The Bible And Slavery

[bilby]

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?

Every religion claims to know what a god (or gods) want. To claim that the way a god would communicate is unknowable is to contradict any claim to know what it wants.

Which is a bit of a shame for any religion that tries to conceal their fundamental failure to have any basis outside the minds of its founders behind a claim that gods are inscrutable and mysterious.

I am happy to accept that nobody knows how a god would communicate, but I cannot entertain that anybody has a valid opinion on what god might want, in a world where such a claim is true.

Either we don't know how a god would communicate, OR we can have an idea of what it wants. It's contradictory to entertain both concepts simultaneously, no matter how difficult that fact makes it to sell a religion.

The people who tell us how it's impossible to know the mind of god always seem to be the SAME people who are confident that they know the mind of god. Pick one. You can't have your cake, and eat it.

 

[Politesse]

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

Every religion claims to know what a god (or gods) want. To claim that the way a god would communicate is unknowable is to contradict any claim to know what it wants.

Which is a bit of a shame for any religion that tries to conceal their fundamental failure to have any basis outside the minds of its founders behind a claim that gods are inscrutable and mysterious.

I am happy to accept that nobody knows how a god would communicate, but I cannot entertain that anybody has a valid opinion on what god might want, in a world where such a claim is true.

Either we don't know how a god would communicate, OR we can have an idea of what it wants. It's contradictory to entertain both concepts simultaneously, no matter how difficult that fact makes it to sell a religion.

The people who tell us how it's impossible to know the mind of god always seem to be the SAME people who are confident that they know the mind of god. Pick one. You can't have your cake, and eat it.

I would agree with that.

 

[DBT]

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.

Those who believe in the God of the bible claim literal inspiration, that God in fact inspired the authors to write the books of the bible. That they wrote what God wanted them to write, by the will of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Politesse]

"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.

Those who believe in the God of the bible claim literal inspiration, that God in fact inspired the authors to write the books of the bible. That they wrote what God wanted them to write, by the will of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Thanks, pastor.

 

[DBT]

"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.

Those who believe in the God of the bible claim literal inspiration, that God in fact inspired the authors to write the books of the bible. That they wrote what God wanted them to write, by the will of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Thanks, pastor.

Just pointing out what some people happen to believe. It has nothing to do with me. Your response is quite revealing...implying quite a bit of cherry picking at work.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Finding the true nature of God and His Holy Book is easy -- here's how:

The Bible Is in No Sense a Pro-Genocide Work
1. Genocide is commission, not omission. Anyone who died in the Genesis flood counts as collateral damage in God's plan of irrigation and species relocation.
2. Smug atheists like to quote Deut. 20:17: You shall utterly destroy them, the Hittites and Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebussites, for the LORD your GOD has ordered you. A trained linguist, however, will know to apply the tools of philology to the text. At a minimum, consider: "utterly destroy" can mean: 'to amuse an audience until it is weak with mirth'.
3. Jesus did not directly address genocide, but he also did not teach on the morality of mortgages, lawn upkeep, or public indecency. I ask you.
4. A correct reading of the Bible's message of love and mercy shows that it is antithetical to genocide, which therefore obviously overrides Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, I and II Samuel, and, for renewed emphasis, Joshua.
5. Genocide is a reality in the world today, so why are you hypocritical atheists criticizing the Bible? How dare you!! This invalidates your case and shows that it is YOU who are pro-genocide. That's on YOU.

 

[Jarhyn]

Finding the true nature of God and His Holy Book is easy -- here's how:

The Bible Is in No Sense a Pro-Genocide Work
1. Genocide is commission, not omission. Anyone who died in the Genesis flood counts as collateral damage in God's plan of irrigation and species relocation.
2. Smug atheists like to quote Deut. 20:17: You shall utterly destroy them, the Hittites and Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebussites, for the LORD your GOD has ordered you. A trained linguist, however, will know to apply the tools of philology to the text. At a minimum, consider: "utterly destroy" can mean: 'to amuse an audience until it is weak with mirth'.
3. Jesus did not directly address genocide, but he also did not teach on the morality of mortgages, lawn upkeep, or public indecency. I ask you.
4. A correct reading of the Bible's message of love and mercy shows that it is antithetical to genocide, which therefore obviously overrides Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, I and II Samuel, and, for renewed emphasis, Joshua.
5. Genocide is a reality in the world today, so why are you hypocritical atheists criticizing the Bible? How dare you!! This invalidates your case and shows that it is YOU who are pro-genocide. That's on YOU.

And has been pointed out, nobody is arguing against the fact here that the bible contains awful shit.

It comes down to a conundrum of epic proportions: how do you have difficult discussions with christians about all the awful shit in the bible?

Because hearing from a message of attack from a nonbeliever will result in defensiveness. The discussion Politesse is having is not defense of the bible but rather a practical talk about what doesn't actually work.

