The Bible And Slavery

[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.

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.

What is the solution to this?

 

[skepticalbip]

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.

What is the solution to this?

That question assumes that there is a solution to eliminate human suffering. A better question would be, "Can there be a solution". Buddha said, "no".

 

[abaddon]

Some of us "deconverts" from Christianity learned to doubt the alleged wisdom in all books and authority figures and to look to our own reasoning ability for figuring out what's right and wrong.

If a person believes something's wrong (slavery) or that something's right (love) merely on the say-so of an authority figure, they're still an unthinking believer who's prone to taking up dumb beliefs.

So why not target what makes people prone to that? Namely their propensity to rely overmuch on authoritative sources.

 

[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.

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.

The text appears to literally describe both the attributes of love, how to treat slaves and the consequences of not accepting Jesus. If the text, its descriptions and warnings were not meant to be taken literally, what do they stand for? What do they represent?

 

[Politesse]

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.

What is the solution to this?

That question assumes that there is a solution to eliminate human suffering. A better question would be, "Can there be a solution". Buddha said, "no".

True! Or perhaps, in the wise words of Lawrence Lasker, that the only way to win an unwinnable game, is not to play.

 

[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.

The text appears to literally describe both the attributes of love, how to treat slaves and the consequences of not accepting Jesus. If the text, its descriptions and warnings were not meant to be taken literally, what do they stand for? What do they represent?

Those strike me as very different questions, and I'm not sure I accept any of its premises -- that the works had a single author, that they did not mean everything they were writing literally, that their goals were descriptive rather than prescriptive... Are you sure the discussion that would ensue is relevant?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

If you think I am not capable of making an argument against Christianity, you definitely do not understand the principal argument I've been making in this thread.

You seem to misunderstand. I never suggested that you are not capable of making an argument against Christianity. Rather, I was mirroring your argument against atheists who argue against Christanity by pointing to some of the atrocities supported by parts of the Bible. The apologetics you are doing in this thread are less important than saving people. Are you behaving then unethically by being here taking part in this debate? If not, what's left of your argument against atheists who argue against the Bible as described?

Worship a flying spaghetti monster or a chopped salad if you like, but don't expect me to give you a pass on moral responsibility or critical thinking because of your chosen label.

No one is suggesting giving people a pass for what they believe. If that is your main claim, you seem to be violently agreeing with most people here.

Of course, what you consider your "principal argument" may well not be what some people who are criticized by your other arguments will want to reply to. You have to take your other claims into consideration. People will likely focus on them as long as they are on the receiving end, even if you consider them secondary.

I've not "brushed" anything "under the rug". The only people in this thread trying to deny that parts of the Bible exist or are relevant are the pro-slavery crowd.

For example, that implies there is a "pro-slavery" crowd in this thread.

There are plenty of perfectly sensible atheists in this thread alone who do not insist that God has endorsed slavery, and perhaps one and a half Christians who have tacitly done so.

The Biblical creator, as described in, well, the Bible, has endorsed slavery repeatedly. Though it has been even clearer in not just endorsing but commanding that a woman be stoned to death if she has consensual sex before being handed over to the man chosen by her father as a husband, commanded the mass murder of populations of entire cities, hacking and slicing children, and so on. Sure, he also later commanded that you love your neighbor as much as you love yourself - which is clearly a much less unethical command, and would make it more difficult for his followers to carry out some of the atrocities he previously had commanded. Through his son/envoy/whatever, he even went on to say that whoever is free of guilt must cast the first stone, but also that the law will be fulfilled and not changed at all. That's the Biblical creator for you - the supervillain who, also unethically but much less so, commands that people love him.

It's not just about values, their reading is indeed immoral but it is also blatantly illogical and inconsistent. You are not truly an "inerrantist" if you only consider the most vicious parts of the Bible to be literally true and binding, while ignoring its own stated moral principles.

Well, I don't think they're true or binding of course. I think they are the actions of the Biblical god as described by the Bible, and of course he is a monster. Who sometimes may have done some good things too, and some evil but less evil ones (one might say the same about Bashar al-Assad. Or Thanos).

How else could one possibly be a moral person than to embrace the good and reject the bad, regardless of topic?

If the topic is, say, the actions of Bashar al-Assad, one could behave in an ethically proper manner by showing his atrocities. There is no obligation of focusing only on his good deeds, or even in mentioning them if a defender of Assad is the opponent. It's enough to not deny them. The same if we are talking about Thanos in a movie. Or about the Biblical creator.

I'm not asking anyone to "support the goodness", just stop endorsing the badness.

To point out that according to the available evidence, Assad engaged in such-and-such atrocities and for that reason he is not a good person, is not to endorse his actions.
To point out that according to what we can see in the movies, Thanos engaged in such-and-such atrocities and for that reason he is not a good person, is not to endorse his actions.

