The Bible And Slavery

[Politesse]

What conclusions may be drawn when, in the same book, we are told about love, kindness, forgiveness, yet eternal torment in hell for disbelief?

What conclusion is to be found in Love.....but slaves obey your master in all things?

That either one or both of those verses is wrong, or one of your assumptions about those verses is wrong, because they cannot both be correct if you are understanding them correctly.

What you are doing, instead, is simply ignoring any verse which does not suit your prerogatives.

As for coming to my own conclusions concerning your claim, you cannot reasonably deny that I have done so.

 

[Jarhyn]

Of course there are contradictions in the Bible.

We are not talking how to talk to someone to convince them the bible is even more appalling than it already is in their mind, in aggregate.

We are talking about how to start to guide the believer towards less awful beliefs because not everyone is ever going to get the background to holistically evaluate the bible. It takes work and effort and a hell of a lot of education and curious investigation and existential crises.

Ain't nobody got time for that.

 

[DBT]

What conclusions may be drawn when, in the same book, we are told about love, kindness, forgiveness, yet eternal torment in hell for disbelief?

What conclusion is to be found in Love.....but slaves obey your master in all things?

That either one or both of those verses is wrong, or one of your assumptions about those verses is wrong, because they cannot both be correct if you are understanding them correctly.

What you are doing, instead, is simply ignoring any verse which does not suit your prerogatives.

As for coming to my own conclusions concerning your claim, you cannot reasonably deny that I have done so.

Rather than me, my interpretation or assumptions, it is bible narrative that provides terms and references as a set of premises.

So if the premises have contradictions, the contradiction are determined by the narrative.

If the given definition of love excludes eternal torment, for example, yet eternal torment is the punishment for lack of faith, we appear to have a contradiction.

 

[Politesse]

Rather than me, my interpretation or assumptions, it is bible narrative that provides terms and references as a set of premises.

A book has no agency; we are always interpreting them. And obviously, not everyone interprets this book the way you do.

So if the premises have contradictions, the contradiction are determined by the narrative.

This makes even less sense. A book can't determine it's own contradictions and so forth, it is not alive. That is the job of the reader.

If the given definition of love excludes eternal torment, for example, yet eternal torment is the punishment for lack of faith, we appear to have a contradiction.

Yes, those statements contradict. None of them are actually said in the book under discussion, but they are contradictory interpretations thereof. Congratulations?

 

[DBT]

A book has no agency; we are always interpreting them. And obviously, not everyone interprets this book the way you do.

The meaning my be clear and concise, therefore very little interpretation is needed. If Love is said to forgiving and God is love, it doesn't take much in the way of interpretation to understand that the penalty of eternal damnation for lack of faith is not an act of forgiveness, therefore a contradiction. The terms are defined in the narrative.

This makes even less sense. A book can't determine it's own contradictions and so forth, it is not alive. That is the job of the reader.

As I said above, the terms and references of the narrative determine whether there is a contradiction or not.

Yes, those statements contradict. None of them are actually said in the book under discussion, but they are contradictory interpretations thereof. Congratulations?

They are in the bible, and much more. Love is quite clearly defined. As is the penalty for not accepting Jesus or believing in God. I can quote if you like, but I'm sure that anyone who has read the book is familiar with the quotes.

 

[ruby sparks]

A book has no agency; we are always interpreting them. And obviously, not everyone interprets this book the way you do.

This makes even less sense. A book can't determine it's own contradictions and so forth, it is not alive. That is the job of the reader.

Of course a book can contain contradictions (partly because it is written and indeed edited by alive human agents and can therefore be a record and an expression of their thinking). And the bible clearly does. And you can't interpret that away. Well, you can, but you're only kidding yourself about the role of interpretation, and you've effectively stopped truth-seeking. The contradictions are there. Better to acknowledge that, at least. It is possible to explain why thereafter (it's not even slightly difficult to do that) rather than be denialist about the content.

 

[Politesse]

A book has no agency; we are always interpreting them. And obviously, not everyone interprets this book the way you do.

This makes even less sense. A book can't determine it's own contradictions and so forth, it is not alive. That is the job of the reader.

Of course a book can contain contradictions. And the bible clearly does. And you can't interpret that away. Well, you can, but you're only cherry-picking. You may not use that term, you may think you're 'interpreting' but you're not.

You don't feel that readers interpret texts?

 

[ruby sparks]

A book has no agency; we are always interpreting them. And obviously, not everyone interprets this book the way you do.

This makes even less sense. A book can't determine it's own contradictions and so forth, it is not alive. That is the job of the reader.

