The Bible And Slavery

[skepticalbip]

I can actually see where Politesse has a point. You are putting together a strong biblical argument pro slavery. All someone needs to do to get from the posts hilighting this fact to a sermon is to replace the conclusion message "and so the bible is wrong", with "and as we all know the Bible is the word of God!"

That seems to be to be the over riding argument. Is the Bible the "word of God" that gives us a moral code to live by?

The con side is that the Bible is filled with and accepts some of the most heinous attributes of humanity, slavery was just selected as one example. If it is assumed to be the 'word of God' then that god is as fallible, evil, and as good as the average human so shouldn't be relied on as a moral guide. The Bible should be seen simply as writings that reflect the culture and times when the books were written, some should be condemned.

Those who do accept the Bible as the inerrant "word of God" are already aware of the accepted atrocities in the Bible. Possibly some would repeat some of them if secular society had not condemned and outlawed such practices.

The thing is, this leads into Politesse's point. While they are probably already dimly aware of how attrocious the OT is, there are some messages that are equally biblical that stand in counterpoint that can and should be more at the top of your mind to temper the believer's belief. Because, the idea that atheists can debate christians away from Christianity is a myth - the only person who can navigate these people out of the cave is themselves.

A rational person accepts that there are people he cannot reach rationally, and so you have to take another path. Putting yourself on opposite sides of a battle line (bible is ambiguously pro-slavery, so bible is wrong and Christianity is stupid) will remove from you the power to do even that much.

Couldn't the same reasoning be applied about discussing any -ism? Should we laud some sections of Mien Kampf and ignore others when trying to discuss politics with Neo-NAZIs? They would already believe the book was a masterpiece so wouldn't pointing out the bad parts to demonstrate the evil alienate them?

 

[abaddon]

"The Bible endorses slavery" is only a premise within a larger argument, but you falsely say it's the argument.

I'm fully aware of the larger intended conclusion, but that isn't the part I object to, so it's not the part I'm writing against. Are you suggesting than in evaluating an argument, the correctness of its premises should not be a concern? Of course I'm questioning the bloody premise, it's a flawed premise.

You say you're questioning the premise.

Here's the argument:

P1: the Bible includes the endorsement of slavery;
P2: endorsements of slavery come from unreliable sources for moral guidance;
C: therefore the Bible is an unreliable source for moral guidance.

So, help me out here. Which premise (P1 or P2) are you questioning?

 

[Politesse]

And I have had many conversations with people - yes, even "conservatives" - that ended with them admitting to the evils of practices they would have endorsed at the beginning of the conversation. So what good have you done lately? How many "converts" to your religious beliefs have you notched on your belt? And why should I see that as more important than actually challenging evil social practices?

Here is you claiming converts based on your evangelism of your version of christianity. Just pointing out what I meant when I claimed you said this up-thread.

That's me rightfully bragging that I changed several people's minds on Nebraska Amendment 1 this year, no shame there. But if anyone changed their religion on that account, they did not say as much. Which was quite my point in that post. Changing someone's mind on slavery is a lot easier than convincing them to abandon their religion altogether. So if your only real strategy to accoomplish the former is to first achieve the latter, best of luck to you but I don't think it will be a very effective strategy.

(And if the former isn't even your primary goal, it seems to me that the assumed outrage about slavery implied by the premises of the argument is at best somewhat exaggerated.)

 

[Politesse]

"The Bible endorses slavery" is only a premise within a larger argument, but you falsely say it's the argument.

I'm fully aware of the larger intended conclusion, but that isn't the part I object to, so it's not the part I'm writing against. Are you suggesting than in evaluating an argument, the correctness of its premises should not be a concern? Of course I'm questioning the bloody premise, it's a flawed premise.

You say you're questioning the premise.

Here's the argument:

P1: the Bible includes the endorsement of slavery;
P2: endorsements of slavery come from unreliable sources for moral guidance;
C: therefore the Bible is an unreliable source for moral guidance.

So, help me out here. Which premise (P1 or P2) are you questioning?

Neither.

But if P1 were simply "The Bible endorses slavery", it would be that one.

I do find P2 sort of interesting now that I look at it plainly, but that might be a subject for another thread. Lots of appeals to vague concepts like "conscience" in this thread...