To point out that according to what we can read in the Bible, the Biblical creator engaged in such-and-such atrocities and for that reason he is not a good person, is not to endorse his actions.

 

[Politesse]

You seem to misunderstand. I never suggested that you are not capable of making an argument against Christianity. Rather, I was mirroring your argument against atheists who argue against Christanity by pointing to some of the atrocities supported by parts of the Bible. The apologetics you are doing in this thread are less important than saving people. Are you behaving then unethically by being here taking part in this debate? If not, what's left of your argument against atheists who argue against the Bible as described?

No one is suggesting giving people a pass for what they believe. If that is your main claim, you seem to be violently agreeing with most people here.

Of course, what you consider your "principal argument" may well not be what some people who are criticized by your other arguments will want to reply to. You have to take your other claims into consideration. People will likely focus on them as long as they are on the receiving end, even if you consider them secondary.

I've not "brushed" anything "under the rug". The only people in this thread trying to deny that parts of the Bible exist or are relevant are the pro-slavery crowd.

For example, that implies there is a "pro-slavery" crowd in this thread.

There are plenty of perfectly sensible atheists in this thread alone who do not insist that God has endorsed slavery, and perhaps one and a half Christians who have tacitly done so.

The Biblical creator, as described in, well, the Bible, has endorsed slavery repeatedly. Though it has been even clearer in not just endorsing but commanding that a woman be stoned to death if she has consensual sex before being handed over to the man chosen by her father as a husband, commanded the mass murder of populations of entire cities, hacking and slicing children, and so on. Sure, he also later commanded that you love your neighbor as much as you love yourself - which is clearly a much less unethical command, and would make it more difficult for his followers to carry out some of the atrocities he previously had commanded. Through his son/envoy/whatever, he even went on to say that whoever is free of guilt must cast the first stone, but also that the law will be fulfilled and not changed at all. That's the Biblical creator for you - the supervillain who, also unethically but much less so, commands that people love him.

It's not just about values, their reading is indeed immoral but it is also blatantly illogical and inconsistent. You are not truly an "inerrantist" if you only consider the most vicious parts of the Bible to be literally true and binding, while ignoring its own stated moral principles.

Well, I don't think they're true or binding of course. I think they are the actions of the Biblical god as described by the Bible, and of course he is a monster. Who sometimes may have done some good things too, and some evil but less evil ones (one might say the same about Bashar al-Assad. Or Thanos).

How else could one possibly be a moral person than to embrace the good and reject the bad, regardless of topic?

If the topic is, say, the actions of Bashar al-Assad, one could behave in an ethically proper manner by showing his atrocities. There is no obligation of focusing only on his good deeds, or even in mentioning them if a defender of Assad is the opponent. It's enough to not deny them. The same if we are talking about Thanos in a movie. Or about the Biblical creator.

I'm not asking anyone to "support the goodness", just stop endorsing the badness.

To point out that according to the available evidence, Assad engaged in such-and-such atrocities and for that reason he is not a good person, is not to endorse his actions.
To point out that according to what we can see in the movies, Thanos engaged in such-and-such atrocities and for that reason he is not a good person, is not to endorse his actions.

To point out that according to what we can read in the Bible, the Biblical creator engaged in such-and-such atrocities and for that reason he is not a good person, is not to endorse his actions.

I feel as though you're inventing quite a lot of positions that I don't hold. They seem to center around the idea that the Biblical God cannot or should not be a legitimate object of critique. I do not agree with, and would not advocate for, that position.

Are you just falling into the position of assuming that if I disagree with you on one thing, that I must disagree with you on everything?

To take your example, I see "The Bible endorses slavery" and leaving it at that, as a bit like saying "Syrians support Bashar al-Assad" and leaving it at that. Obviously true in some measure, in that a great many Syrians do, but also a factually deceptive and morally quite irresponsible argument to be making without qualification, especially if you follow it up by either disregarding (or worse, outright attacking) the subsequent evidence people would surely bring up to point out that one can be, and arguably should be, Syrians without supporting Bashar al-Assad unconditionally. Or worse, screeching that any support of rebel Syrians is still support for Bashar al-Asad, since it's just encouraging people to stay and continue to fight for a free Syria, when what you want is for the rebels to emigrate to other countries, and the Syrian state itself utterly destroyed. To continue the metaphor.

 

[DBT]

The text appears to literally describe both the attributes of love, how to treat slaves and the consequences of not accepting Jesus. If the text, its descriptions and warnings were not meant to be taken literally, what do they stand for? What do they represent?