Of course a book can contain contradictions. And the bible clearly does. And you can't interpret that away. Well, you can, but you're only cherry-picking. You may not use that term, you may think you're 'interpreting' but you're not.

You don't feel that readers interpret texts?

Yes, of course they do. But I do not believe that what words actually say or mean necessarily relies on a reader's interpretation. That seems to me to be incorrect. A possible conceit. And it could arguably rob writers of their point, and the writings of what they say. And why would we do that, or even want to? To make a square peg fit the round hole we have ready for it?

There are much better ways to explain the variegated content. 'It contains a range of views' would be the easiest, I think, and arguably the least surprising, all things considered in this case (so many different writers and contexts over such a long time, and even then only those that were deemed suitable for inclusion by the editors). Even one writer of any book (of any sort) in one context can be self-contradicting. But a prominent feature of this particular book/collection of texts is the former.

 

[DBT]

A book has no agency; we are always interpreting them. And obviously, not everyone interprets this book the way you do.

This makes even less sense. A book can't determine it's own contradictions and so forth, it is not alive. That is the job of the reader.

Of course a book can contain contradictions. And the bible clearly does. And you can't interpret that away. Well, you can, but you're only cherry-picking. You may not use that term, you may think you're 'interpreting' but you're not.

You don't feel that readers interpret texts?

If, for instance, the text tells us that love is patient, forgiving, never condemning....how is the reader to interpret the meaning of love, according to the author, if not precisely as described using the standard meanings of the words?

 

[ruby sparks]

And you can find a passage which condones justified revenge against enemies by believers in this god, and another that says to subsequent believers in this same god that revenge against one's enemies is wrong, and that you should love them.

Now, this is not an obstacle to saying, 'In my view, the latter is right (and aligns with my personal beliefs about god) but not the former'. And of itself, that view can be respected, imo, and indeed applauded.

But trying to say that the two (and indeed other comparable statements about various things) are not actually at odds with each other is another matter. That's where interpretative gymnastics often start to come into play, for one reason or another. The reason is often, I think, an attempt to reconcile, via personal interpretation, the various attributes of the supposed god, as described, into one non-contradictory entity, whereas imo saying that all the writers were (indeed are) fallible humans is the much better explanation instead. All relevant things considered, I'd go as far as to say it's stating the bleedin' obvious. If humans were capable of accurately determining the nature of a supposed god, it's very unlikely there'd be, and have been, so many, many versions of god (or indeed gods plural) not to mention tens of thousands of at least slightly different extant versions under just the one umbrella religion alone.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

You don't feel that readers interpret texts?

Yes, of course they do. But I do not believe that what words actually say or mean necessarily relies on a reader's interpretation. That seems to me to be incorrect. A possible conceit. And it could arguably rob writers of their point, and the writings of what they say. And why would we do that, or even want to? To make a square peg fit the round hole we have ready for it?

There are much better ways to explain the variegated content. 'It contains a range of views' would be the easiest, I think, and arguably the least surprising, all things considered in this case (so many different writers and contexts over such a long time, and even then only those that were deemed suitable for inclusion by the editors). Even one writer of any book (of any sort) in one context can be self-contradicting. But a prominent feature of this particular book/collection of texts is the former.

This gets back to jarhyn's larger point about the reader, knowledge and purpose. Does a person's bible have a purpose? For some people it's the recipe for making a god and so it's inerrant. For another person it's an object of curiosity. It can be literally anything on wishes depending upon what purpose - or purposes - one assigns.

 

[ruby sparks]

You don't feel that readers interpret texts?

Yes, of course they do. But I do not believe that what words actually say or mean necessarily relies on a reader's interpretation. That seems to me to be incorrect. A possible conceit. And it could arguably rob writers of their point, and the writings of what they say. And why would we do that, or even want to? To make a square peg fit the round hole we have ready for it?

There are much better ways to explain the variegated content. 'It contains a range of views' would be the easiest, I think, and arguably the least surprising, all things considered in this case (so many different writers and contexts over such a long time, and even then only those that were deemed suitable for inclusion by the editors). Even one writer of any book (of any sort) in one context can be self-contradicting. But a prominent feature of this particular book/collection of texts is the former.

This gets back to jarhyn's larger point about the reader, knowledge and purpose. Does a person's bible have a purpose? For some people it's the recipe for making a god and so it's inerrant. For another person it's an object of curiosity. It can be literally anything on wishes depending upon what purpose - or purposes - one assigns.

Yes, I think so. Although assigns may imply that a purpose for reading is pre-assigned, which I guess it often isn't. I doubt it's necessarily post-assigned either. I would rather say merely that it can be read (or listened to) for a number of reasons (including curiosity but also because one is taught or instructed or encouraged to read or listen to it) and that one can get different things from it, if one is permitted free choice to do that, and even if one isn't.

