Slaves, Obey Your Masters

[Guardian85]

Amicale, are you reading my mind?
That is very much my thinking about the bible.

There is also the matter of the thousands and thousands of christians that pick and choose bits of the bible, and still claim it to be perfect and authoritarian.  Add to these the people who have never actually read the bible, but only had the nice bits read to them...

We call that hipocricy where I come from.

[Asmodean]

We call that hipocricy where I come from.

We call it hypocrisy over at my place 

[Ecurb Noselrub]

the Bible itself says in several passages that it's the word of God, that it's meant to be authoritative, etc. In some cases (one, at least) the word of God was supposedly quite literally set in stone. So, either one believes that all the scriptures are the inspired word of God... or they don't. 

Well, the "Bible" is 66 separate books, so even if the 10 Commandments were literally written in stone, and even if a few places in the NT says that scripture is all inspired by God, that still doesn't mean that it all applies in the same way right now. Even if you read it all as one work, it's pretty easy to see that in the New Testament the church decided that the Old Testament did not apply, at the very least, to Gentile Christians (see Acts 15 for the definitive apostolic decision on this point).  So, an interpretation that allows room for progressive revelation and application is quite consistent with biblical development. 

[Ali]

We ask that you turn your anger toward the (state) House of Representatives," he said, adding that his group does not support or condone slavery while the Bible, which he called "evil," does.

This is the point.

I like the "well obviously you don't have to take all of the bible literally" argument.  Can Christians please get together and create an annotated version that clearly lays out which parts you should take literally, which parts no longer apply, et cetera?  Pleaseandthankyou.

[AnimatedDirt]

I like the "well obviously you don't have to take all of the bible literally" argument.  Can Christians please get together and create an annotated version that clearly lays out which parts you should take literally, which parts no longer apply, et cetera?  Pleaseandthankyou.

We know for ourselves (that's to say we should know for our own knowledge)...what purpose would it serve you?  Or if you have a specific instance in mind...shoot and I would at least give you how I see it.

Edit: Parenthesis add.

[Truthseeker]

We ask that you turn your anger toward the (state) House of Representatives," he said, adding that his group does not support or condone slavery while the Bible, which he called "evil," does.

This is the point.

I like the "well obviously you don't have to take all of the bible literally" argument.  Can Christians please get together and create an annotated version that clearly lays out which parts you should take literally, which parts no longer apply, et cetera?  Pleaseandthankyou.

Holy shit.  Yes this!!

[Truthseeker]

I like the "well obviously you don't have to take all of the bible literally" argument.  Can Christians please get together and create an annotated version that clearly lays out which parts you should take literally, which parts no longer apply, et cetera?  Pleaseandthankyou.

We know for ourselves (that's to say we should know for our own knowledge)...what purpose would it serve you?  Or if you have a specific instance in mind...shoot and I would at least give you how I see it.

But this simply is not true at all AD.  Even Christians are not in agreement with what should be relative today or what should be looked at as simply customary for Biblical times. 

After further reflection I suppose Ali's suggestion (as great as it is) really would be impossible due to this fact.

[Ali]

I like the "well obviously you don't have to take all of the bible literally" argument.  Can Christians please get together and create an annotated version that clearly lays out which parts you should take literally, which parts no longer apply, et cetera?  Pleaseandthankyou.

We know for ourselves (that's to say we should know for our own knowledge)...what purpose would it serve you?  Or if you have a specific instance in mind...shoot and I would at least give you how I see it.

Edit: Parenthesis add.

I think it would clear up a lot of confusion about your religion.  Like, if I said "the Bible condones slavery" and you could pull out your annotated bible and say "No, see here, we struck that part out".  It would be a useful guide to others to let us know what you actually believe.

[AnimatedDirt]

I think it would clear up a lot of confusion about your religion.  Like, if I said "the Bible condones slavery" and you could pull out your annotated bible and say "No, see here, we struck that part out".  It would be a useful guide to others to let us know what you actually believe.

No part is "struck" out. (Generally as Christians...I understand some, like Bruce, have a different take.  But he is able to convey why he does or doesn't believe.  He owns his beliefs.)  It's simply seen in context and applied or not.  The whole (bible) really serves to interpret itself mostly.  If we are to love others as ourselves, then slavery as we know it in our day is not condoned...so then the slavery of the OT or even the NT days must have been different and so treated different.  If it is, this knowledge can be found by studying.  To spoon feed a person is to never allow that person to become and "adult" or a person that owns their own beliefs.

Again, no person has all the answers, however we don't give up on finding more insight nor cling to belief so dogmatic that we cannot adapt as we gain further insight.

[Amicale]

I like the "well obviously you don't have to take all of the bible literally" argument.  Can Christians please get together and create an annotated version that clearly lays out which parts you should take literally, which parts no longer apply, et cetera?  Pleaseandthankyou.

We know for ourselves (that's to say we should know for our own knowledge)...what purpose would it serve you?  Or if you have a specific instance in mind...shoot and I would at least give you how I see it.

Edit: Parenthesis add.

