A matter of faith and pride

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Willum
Savant
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 82 times

A matter of faith and pride

Post #1

Post by Willum »

Theists often brag about their faith, based on what, to an impartial observer, is a 3rd century comic.*
Their faith can override observation, even science - depending on the myth, story or fable.

So the question is this:
If you yourself acknowledge you have no knowledge but faith in these stories, and you yourself can not distinguish the Bible from other myths (except by personal opinion or upbringing), why should you expect your opinions to be taken seriously?



* = Indeed, it can be shown many, if not all Bible story were reproduced from other people’s fairytales, childrens’ stories, myth or religion.

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7956
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 931 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: A matter of faith and pride

Post #51

Post by TRANSPONDER »

theophile wrote: Tue May 03, 2022 10:11 pm
TRANSPONDER wrote: Tue May 03, 2022 10:50 am I'm all in favour of understanding what the Bible is saying, but I maintain that (obvious poetic similes aside) what is says is what it means, and Interpreting it to fit what is frankly current human scientific, Logical and social thought to try to imbue the Bible with undeserved authority is not what we should be doing.
If what it says is what it means, then what it says is we are no longer under the law. Which means, there is something bigger going on, and folks need to look at that and stop getting stuck on parts that are rendered obsolete in the broader narrative. Things like slavery, which is rendered obsolete with the law. Or death even at the end.

So don't suggest, as you seem to, that I'm okay with slavery. I said I was not and I am not. The problem, frankly, is that most folks don't stick to the text as you say, but they read things into the text that aren't there. Things like God = omnipotent. Or has more control over things than we could possibly imagine. Which makes the broader narrative I'm suggesting suspect and a non-starter. (Everything comes down to the same inane argument that God could have and should have done otherwise.)
TRANSPONDER wrote: Tue May 03, 2022 10:50 am Slavery? Read the Bible rather than your apologetics site. Indentured servitude for Hebrew slaves may have been the rule (though it seems the Rule is to release them after 7 years whether they had their life on track or not, unless you could saddle him with a wife and trick him into lifetime servitude). But for Foreign slaves, there was no get out; they were your property for life, and could be parcel -wrapped for your kids as birthday presents.
Chattel slavery, and don't let no apologetics page tell you anything else.

If slavery doesn't stick in your craw, if trying to pass it off as something else, lying to you who trusted your mentoring apologists, doesn't stick in your craw, it should. I don't know about offended and outraged, but I feel sorry for those who are lied to and bamboozled and trust what they are told so they don't feel the need to check it themselves. I am aggrieved for you, pal as I hate people who try to fool and bamboozle me, and I feel it when they have done it to you.
See? I told you it would stick in your craw :)

Also, what do you think I do all day? Read apologetics websites? Listen to internet crazies? Jeez.
I already touched on this; yes, it is argued that the New Covenant abrogated the old mosaic Law and slavery ought to have gone with it. But it didn't. Jesus (according to the gospels) never once spoke out about it, but seemed to accept slavery as they way it was.

Now, I know there is an argument that slavery WAS abolished when Christianity got control of the Roman Empire. Possibly. It seems to have continued nevertheless. But the point here is that we never get Jesus saying that 'Ye have heard that one ought to release a slave after seven years with a pension and a free wife; but I say to you that one person should not own another as property'. But nothing like that.

God didn't know or care, or bother to tell Jesus, or he didn't care? No, it's more like the Gospels were written by people who saw slavery as a part of life and saw no reason to speak out against it.

And you do yourself no favours, chum, by trying to dilute apologetics arguments as 'something sticking in my craw'. I am simply making a case, that's all.