Those strike me as very different questions, and I'm not sure I accept any of its premises -- that the works had a single author, that they did not mean everything they were writing literally, that their goals were descriptive rather than prescriptive... Are you sure the discussion that would ensue is relevant?

It's relevant because if Love excludes eternal damnation, eternal damnation should not be described as a consequence of failing to accept Jesus or believe in God.

With both in place, Love on one hand, eternal damnation on the other, we are left with a contradiction. A contradiction that extends far and wide, including slavery.

Slavery you say is is excluded by the attributes of Love, yet we have slaves being instructed to obey their masters in all things, instructions to slave owners on how to treat their slaves...but no explicit condemnation of slavery.

What is to be made of this? It neither works literally or as metaphor.

 

[Jarhyn]

The text appears to literally describe both the attributes of love, how to treat slaves and the consequences of not accepting Jesus. If the text, its descriptions and warnings were not meant to be taken literally, what do they stand for? What do they represent?

Those strike me as very different questions, and I'm not sure I accept any of its premises -- that the works had a single author, that they did not mean everything they were writing literally, that their goals were descriptive rather than prescriptive... Are you sure the discussion that would ensue is relevant?

It's relevant because if Love excludes eternal damnation, eternal damnation should not be described as a consequence of failing to accept Jesus or believe in God.

With both in place, Love on one hand, eternal damnation on the other, we are left with a contradiction. A contradiction that extends far and wide, including slavery.

Slavery you say is is excluded by the attributes of Love, yet we have slaves being instructed to obey their masters in all things, instructions to slave owners on how to treat their slaves...but no explicit condemnation of slavery.

What is to be made of this? It neither works literally or as metaphor.

Damnation eternal should indeed not be described as a consequence. I would myself choose damnation over any fate I might endure at the hands of a being that would make eternal suffering exist.

I expect Politesse would do the same.

We.already reject much of what Christians wish to say of God and attribute to his "word". We take it as, mostly, just literature with some useful bits.

The point is that framing our response to christians engaging in slavery is a chief concern. They should be framed in a way to stop the slavery with the least violence and available martyrdom.

 

[Politesse]

It's relevant because if Love excludes eternal damnation, eternal damnation should not be described as a consequence of failing to accept Jesus or believe in God.

With both in place, Love on one hand, eternal damnation on the other, we are left with a contradiction. A contradiction that extends far and wide, including slavery.

Slavery you say is is excluded by the attributes of Love, yet we have slaves being instructed to obey their masters in all things, instructions to slave owners on how to treat their slaves...but no explicit condemnation of slavery.

What is to be made of this? It neither works literally or as metaphor.

Damnation eternal should indeed not be described as a consequence. I would myself choose damnation over any fate I might endure at the hands of a being that would make eternal suffering exist.

I expect Politesse would do the same.

We.already reject much of what Christians wish to say of God and attribute to his "word". We take it as, mostly, just literature with some useful bits.

The point is that framing our response to christians engaging in slavery is a chief concern. They should be framed in a way to stop the slavery with the least violence and available martyrdom.

I don't know if I would have put it quite that way. My actual perspective on the Logos Theon is a topic worth discussion perhaps. But yes, eye on the prize here.

 

[atrib]

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.

Yet you keep telling us that the central thesis of the Bible is love, as preached by Jesus, when it is nothing of the sort. The Bible is very clear in its message, and a plain reading of the book leaves me with no confusion as to what that message is. You are free to read it any way you wish, but the message of the Bible is not what you have been championing in this thread. Nor is it interpreted that way by many of the devout Christians who inhabit the southeast US where I have lived for over 30 years.

 

[Politesse]

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.

Yet you keep telling us that the central thesis of the Bible is love, as preached by Jesus, when it is nothing of the sort. The Bible is very clear in its message, and a plain reading of the book leaves me with no confusion as to what that message is. You are free to read it any way you wish, but the message of the Bible is not what you have been championing in this thread. Nor is it interpreted that way by many of the devout Christians who inhabit the southeast US where I have lived for over 30 years.

Yes, so clear that no one agrees on it. That is exactly how clarity works.

Wait, are you claiming that the majority of Southeasterners would agree that the Bible uncomplicatedly endorses slavery? Even your Black neighbors in the faith? 'cause I bet they don't. If you're going to try for an argument from popularity, best make sure the numbers agree with you first!

I've not made any claim about a "central thesis" to the Bible as a whole, but I would definitely argue that Jesus' teachings had some central theses, which he helpfully defined himself over numerous sermons of record.

 

[skepticalbip]

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.

Yet you keep telling us that the central thesis of the Bible is love, as preached by Jesus, when it is nothing of the sort. The Bible is very clear in its message, and a plain reading of the book leaves me with no confusion as to what that message is. You are free to read it any way you wish, but the message of the Bible is not what you have been championing in this thread. Nor is it interpreted that way by many of the devout Christians who inhabit the southeast US where I have lived for over 30 years.