 

[Jarhyn]

The thing is, this leads into Politesse's point. While they are probably already dimly aware of how attrocious the OT is, there are some messages that are equally biblical that stand in counterpoint that can and should be more at the top of your mind to temper the believer's belief. Because, the idea that atheists can debate christians away from Christianity is a myth - the only person who can navigate these people out of the cave is themselves.

A rational person accepts that there are people he cannot reach rationally, and so you have to take another path. Putting yourself on opposite sides of a battle line (bible is ambiguously pro-slavery, so bible is wrong and Christianity is stupid) will remove from you the power to do even that much.

Couldn't the same reasoning be applied about discussing any -ism? Should we laud some sections of Mien Kampf and ignore others when trying to discuss politics with Neo-NAZIs? They would already believe the book was a masterpiece so wouldn't pointing out the bad parts to demonstrate the evil alienate them?

When you are in a situation where you cannot punch the Nazi to obscurity or death, where Mein Kampf is a fixture of a culture you cannot escape. Yes, you cherry-pick the hell out of it at that point... Though that document has very little to work with.

You use whatever arguments you have to at that point, within their structure of belief, to push them towards less damaging behavior and outcomes

 

[Politesse]

The thing is, this leads into Politesse's point. While they are probably already dimly aware of how attrocious the OT is, there are some messages that are equally biblical that stand in counterpoint that can and should be more at the top of your mind to temper the believer's belief. Because, the idea that atheists can debate christians away from Christianity is a myth - the only person who can navigate these people out of the cave is themselves.

A rational person accepts that there are people he cannot reach rationally, and so you have to take another path. Putting yourself on opposite sides of a battle line (bible is ambiguously pro-slavery, so bible is wrong and Christianity is stupid) will remove from you the power to do even that much.

Couldn't the same reasoning be applied about discussing any -ism? Should we laud some sections of Mien Kampf and ignore others when trying to discuss politics with Neo-NAZIs? They would already believe the book was a masterpiece so wouldn't pointing out the bad parts to demonstrate the evil alienate them?

When you are in a situation where you cannot punch the Nazi to obscurity or death, where Mein Kampf is a fixture of a culture you cannot escape. Yes, you cherry-pick the hell out of it at that point... Though that document has very little to work with.

You use whatever arguments you have to at that point, within their structure of belief, to push them towards less damaging behavior and outcomes

That's certainly what I would do. If Mein Kampf included inherent contradictions - say, just as a wild hypothetical, insisting on the importance a strong and unified State bolstered by the mutual love of Her common citizens but also encouraging citizens to police each other's actions and fear their leaders in a way that greatly weakens the state through erosion of public trust and confidence ultimately leading to an inevitable but humiliating collapse hastened by international pressure and military infighting - I would absolutely make sure everyone knew about those contradictions, had been forced to really think about them. Whether or not their interpretation of the work was truly accomplishing the outcomes it promised in its admittedly slim more idealized sections.

 

[Jarhyn]

When you are in a situation where you cannot punch the Nazi to obscurity or death, where Mein Kampf is a fixture of a culture you cannot escape. Yes, you cherry-pick the hell out of it at that point... Though that document has very little to work with.

You use whatever arguments you have to at that point, within their structure of belief, to push them towards less damaging behavior and outcomes

That's certainly what I would do. If Mein Kampf included inherent contradictions - say, just as a wild hypothetical, insisting on the importance a strong and unified State bolstered by the mutual love of Her common citizens but also encouraging citizens to police each other's actions and fear their leaders in a way that greatly weakens the state through erosion of public trust and confidence ultimately leading to an inevitable but humiliating collapse hastened by international pressure and military infighting - I would absolutely make sure everyone knew about those contradictions, had been forced to really think about them. Whether or not their interpretation of the work was truly accomplishing the outcomes it promised in its admittedly slim more idealized sections.

*While.praying the whole while that they realize how the whole thing is a dubious pile of crap from the conflicts between the various passages.

 

[Politesse]

Well, yes. Once you resolve all the logical contradictions in Mein Kampf, all you have left is a rather boring autobiography.

 

[Jarhyn]

Well, yes. Once you resolve all the logical contradictions in Mein Kampf, all you have left is a rather boring autobiography.

And whiney. You totally forgot whiney.

 

[skepticalbip]

Well, yes. Once you resolve all the logical contradictions in Mein Kampf, all you have left is a rather boring autobiography.

But that is assuming that a staunch neo-NAZI would (or could) recognize and acknowledge contradictions. I see that as unlikely as staunch Christians who take the Bible as the 'word of God' being capable of the same.