User avatar
theophile
Guru
Posts: 1581
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 7:09 pm
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 126 times

Re: A matter of faith and pride

Post #52

Post by theophile »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 6:36 am
theophile wrote: Tue May 03, 2022 10:11 pm
TRANSPONDER wrote: Tue May 03, 2022 10:50 am I'm all in favour of understanding what the Bible is saying, but I maintain that (obvious poetic similes aside) what is says is what it means, and Interpreting it to fit what is frankly current human scientific, Logical and social thought to try to imbue the Bible with undeserved authority is not what we should be doing.
If what it says is what it means, then what it says is we are no longer under the law. Which means, there is something bigger going on, and folks need to look at that and stop getting stuck on parts that are rendered obsolete in the broader narrative. Things like slavery, which is rendered obsolete with the law. Or death even at the end.

So don't suggest, as you seem to, that I'm okay with slavery. I said I was not and I am not. The problem, frankly, is that most folks don't stick to the text as you say, but they read things into the text that aren't there. Things like God = omnipotent. Or has more control over things than we could possibly imagine. Which makes the broader narrative I'm suggesting suspect and a non-starter. (Everything comes down to the same inane argument that God could have and should have done otherwise.)
TRANSPONDER wrote: Tue May 03, 2022 10:50 am Slavery? Read the Bible rather than your apologetics site. Indentured servitude for Hebrew slaves may have been the rule (though it seems the Rule is to release them after 7 years whether they had their life on track or not, unless you could saddle him with a wife and trick him into lifetime servitude). But for Foreign slaves, there was no get out; they were your property for life, and could be parcel -wrapped for your kids as birthday presents.
Chattel slavery, and don't let no apologetics page tell you anything else.

If slavery doesn't stick in your craw, if trying to pass it off as something else, lying to you who trusted your mentoring apologists, doesn't stick in your craw, it should. I don't know about offended and outraged, but I feel sorry for those who are lied to and bamboozled and trust what they are told so they don't feel the need to check it themselves. I am aggrieved for you, pal as I hate people who try to fool and bamboozle me, and I feel it when they have done it to you.
See? I told you it would stick in your craw :)

Also, what do you think I do all day? Read apologetics websites? Listen to internet crazies? Jeez.
I already touched on this; yes, it is argued that the New Covenant abrogated the old mosaic Law and slavery ought to have gone with it. But it didn't. Jesus (according to the gospels) never once spoke out about it, but seemed to accept slavery as they way it was.
Jesus "seemed" to accept slavery? Doesn't sound like you're looking at what the texts says, but rather filling in the spaces of what it does not say.

Again, I think we're missing the revolutionary aspect of what's going on here. i.e., Jesus in fact had plenty to say on servants/slaves if we care to look. The problem being, everyone ought to take on this status according to his ministry. See statements from him like "the greatest among you will be your servant," or from Paul about how the nothings (/slaves!) of the world will shame the strong... So why would he say slavery goes away, when his whole push is to essentially make slaves of us all? ... (Nietzsche called Christianity a slave morality for a reason. :))

So to your argument, just because people failed to meet the demands of the new covenant doesn't mean the new covenant has failed (and we can keep throwing rocks at the bible as if it never existed). Rather it means people have failed. And again, we should judge the bible on its broader message and what it is really trying to achieve.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 6:36 am But the point here is that we never get Jesus saying that 'Ye have heard that one ought to release a slave after seven years with a pension and a free wife; but I say to you that one person should not own another as property'. But nothing like that.
Yup. He did deconstruct plenty of other laws though, so we should do some work ourselves to see how that follows for the laws on slavery. Per above, I think we'd see he's trying to turn the entire system on its head.

(Speaking of Roman rule, that's something you have to be very careful of putting down in words, right? Talk of revolution and all and how Rome treated such things...)

User avatar
theophile
Guru
Posts: 1581
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 7:09 pm
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 126 times

Re: A matter of faith and pride

Post #53

Post by theophile »

Difflugia wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 12:27 am
theophile wrote: Tue May 03, 2022 9:10 pmWas Israel under the Roman Empire when those laws were written down? I don't think so. So what does slavery under Rome have to do with my point about the form of slavery in Ancient Israel?
First, if your point was only about slavery in Ancient Israel, then it didn't fully address the earlier post that was discussing how both the Old Testament and the New failed as lifestyle advice.