Possibly after the first reading, certain meanings and purposes are sometimes assigned thereafter, yes, but probably not always, by all readers. Some (possibly many) may be at least somewhat continually looking for new understandings, or at least new nuances, and be open to them.

I sometimes think of it as a self-help book (with the NT in particular having Jesus as a sort of life coach). Though it's a tad more confused than most modern books of that type, probably because it was as I said written by several people not necessarily all working together, even if riffing off one another.

I think it's fair to say that it is a sort of fetish book in western or western-influenced culture. In other words, I think it has undue influence (here we are talking about it, yet again, on a secular/atheist forum, for example, and giving it at least the time of day). Atheists especially might easily consider it largely a load of very old, superstitious bollocks. Other non-believers may see that even if that were true in one way (which I think it is) it still contains interesting and useful human ideas (some less outdated than others and some not much outdated at all), which imo it definitely does. But as a guide to life? I'd say, take away the bits you like, including the supernatural stuff if that's your thing, but read lots of other stuff too, including and possibly especially non-woo infected material if possible, though that's harder to find the further back you go.

 

[Jarhyn]

This gets back to jarhyn's larger point about the reader, knowledge and purpose. Does a person's bible have a purpose? For some people it's the recipe for making a god and so it's inerrant. For another person it's an object of curiosity. It can be literally anything on wishes depending upon what purpose - or purposes - one assigns.

Yes, I think so. Although assigns implies that a purpose for reading is pre-assigned, which I guess it often isn't. I doubt it's necessarily post-assigned either. I would rather say merely that it can be read (or listened to) for a number of reasons (including curiosity but also because one is taught or instructed or encouraged to read or listen to it) and that one can get different things from it, if one is permitted free choice to do that, and even if one isn't.

Possibly after the first reading, certain meanings and purposes are sometimes assigned thereafter, yes, but probably not always, by all readers. Some (possibly many) may be at least somewhat continually looking for new understandings, or at least new nuances, and be open to them.

I sometimes think of it as a self-help book (with the NT in particular having Jesus as a sort of life coach). Though it's a tad more confused than most modern books of that type, probably because it was as I said written by several people not necessarily all working together, even if riffing off one another.

I think it's fair to say that it is a sort of fetish book in western or western-influenced culture. In other words, I think it has undue influence (here we are talking about it, yet again, on a secular/atheist forum, for example, and giving it at least the time of day). Atheists especially might easily consider it largely a load of very old, superstitious bollocks. Other non-believers may see that even if that were true in one way (which I think it is) it still contains interesting and useful human ideas (some less outdated than others and some not much outdated at all), which imo it definitely does. But as a guide to life? I'd say, take away the bits you like, but read lots of other stuff too.

Exactly! And for those of it who go in to confirm that biases and to find justificatiins-after-the-fact, you can raise doubt! Not by pointing out a contradiction and saying DOUBT because then you just get a no-tdue-scotsman about interpretation and not being one of the faithful.

But by injecting doubt through ministering, EVEN AS AN ATHEIST, merely the messages of love, acceptance, equality, and divestment of Jesus in the NT (don't even bother with Paul, LOL!) will deliver together doubt that will come from inside their own worldview.

Pushing too hard on a Christian is an easy way to end up getting handled or managed at that point, and treated like an "adversary" rather than an ally who seems open to their message. In fact, asking a religious person to teach you about the Bible's position on slavery, particularly what Jesus would have to say about it, will get you more milage, methinks.

The goal isn't to have more atheists, it's to have more critical thinkers who act more ethically in the world. Sometimes they end up atheists but they DO NOT HAVE TO!

Atheists seem to think there is some magic bullet, some element of reason that will jar a believer out of belief, and finally skip them off that track onto reason.

But there is not.

Instead, we are left with is strategies designed to have them find doubts on their own, and to prepare them for the hard conversation when they do see it for themselves.

It's almost like an abusive relationship: until the scales of denial come off from their own efforts, understandings, and experiences, they will just keep coming back to the faith.

 

[ruby sparks]

Exactly! And for those of it who go in to confirm that biases and to find justificatiins-after-the-fact, you can raise doubt! Not by pointing out a contradiction and saying DOUBT because then you just get a no-tdue-scotsman about interpretation and not being one of the faithful.

But by injecting doubt through ministering, EVEN AS AN ATHEIST, merely the messages of love, acceptance, equality, and divestment of Jesus in the NT (don't even bother with Paul, LOL!) will deliver together doubt that will come from inside their own worldview.