As an example, Lion adamantly denies that the Bible openly accepts slavery even though there are many passages that set rules on how to handle slaves.

 

[DBT]

Well, yes. Once you resolve all the logical contradictions in Mein Kampf, all you have left is a rather boring autobiography.

If the bible is the inspired word of God, as claimed by believers, there should be no contradictions. It should be the epitome of clarity...unless God seeks to deceive, or doesn't actually exist?

 

[Jarhyn]

Well, yes. Once you resolve all the logical contradictions in Mein Kampf, all you have left is a rather boring autobiography.

If the bible is the inspired word of God, as claimed by believers, there should be no contradictions. It should be the epitome of clarity...unless God seeks to deceive, or doesn't actually exist?

Indeed this is absolutely true! But I've never once actually been successful with this approach.

That is because you can't convince someone the contradictions are there through showing them. They will only believe "mysterious ways" or "an atheist can't understand! My pastor explained this!"

At best, one can approach the subject from the inside, show them that you respect and can relate to their beliefs, and then use this respect to gain some small measure of authority to direct them towards less harmful doctrines.

 

[ruby sparks]

At best, one can approach the subject from the inside, show them that you respect and can relate to their beliefs, and then use this respect to gain some small measure of authority to direct them towards less harmful doctrines.

Elfism, for example. Now there's harmless woo, if I ever saw it. Aside from mischief I mean.

Have you heard The Argument From Mischief?

It goes like this: Mischief exists, therefore elves. Pretty watertight, by woo standards, I'd say.

 

[Jarhyn]

At best, one can approach the subject from the inside, show them that you respect and can relate to their beliefs, and then use this respect to gain some small measure of authority to direct them towards less harmful doctrines.

Elfism, for example. Now there's harmless woo, if I ever saw it. Aside from mischief I mean.

Have you heard The Argument From Mischief?

It goes like this: Mischief exists, therefore elves. Pretty watertight, by woo standards, I'd say.

More... Elves, and the fae, DO have some shape in reality. And the shape they have is in stories and legends. And their reality, their hard and provable existence as a subject of stories (the truth of those stories being inconsequential) creates their undeniable reality in our dreams and imaginings going forward.

In fact, the stories of them often stir me myself to mischief. This is as real as they have to be for this to be true.

 

[Politesse]

Well, yes. Once you resolve all the logical contradictions in Mein Kampf, all you have left is a rather boring autobiography.

If the bible is the inspired word of God, as claimed by believers, there should be no contradictions. It should be the epitome of clarity...unless God seeks to deceive, or doesn't actually exist?

Or just, you know, an ancient text written by many humans from many cultures.

 

[J842P]

Well, yes. Once you resolve all the logical contradictions in Mein Kampf, all you have left is a rather boring autobiography.

If the bible is the inspired word of God, as claimed by believers, there should be no contradictions. It should be the epitome of clarity...unless God seeks to deceive, or doesn't actually exist?

Or just, you know, an ancient text written by many humans from many cultures.

Right, so not the word of God. Of course, some God may exist.

 

[Politesse]

Or just, you know, an ancient text written by many humans from many cultures.

Right, so not the word of God. Of course, some God may exist.

Eh. Who knows how a God might choose to speak?

 

[skepticalbip]

Or just, you know, an ancient text written by many humans from many cultures.

Right, so not the word of God. Of course, some God may exist.

Eh. Who knows how a God might choose to speak?

Obviously in glossolalia, at least that is what the pentecostals would expect but they would call it, "tongues"..

 

[DBT]

Well, yes. Once you resolve all the logical contradictions in Mein Kampf, all you have left is a rather boring autobiography.

If the bible is the inspired word of God, as claimed by believers, there should be no contradictions. It should be the epitome of clarity...unless God seeks to deceive, or doesn't actually exist?

Or just, you know, an ancient text written by many humans from many cultures.

The claim being; what was written by humans is inspired by God. That humans, inspired by God, wrote the books of the bible, that the bible represents the word of God.

 

[Politesse]

Or just, you know, an ancient text written by many humans from many cultures.

The claim being; what was written by humans is inspired by God. That humans, inspired by God, wrote the books of the bible, that the bible represents the word of God.

"Inspired" as in, like "My mom's sacrifices to keep us alive during the war years inspired me to write my latest poetry collection"? Or more like "This horror movie was inspired by a true story?" Either way I would expect a bit of embellishment in what followed, honestly.