that history is interesting but i still don t think it fair to take that long tradition of interpretation and use it to attack condemnation of the original history jim perry perry dsinc com decision support inc matthews nc these are my opinions for a nominal fee they can be yours