My personal take on the Bible is that there are two primary message, one in each testament.

The overriding message of the Old Testament is that we are to punish those who do not obey the commandments and laws. If we don't god will smite both them and us. If we see a witch, fornicator, etc. then we are to stone them or god will take us all out like he did in Sodom or in the flood.

The primary message of the New Testament is that if we don't accept Jesus as god we will experience eternal torment. If we do and are pure of heart then we will be rewarded.

Of course there are a lot of other minor messages that generally contradict other minor messages.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Blood sacrifice: the enduring and most consistent Bible message. Love? Forgiveness? Shit, God doesn't practice that.

 

[skepticalbip]

Blood sacrifice: the enduring and most consistent Bible message. Love? Forgiveness? Shit, God doesn't practice that.

But he is really into punishment, even to eternal torment, for those who fail to follow the commandments and laws.

 

[Politesse]

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.

Yet you keep telling us that the central thesis of the Bible is love, as preached by Jesus, when it is nothing of the sort. The Bible is very clear in its message, and a plain reading of the book leaves me with no confusion as to what that message is. You are free to read it any way you wish, but the message of the Bible is not what you have been championing in this thread. Nor is it interpreted that way by many of the devout Christians who inhabit the southeast US where I have lived for over 30 years.

My personal take on the Bible is that there are two primary message, one in each testament.

The overriding message of the Old Testament is that we are to punish those who do not obey the commandments and laws. If we don't god will smite both them and us. If we see a witch, fornicator, etc. then we are to stone them or god will take us all out like he did in Sodom or in the flood.

The primary message of the New Testament is that if we don't accept Jesus as god we will experience eternal torment. If we do and are pure of heart then we will be rewarded.

Of course there are a lot of other minor messages that generally contradict other minor messages.

The "primary message" is something that is never explicitly stated and has to be "pieced together" by cutting and pasting this and that verse from different books. The things which are actually spelled out very clearly are "minor messages".

Out of curiosity, have you ever considered joining the Southern Baptist Convention? You'd make a fine fire-and-brimstone minister, and you'd love their perspective on the Jews.

 

[skepticalbip]

My personal take on the Bible is that there are two primary message, one in each testament.

The overriding message of the Old Testament is that we are to punish those who do not obey the commandments and laws. If we don't god will smite both them and us. If we see a witch, fornicator, etc. then we are to stone them or god will take us all out like he did in Sodom or in the flood.

The primary message of the New Testament is that if we don't accept Jesus as god we will experience eternal torment. If we do and are pure of heart then we will be rewarded.

Of course there are a lot of other minor messages that generally contradict other minor messages.

The "primary message" is something that is never explicitly stated and has to be "pieced together" by cutting and pasting this and that verse from different books.

It is spelled out in each of the Gospels that the only way to heaven is through acceptance of Jesus. No where in the Bible have I seen that being nice to and loving each other will get someone into heaven. Maybe you could direct me to that. Yes, we are supposed to be loving but that isn't a path to heaven.

Out of curiosity, have you ever considered joining the Southern Baptist Convention? You'd make a fine fire-and-brimstone minister, and you'd love their perspective on the Jews.

Nope. My grandfather was a Methodist minister so I grew up immersed in the church. In my early teens I decided to read the whole Bible to find out what was in it rather than just the selected bits I was directed to. I was a bit surprised that the whole Bible gave a quite different message than was expected from the nice bits I had been spoon fed.

 

[Politesse]

It is spelled out in each of the Gospels that the only way to heaven is through acceptance of Jesus.

"Spelled out" usually means it is written down somewhere in plain English, or in this case, plain Greek. I'm aware of the wham texts that are used to justify that doctrine, but it is not stated explicitly, they have to make quite a mush of the text to get to it, and as always ignore quite a lot of the rest in order to keep it. Doubly true of the Synoptics, since you specifically claim gospel synchrony here. John's gospel talks a fair bit more about Hell, but when it comes up in the others, it is always in the context of the powerful abusing the poor, and eventually getting their comeuppance. A very different path to perdition than you are suggesting here.

If the Bible's message is so plain, clear, and obvious, why are there so many thousands of different denominations, many of whom believe flatly contradictory things, but most of which claim to be following the plain and obvious truths of the Good Book? Do you really and honestly believe that fundamentalist Protestants are the only people in the history of the world who ever learned to read a book and understand its central message? Because I have some bad news for you about the general nature of the correlation between religious fundamentalism and literacy.

 

[DBT]

If the rich are said to be in that position by the will of God, as are Rulers and Governors, why should the rich get their comeuppance for fulfilling what is essentially the will of God?