Second, if by "it" you mean Ancient Israelite slavery in general, then "it" also included the enslavement of prisoners of war, which pretty clearly isn't debt slavery by any definition.
theophile wrote: Tue May 03, 2022 9:10 pmHere, check out the 'Biblical era' section. It's more pertinent to the conversation at hand:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_vi ... blical_era
Thanks.

The statement that Israelite slavery was more like indentured servitude seems not to be supported by either the rest of the article, other scholarly treatments, or the Bible itself. While biblical law does anticipate and regulate the debt slavery of fellow Israelites, there is always a class of slaves that is not subject to the protections afforded fellow Israelites:
The laws governing non-Hebrew slaves were more harsh than those governing Hebrew slaves: non-Hebrew slaves could be owned permanently, and bequeathed to the owner's children, whereas Hebrew slaves were treated as servants, and were released after six years of service or the occurrence of a jubilee year.
Appreciate the clarification and adjustment to Israelite practice. But still struggle to see why Roman practice was at all relevant in the first place. :)

But that's okay. And look, I know I come across as defending slavery (whatever form), and how that sets everyone ablaze. But that's not at all what I'm about. I think we just have to be practical about it. Like it or not, slavery is infused throughout our history, and deeply embedded across multiple cultures (past and present even). I think we can all agree that practically speaking, it's not an easy thing to dislodge.

I think people's biggest issue with the bible, and why it's so problematic there, is that one as great and powerful as God didn't dislodge it, or prevent it outright in the first place. Per points I've made, I think that's to completely miss the power of God and how God works. And how even for God (like the US example I brought in) incremental steps were required to move Israel in the right direction (the laws giving some rights to slaves being a prime example). But most folks don't want to entertain such ideas about God, or think God as anything less than omnipotent and all-controlling. Which leaves me stuck holding the bag on slavery, so to speak, among other things. And constantly rehashing the same arguments. (But that's my problem -- just trying to make clear where I'm coming from.)

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7956
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 931 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: A matter of faith and pride

Post #54

Post by TRANSPONDER »

theophile wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 7:40 am
TRANSPONDER wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 6:36 am
theophile wrote: Tue May 03, 2022 10:11 pm
TRANSPONDER wrote: Tue May 03, 2022 10:50 am I'm all in favour of understanding what the Bible is saying, but I maintain that (obvious poetic similes aside) what is says is what it means, and Interpreting it to fit what is frankly current human scientific, Logical and social thought to try to imbue the Bible with undeserved authority is not what we should be doing.
If what it says is what it means, then what it says is we are no longer under the law. Which means, there is something bigger going on, and folks need to look at that and stop getting stuck on parts that are rendered obsolete in the broader narrative. Things like slavery, which is rendered obsolete with the law. Or death even at the end.

So don't suggest, as you seem to, that I'm okay with slavery. I said I was not and I am not. The problem, frankly, is that most folks don't stick to the text as you say, but they read things into the text that aren't there. Things like God = omnipotent. Or has more control over things than we could possibly imagine. Which makes the broader narrative I'm suggesting suspect and a non-starter. (Everything comes down to the same inane argument that God could have and should have done otherwise.)
TRANSPONDER wrote: Tue May 03, 2022 10:50 am Slavery? Read the Bible rather than your apologetics site. Indentured servitude for Hebrew slaves may have been the rule (though it seems the Rule is to release them after 7 years whether they had their life on track or not, unless you could saddle him with a wife and trick him into lifetime servitude). But for Foreign slaves, there was no get out; they were your property for life, and could be parcel -wrapped for your kids as birthday presents.
Chattel slavery, and don't let no apologetics page tell you anything else.