Pushing too hard on a Christian is an easy way to end up getting handled or managed at that point, and treated like an "adversary" rather than an ally who seems open to their message. In fact, asking a religious person to teach you about the Bible's position on slavery, particularly what Jesus would have to say about it, will get you more milage, methinks.

The goal isn't to have more atheists, it's to have more critical thinkers who act more ethically in the world. Sometimes they end up atheists but they DO NOT HAVE TO!

Atheists seem to think there is some magic bullet, some element of reason that will jar a believer out of belief, and finally skip them off that track onto reason.

But there is not.

Instead, we are left with is strategies designed to have them find doubts on their own, and to prepare them for the hard conversation when they do see it for themselves.

It's almost like an abusive relationship: until the scales of denial come off from their own efforts, understandings, and experiences, they will just keep coming back to the faith.

I think that's all very true. Personally, I have little need in my life for trying to persuade anyone against their religious beliefs, but I understand that many others are more impinged-upon by religion and the religious than I am, where I am. As such, I consider myself very lucky to be able to largely ignore it, even if not entirely (we have world-class fundies here, and they are part of the local government). I also tend to prefer to ignore it, when I can. The influence of religion is thankfully fading here, quite fast.

And just on Paul, I think he's as useful and interesting to read as any other NT writer, more for his ideas on Christianity than for details about Jesus (or what he is supposed to have said) though.

 

[ruby sparks]

This gets back to jarhyn's larger point about the reader, knowledge and purpose. Does a person's bible have a purpose? For some people it's the recipe for making a god and so it's inerrant. For another person it's an object of curiosity. It can be literally anything on wishes depending upon what purpose - or purposes - one assigns.

I think I should also have said that yes, you are right, some may come to it with pre-assigned purposes, in which case they may largely see only what fits those, as is true of many books and many readers, but perhaps it's more doable than in some other cases with something like the bible, not least because the two main parts (OT & NT) are often at odds in some ways. In some ways too, it's kind of odd that the old bit is still attached.

 

[Politesse]

You don't feel that readers interpret texts?

Yes, of course they do. But I do not believe that what words actually say or mean necessarily relies on a reader's interpretation. That seems to me to be incorrect. A possible conceit. And it could arguably rob writers of their point, and the writings of what they say. And why would we do that, or even want to? To make a square peg fit the round hole we have ready for it?

If two people disagree about the same text, even the exact same sentence, both of them firmly convinced that their reading is the "plain and obvious one", surely we should at least consider the possibility that their interpretations are including more of their personal biases than they realize? There are many kinds of conceit. If you've been told for your entire life that 2 Timothy 3:16 is absolute proof that God intended the Scriptures to be read literally and never challenged, then you will be hard pressed to read that passage and not come away with the impression that you've just read exactly that, even if that idea doesn't really stand up to much critical thought (how could the author have intended to endorse books that hadn't been written yet in his time? etc).

I disagree that words ever have an "exact meaning" that can be somehow discovered like a natural phenomenon; words are complicated beasts, capable of carrying multiple levels of meaning and usually different nuances as encountered by different people. If I say "God", you and I immediately start thinking of the same class or category of ideas, generally defined. But I would bet you billions of dollars that the concept of God in your head doesn't really look all that much like the concept of God in my head, and neither of us has a notion of godhood anything remotely like that of a 1st century recently-deconverted polytheist-priest-turned-Christian-bishop. So how are all three of us going to arrive at a common understanding of even the most simple of Scriptural passages? I don't think we have enough information to recreate the whole perspective of the author of Timothy if we tried, and I don't think most people would be interested in trying anyway. They tend to nod off when the conversation turns to language and archaeology. And maybe that's just as well, since non-archaeologists get even more frustrated when experts tell them that some questions just cannot be answered by the extant material record. People were no less complicated in ancient times than we are now, and reconstructing an entire personality and philosophical perspective based on a single letter would be a doomed endeavor in either past or present. Timothy's ability to explain his own perspective was lost when he died, and every century that passes erases more and more of the information that might have helped us to reconstruct it objectively.

 

[Politesse]

This gets back to jarhyn's larger point about the reader, knowledge and purpose. Does a person's bible have a purpose? For some people it's the recipe for making a god and so it's inerrant. For another person it's an object of curiosity. It can be literally anything on wishes depending upon what purpose - or purposes - one assigns.

I think I should also have said that yes, you are right, some may come to it with pre-assigned purposes, in which case they may largely see only what fits those, as is true of many books and many readers, but perhaps it's more doable than in some other cases with something like the bible, not least because the two main parts (OT & NT) are often at odds in some ways. In some ways too, it's kind of odd that the old bit is still attached.