I think it would clear up a lot of confusion about your religion.  Like, if I said "the Bible condones slavery" and you could pull out your annotated bible and say "No, see here, we struck that part out".  It would be a useful guide to others to let us know what you actually believe.

Ali, I like your idea and if it could work, it would be useful -- the only problem is, there are so many different Christian sects and groups that completely disagree with one another on these issues. The Catholics, Baptists, Eastern Orthodox, Seventh Day Adventists, Nazarenes, etc etc (keep going) would be in committee meetings SO long that they'd die of old age before that annotated bible every Christian group agreed on was written.

It's prettymuch the 'No true Scotsman' theory. "My group believes this, but your group believes that, so your group can't possibly be Christian/right/being honest".

[AnimatedDirt]

I like the "well obviously you don't have to take all of the bible literally" argument.  Can Christians please get together and create an annotated version that clearly lays out which parts you should take literally, which parts no longer apply, et cetera?  Pleaseandthankyou.

We know for ourselves (that's to say we should know for our own knowledge)...what purpose would it serve you?  Or if you have a specific instance in mind...shoot and I would at least give you how I see it.

Edit: Parenthesis add.

I think it would clear up a lot of confusion about your religion.  Like, if I said "the Bible condones slavery" and you could pull out your annotated bible and say "No, see here, we struck that part out".  It would be a useful guide to others to let us know what you actually believe.

Ali, I like your idea and if it could work, it would be useful -- the only problem is, there are so many different Christian sects and groups that completely disagree with one another on these issues. The Catholics, Baptists, Eastern Orthodox, Seventh Day Adventists, Nazarenes, etc etc (keep going) would be in committee meetings SO long that they'd die of old age before that annotated bible every Christian group agreed on was written.

It's prettymuch the 'No true Scotsman' theory. "My group believes this, but your group believes that, so your group can't possibly be Christian/right/being honest".

You're pretty spot on.  This is why EACH PERSON should own their religious beliefs.  The "religion" aspect simply comes in to play as a way to associate with the like-minded or the closely-like-minded.  It's only human nature to point at others to try and put our beliefs on a pedestal.  The Atheist is not outside of this as is plainly evidenced here at HAF when we say one belief is superior to another as the other stems from delusion...same thing.

[Ali]

I think it would clear up a lot of confusion about your religion.  Like, if I said "the Bible condones slavery" and you could pull out your annotated bible and say "No, see here, we struck that part out".  It would be a useful guide to others to let us know what you actually believe.

No part is "struck" out. (Generally as Christians...I understand some, like Bruce, have a different take.  But he is able to convey why he does or doesn't believe.  He owns his beliefs.)  It's simply seen in context and applied or not.  The whole (bible) really serves to interpret itself mostly.  If we are to love others as ourselves, then slavery as we know it in our day is not condoned...so then the slavery of the OT or even the NT days must have been different and so treated different.  If it is, this knowledge can be found by studying.  To spoon feed a person is to never allow that person to become and "adult" or a person that owns their own beliefs.

Again, no person has all the answers, however we don't give up on finding more insight nor cling to belief so dogmatic that we cannot adapt as we gain further insight.

To the bolded, seriously?  That's how you reconcile slavery in the Bible, it must have been some sort of kinder, gentler slavery?

Anyway, my point is that if you ask a Christian where they get their beliefs, they typically point to the Bible.  Okay, fair enough.  But then when you pojnt to a more "unsavory" part of the Bible, like people raping an murdering and enslaving each other, suddenly it' not applicable or only makes sense within the context of biblical times, or whatever.  And I just wonder how even Christians know which parts to believe in.  Is it just based on however you feel?  Like, you feel that slavery is bad, so we can disregard that part, but discriminating against homosexuals still seems relevent, so we'll keep that part in for now?  It just seems so loosey goosey (for people who follow a written code like the Bible.  Ahteists can also be loosey goosey but then again we don't have a written code of beliefs that we claim to adhere to.)

[Sweetdeath]

You got it all wrong Ali, rape and murder is alright as long as you do it in the name of god.  

I'm not exactly sure what people mean when they say  some parts of the bible can apply to modern times. Which times? Which parts? I don't get it.

Christians should take a step back and really look at the world and how the bible doesn't apply to 2012.

[AnimatedDirt]

I think it would clear up a lot of confusion about your religion.  Like, if I said "the Bible condones slavery" and you could pull out your annotated bible and say "No, see here, we struck that part out".  It would be a useful guide to others to let us know what you actually believe.

No part is "struck" out. (Generally as Christians...I understand some, like Bruce, have a different take.  But he is able to convey why he does or doesn't believe.  He owns his beliefs.)  It's simply seen in context and applied or not.  The whole (bible) really serves to interpret itself mostly.  If we are to love others as ourselves, then slavery as we know it in our day is not condoned...so then the slavery of the OT or even the NT days must have been different and so treated different.  If it is, this knowledge can be found by studying.  To spoon feed a person is to never allow that person to become and "adult" or a person that owns their own beliefs.