If your goal is "to do what works", to effectively act in the universe, to have magic that actually achieves your goals, it seems you are not acting rationally. You are accusing christians, even the ones who don't support awful shit, of supporting awful shit, saying the words that pastors say when they want to radicalized people to accept awful shit.

Instead, Politesse is making a recommendation: convince them of all the parts where jesus described how to be a good person, where other people talked about self-sacrifice and acceptance of others. And for my own part, I throw in a healthy discussion of how if there is anything that is the direct spoken word of God it is the universe itself, not a dusty tome passed through the hands of men, and one must focus on how to directly read and listen to the authentic article rather than man's pale counterfeit, and *fucking show your goddamn "translational" work*.

 

[Rhea]

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

Every religion claims to know what a god (or gods) want. To claim that the way a god would communicate is unknowable is to contradict any claim to know what it wants.

Which is a bit of a shame for any religion that tries to conceal their fundamental failure to have any basis outside the minds of its founders behind a claim that gods are inscrutable and mysterious.

I am happy to accept that nobody knows how a god would communicate, but I cannot entertain that anybody has a valid opinion on what god might want, in a world where such a claim is true.

Either we don't know how a god would communicate, OR we can have an idea of what it wants. It's contradictory to entertain both concepts simultaneously, no matter how difficult that fact makes it to sell a religion.

The people who tell us how it's impossible to know the mind of god always seem to be the SAME people who are confident that they know the mind of god. Pick one. You can't have your cake, and eat it.

I would agree with that.

I’m confused, because you keep saying that somehow you know the mind of god is accurate in new testament (parts of it, the parts that are nice) but not accurate in the not-nice parts.

How do you know that the nice parts are the godly parts? Aren’t you just saying cherry-picking is godly when it’s your cherries?

 

[Rhea]

And has been pointed out, nobody is arguing against the fact here that the bible contains awful shit.

It comes down to a conundrum of epic proportions: how do you have difficult discussions with christians about all the awful shit in the bible?

Because hearing from a message of attack from a nonbeliever will result in defensiveness. The discussion Politesse is having is not defense of the bible but rather a practical talk about what doesn't actually work.

I get what you’re saing, I’m just not convinced the “be nice to the CHristians and talk to them in their own language” idea has any evidence of working, either, as long as the nasty shit remains in the bible. It just... doesn’t seem to have worked very well over the last 2000 years, you know?

So far the evidence that this is a fruitful course of action is Politesse saying he has evangelized some christians and gotten them to change their religion to match his. That’s an anecdote. One that is countered by the number of people who leave religion over the inability to resolve the real logical and moral conflicts in their scripture.

We could perhaps compare the number of peope who leave fundamentalism for liberalism versus the number of people who leave religion altogether. Pew probably has some numbers on that.

But Politesse has not provided a convincing argument that it actually is more fruitful to attempt to convert to liberalism versus deconvert.

 

[Politesse]

I would agree with that.

I’m confused, because you keep saying that somehow you know the mind of god is accurate in new testament (parts of it, the parts that are nice) but not accurate in the not-nice parts.

I never said anything of the sort. I don't think anyone has objective answers to those kinds of questions.

I think you're confused because I've made arguments about the contents of the Bible itself. But though an avid reader, I am not a prophet nor would I claim to be.

 

[Politesse]

But Politesse has not provided a convincing argument that it actually is more fruitful to attempt to convert to liberalism versus deconvert.

You don't have to "convert to liberalism" to oppose slavery. One reason why I see the derail into my agnostic personal beliefs as irrelevant. While your opposition to the Book itself might be more sensible if it is all literally interpreted, my case for abolition is actually stronger as well if God hand-picked every word to insert into the text by hand. You have an implicit endorsement of an existing social institution, but an absolutely explicit commandment toward universal love. If every word is hand-picked by Jesus, then the categorical rule obviously trumps the ancedotal case, as one can have love without slavery but not slavery and love. How someone manages to resolve the contradiction is theirs to work out, and I have no intention of helping them, but the conclusion is clear enough. I note that most Christians came to that conclusion on their own over time; there have been a handful of committed atheists in the abolitionist movement to be sure and we owe them a debt of gratitude, but they are not working alone. For the record, I welcome the aid of anyone interested in fighting this ancient campaign with me, regardless of religious background or lack thereof.

I have no intention or expectation of changing anyone's religious identity, that is an internal process and neither my business nor something one could reasonably hope to change through conversation alone. As I explained earlier, the posts that confused you were about my political advocacy earlier in the year. I don't "convert" people, but I do give them good reasons to change their mind about how they see the world. Indeed, looked at from a certain angle, that is my entire vocation in addition to how I spend most of my free time. I don't think people need new labels, but I do think sometimes they need help questioning the assumptions they've become burrowed into.

 

[Atheos]

There once was an emperor who was wearing no clothes, only a highly bejeweled crown.

Most people who saw him ignored the fact that he was wearing no clothes and instead remarked on the beauty of the crown he was wearing. A few couldn't help but point out that the emperor was naked. Except, of course, for the crown.