From our perspective, raised in a culture that values the new as "innovative" and disregards the old, that's true. In the Roman world, the opposite view prevailed: antiquity was legitimacy. Maintaining the link to the Jewish Scriptures was critical for even the most Gentile of early Christians, their lives depended on being able to show that they were following a religio (ie an ancient liturgy delivered by the gods and thus somewhat to some protection from civil law) and not just a passing cult (which, being obviously of human invention rather than divine since the gods by their nature didn't change, would be subject to legal persecution by the state).

It's also impossible to really understand much of the New Testament without first becoming familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures. The Christian faith may get its philosophical underpinnings from Plato and Plotinus, but its mythology is almost entirely from Palestine. Indeed, I think the differences between the two anthologies are over-stressed and subject to generalization. The biggest differences between the authors of Scripture are caused by genre, the passage of time, and culture. The "author" off the oral traditions that later became the Torah had monumental differences of perspective from those who wrote the Book of the Macabees. Similarly, there are sharp differences between the perspectives of Paul, whoever wrote the gospels, and the later epistles like Timothy and Revelation.

 

[ruby sparks]

If two people disagree about the same text, even the exact same sentence, both of them firmly convinced that their reading is the "plain and obvious one", surely we should at least consider the possibility that their interpretations are including more of their personal biases than they realize?

Absolutely.

There are many kinds of conceit.

Yes.

If you've been told for your entire life that 2 Timothy 3:16 is absolute proof that God intended the Scriptures to be read literally and never challenged, then you will be hard pressed to read that passage and not come away with the impression that you've just read exactly that, even if that idea doesn't really stand up to much critical thought (how could the author have intended to endorse books that hadn't been written yet in his time? etc).

Indeed.

I disagree that words ever have an "exact meaning" that can be somehow discovered like a natural phenomenon; words are complicated beasts, capable of carrying multiple levels of meaning and usually different nuances as encountered by people. If I say "God" we immediately start thinking of the same class or category of ideas, generally defined. But I would bet you billions of dollars that the concept of God in your head doesn't really look all that much like the concept of God in my head, and neither of us has a notion of godhood anything remotely like that of a 1st century recently-deconverted polytheist-turned Christian bishop. So how are all three of us going to arrive at a common understanding of even the most simple of Scriptural passages? I don't think we have enough information to recreate the perspective of the author of Timothy if we tried, and I don't think most people would be interested in trying anyway. They tend to nod off when the conversation turns to language and archaeology.

There is room for interpretation, obviously. But that does not mean that one interpretation is as good as another, or more importantly that certain apparent contradictions can be resolved adequately via interpretation, which I think is closer to the main point of discussion in this thread.

 

[ruby sparks]

This gets back to jarhyn's larger point about the reader, knowledge and purpose. Does a person's bible have a purpose? For some people it's the recipe for making a god and so it's inerrant. For another person it's an object of curiosity. It can be literally anything on wishes depending upon what purpose - or purposes - one assigns.

I think I should also have said that yes, you are right, some may come to it with pre-assigned purposes, in which case they may largely see only what fits those, as is true of many books and many readers, but perhaps it's more doable than in some other cases with something like the bible, not least because the two main parts (OT & NT) are often at odds in some ways. In some ways too, it's kind of odd that the old bit is still attached.

From our perspective, raised in a culture that values the new as "innovative" and disregards the old, that's true. In the Roman world, the opposite view prevailed: antiquity was legitimacy. Maintaining the link to the Jewish Scriptures was critical for even the most Gentile of early Christians, their lives depended on being able to show that they were following a religio (ie an ancient liturgy delivered by the gods) and not just a passing cult (which would be subject to legal persecution by the state).

It's also impossible to understand much of the New Testament without first becoming familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures. The Christian faith may get its philosophical underpinnings from Plato and Plotinus, but its mythology is almost entirely from Palestine.

Fair points, especially about why they were originally attached together, when they were. I was just thinking that there is a case for nowadays separating them, which is and was of course often but not always done.

Often I think the attached OT is read (and preached) 'as if it were retroactively Christian' to some extent, which of course it is not, in several ways. It is literally pre-Christian Judaism, and I think that is why I think it is odd that it is attached. I can also see why it is attached.

 

[Politesse]

It is literally pre-Christian Judaism, and I think that is why I think it is odd that it is attached. I can also see why it is attached.

Just so. And Jewish perspectives on their own perspectives on their own Scriptures tend to be roundly ignored, even openly mocked, by Christians.