Again, no person has all the answers, however we don't give up on finding more insight nor cling to belief so dogmatic that we cannot adapt as we gain further insight.

To the bolded, seriously?  That's how you reconcile slavery in the Bible, it must have been some sort of kinder, gentler slavery?

Anyway, my point is that if you ask a Christian where they get their beliefs, they typically point to the Bible.  Okay, fair enough.  But then when you pojnt to a more "unsavory" part of the Bible, like people raping an murdering and enslaving each other, suddenly it' not applicable or only makes sense within the context of biblical times, or whatever.  And I just wonder how even Christians know which parts to believe in.  Is it just based on however you feel?  Like, you feel that slavery is bad, so we can disregard that part, but discriminating against homosexuals still seems relevent, so we'll keep that part in for now?  It just seems so loosey goosey (for people who follow a written code like the Bible.  Ahteists can also be loosey goosey but then again we don't have a written code of beliefs that we claim to adhere to.)

It was a different type.  You can take my word for it of you can come to your own conclusion based on...what -- the only slavery you know?  So be it.  I can't dictate your mind.

Rape?  I'm not aware of any instance that God says "go and rape".  Go and kill...yes.  The context of killing is from a diety that owns life itself, if he does exist.  That is the rationalization.  If God created life, then it is his to take away, isn't it?  Not logical?  No, I would assume not since you might not approach it from this side.  You might approach it that life evolved by chance and therefore no one has the right to take another's life...and I would agree.  (assuming we agree on a productive society).

It's not at all how we feel.  If it were, we'd be driven by our emotions only.  Love is a good emotion.  Hate is a bad emotion.  One leads to better things, the other leads to things we probably agree are not condusive to a productive society where each has certain rights.

I hope I'm helping you understand.  I'm not out to change your mind.  I can't.   

[Ali]

I think it would clear up a lot of confusion about your religion.  Like, if I said "the Bible condones slavery" and you could pull out your annotated bible and say "No, see here, we struck that part out".  It would be a useful guide to others to let us know what you actually believe.

No part is "struck" out. (Generally as Christians...I understand some, like Bruce, have a different take.  But he is able to convey why he does or doesn't believe.  He owns his beliefs.)  It's simply seen in context and applied or not.  The whole (bible) really serves to interpret itself mostly.  If we are to love others as ourselves, then slavery as we know it in our day is not condoned...so then the slavery of the OT or even the NT days must have been different and so treated different.  If it is, this knowledge can be found by studying.  To spoon feed a person is to never allow that person to become and "adult" or a person that owns their own beliefs.

Again, no person has all the answers, however we don't give up on finding more insight nor cling to belief so dogmatic that we cannot adapt as we gain further insight.

To the bolded, seriously?  That's how you reconcile slavery in the Bible, it must have been some sort of kinder, gentler slavery?

Anyway, my point is that if you ask a Christian where they get their beliefs, they typically point to the Bible.  Okay, fair enough.  But then when you pojnt to a more "unsavory" part of the Bible, like people raping an murdering and enslaving each other, suddenly it' not applicable or only makes sense within the context of biblical times, or whatever.  And I just wonder how even Christians know which parts to believe in.  Is it just based on however you feel?  Like, you feel that slavery is bad, so we can disregard that part, but discriminating against homosexuals still seems relevent, so we'll keep that part in for now?  It just seems so loosey goosey (for people who follow a written code like the Bible.  Ahteists can also be loosey goosey but then again we don't have a written code of beliefs that we claim to adhere to.)

It was a different type.  You can take my word for it of you can come to your own conclusion based on...what -- the only slavery you know?  So be it.  I can't dictate your mind.

Rape?  I'm not aware of any instance that God says "go and rape".  Go and kill...yes.  The context of killing is from a diety that owns life itself, if he does exist.  That is the rationalization.  If God created life, then it is his to take away, isn't it?  Not logical?  No, I would assume not since you might not approach it from this side.  You might approach it that life evolved by chance and therefore no one has the right to take another's life...and I would agree.  (assuming we agree on a productive society).

It's not at all how we feel.  If it were, we'd be driven by our emotions only.  Love is a good emotion.  Hate is a bad emotion.  One leads to better things, the other leads to things we probably agree are not condusive to a productive society where each has certain rights.

I hope I'm helping you understand.  I'm not out to change your mind.  I can't.   

It would have to be pretty darn different to make owning another human being like property "okay."   Even if they were treated like kings (which seems unlikely) if they were owned by someone else and not allowed to make their own grown up decisions, I would still say that's pretty messed up.

The Bible on rape, for your reading pleasure.

  As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace.  If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor.  But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town.  When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town.  But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder.  You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you. - Deuteronomy 20:10-14

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.  If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again.  But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her.  And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter.  If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife.  If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. - Exodus 21:7-11  (This one deals with rape AND slavery.  Fun!)

 Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst.  And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city.  - Zechariah 14:1-2

I assume that you don't believe that it's okay to rape because the Bible says so.  So what I'm asking is, how did you decide that you believe that, if not gfor just the way you feel?