But one polite and well educated member of the community pointed out why these people should keep their comments to themselves: "Most people in this empire would look absolutely horrible if they were to wear no clothes. If anyone ever hears people talking about how the emperor wears no clothes they themselves will start walking about unclothed! We will all be forced to look upon wrinkly folds of pallid skin that should always be covered for decency's sake. Those who are wont to talk of the emperor's nakedness are in favor of everyone walking around naked!"

And so it came to pass that such talk was silenced. The moral of the story is that it's better to ignore stuff because talking about it may cause some people to act in undesirable ways.

 

[Politesse]

There once was an emperor who was wearing no clothes, only a highly bejeweled crown.

Most people who saw him ignored the fact that he was wearing no clothes and instead remarked on the beauty of the crown he was wearing. A few couldn't help but point out that the emperor was naked. Except, of course, for the crown.

But one polite and well educated member of the community pointed out why these people should keep their comments to themselves: "Most people in this empire would look absolutely horrible if they were to wear no clothes. If anyone ever hears people talking about how the emperor wears no clothes they themselves will start walking about unclothed! We will all be forced to look upon wrinkly folds of pallid skin that should always be covered for decency's sake. Those who are wont to talk of the emperor's nakedness are in favor of everyone walking around naked!"

And so it came to pass that such talk was silenced. The moral of the story is that it's better to ignore stuff because talking about it may cause some people to act in undesirable ways.

An apt old fable in some ways, but I think you're a bit confused, since "the Bible endorses slavery" is the state-supporting propaganda in this case. Like the King in the story, many try to wear a portrayal of the Bible in lieu of actually doing as it says. The extreme claims in this thread, which are identical to those made by the slavers themselves in everything except for the conclusion, are akin to people insisting that the King is wearing clothing but objecting to the color. Like we can all fully agree that he is a clothes-wearer, but I reject his style, too fleshy-looking.'

I have been doing the exact opposite of asking people to ignore the issue, I wish you all would apply more critical thinking to what you type, not less. Criticizing something is not silencing it. Refusing to discuss it is another matter. As when, for instance, you dismissed the system of continued system of slavery openly and legally practiced in the for-profit prison system as irrelevant, and refused to explore the matter further. I was fully willing to explore the question despite disagreeing with you, but instead you "bowed out", presumably when you realized your previously stated positions were putting you into a very awkward corner if you were to proceed. Very temporarily bowed out, I note, as you are now back, but speaking in parables rather than directly addressing previous critiques on rational grounds.

 

[ruby sparks]

Because hearing from a message of attack from a nonbeliever will result in defensiveness.

Religious Fragility?

 

[Jarhyn]

Because hearing from a message of attack from a nonbeliever will result in defensiveness.

Religious Fragility?

And unfortunately so.

 

[DBT]

If the love of Jesus condemns the practice of slavery through implication even while the bible instructs on slave ownership , does this same Love also condemn Eternal Damnation for mere lack of faith even while we are warned of the consequences?

 

[Politesse]

If the love of Jesus condemns the practice of slavery through implication even while the bible instructs on slave ownership , does this same Love also condemn Eternal Damnation for mere lack of faith even while we are warned of the consequences?

I should think so, but then I am not very sympathetic to that claim in the first place. I imagine you're aware of the many apologetic arguments that have been crafted in defense of that doctrine.

It's worth noting that many of the earliest Christian theologians were universalist (ie., persons who reject the idea of selective eternal suffering); it's not a new perspective so much as a perspective that took a fifteen hundred year long nap. But it is also a distinctly minority perspective. Personally I think this has more to do with the emotional satisfaction of imagining supernatural punishment for natural grievances, than it does with any sort of consistent reasoning.

 

[DBT]

Yet I can find verses that explicitly tell us of the consequences of not accepting Jesus as the Saviour, verses that describe eternal damnation and torment.

 

[Politesse]

Yet I can find verses that explicitly tell us of the consequences of not accepting Jesus as the Saviour, verses that describe eternal damnation and torment.

And they found verses that suggested the contrary. Are we going to once again feign shock at the idea that two people with different prerogatives might find different, even conflicting messages in the same book? Perhaps this should be a disturbing thought to a textual literalist, though they have of course their own rhetorical strategies of explaining away seeming inconsistencies.

 

[skepticalbip]

Yet I can find verses that explicitly tell us of the consequences of not accepting Jesus as the Saviour, verses that describe eternal damnation and torment.

And they found verses that suggested the contrary. Are we going to once again feign shock at the idea that two people with different prerogatives might find different, even conflicting messages in the same book? Perhaps this should be a disturbing thought to a textual literalist, though they have of course their own rhetorical strategies of explaining away seeming inconsistencies.

Exactly. Thus demonstrating that the Bible is worthless as a guide to behavior, ethics, morality, etc. People develop their own world view, influenced by authority figures, family, and peers then confirm that view by cherry picking phrases from the Bible and claiming it is the "word of God". This has been done throughout the last couple thousand years and resulted in justification for many atrocities.