If slavery doesn't stick in your craw, if trying to pass it off as something else, lying to you who trusted your mentoring apologists, doesn't stick in your craw, it should. I don't know about offended and outraged, but I feel sorry for those who are lied to and bamboozled and trust what they are told so they don't feel the need to check it themselves. I am aggrieved for you, pal as I hate people who try to fool and bamboozle me, and I feel it when they have done it to you.
See? I told you it would stick in your craw :)

Also, what do you think I do all day? Read apologetics websites? Listen to internet crazies? Jeez.
I already touched on this; yes, it is argued that the New Covenant abrogated the old mosaic Law and slavery ought to have gone with it. But it didn't. Jesus (according to the gospels) never once spoke out about it, but seemed to accept slavery as they way it was.
Jesus "seemed" to accept slavery? Doesn't sound like you're looking at what the texts says, but rather filling in the spaces of what it does not say.

Again, I think we're missing the revolutionary aspect of what's going on here. i.e., Jesus in fact had plenty to say on servants/slaves if we care to look. The problem being, everyone ought to take on this status according to his ministry. See statements from him like "the greatest among you will be your servant," or from Paul about how the nothings (/slaves!) of the world will shame the strong... So why would he say slavery goes away, when his whole push is to essentially make slaves of us all? ... (Nietzsche called Christianity a slave morality for a reason. :))

So to your argument, just because people failed to meet the demands of the new covenant doesn't mean the new covenant has failed (and we can keep throwing rocks at the bible as if it never existed). Rather it means people have failed. And again, we should judge the bible on its broader message and what it is really trying to achieve.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 6:36 am But the point here is that we never get Jesus saying that 'Ye have heard that one ought to release a slave after seven years with a pension and a free wife; but I say to you that one person should not own another as property'. But nothing like that.
Yup. He did deconstruct plenty of other laws though, so we should do some work ourselves to see how that follows for the laws on slavery. Per above, I think we'd see he's trying to turn the entire system on its head.

(Speaking of Roman rule, that's something you have to be very careful of putting down in words, right? Talk of revolution and all and how Rome treated such things...)
I think you are making a case against yourself here. Yes, he did make remarks about slaves (you and I might collate them if you like) and they do recognise the unpleasant lot of slaves or why would it be an implicit threat to the ones in charge? I have got to say that negative evidence in this respect counts for something. That a known wrong was going on and Jesus was (supposedly) touting doing good, that he refers to slaves here and there but never says owning people is bad is a tacit endorsement of slavery. Wouldn't you say?

Sure, the system is turned on its' head But Jesus (as shown in the Bible - I don't think he said a single word of it, actually) seems more (from the words) concerned with debunking Sabbath worship, the Temple and laws on ritual cleanliness than putting right the (tacitly recognised) social ill of slavery. Thus...yes, I hear you, Just because Jesus didn't denounce slavery even in mentioning it doesn't mean he (or God) approved of it, in the broad legal reading "Silence gives assent".

After all, God acquiesced fin Slavery by issuing Rules about it and it's the same God, right? And Jesus turned the system over so Christian apologetics (from what I see) is that all the Old Law is gone, unless Jesus specifically endorsed it. And while Jesus did not specifically endorse slavery (only healed a slave without saying 'you know, you shouldn't own people') Paul, who supposedly was taught by the followes of Jesus says that slaves should obey their masters, because God had made them so.

As to Roman Rule, I don't follow your drift. Jesus if anything, seemed rather partial to the Roman Rulers. If I have said anything disparaging about it I'll risk a crucifixion squad banging on my door at midnight.

User avatar
theophile
Guru
Posts: 1581
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 7:09 pm
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 126 times

Re: A matter of faith and pride

Post #55

Post by theophile »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 9:44 am I think you are making a case against yourself here.
How so? I do wonder the same myself sometimes, but I don't think I am. Jesus dismantles the law (including its condoning of slavery), and in the process he transforms slavery into servanthood. Not indentured servanthood, but along the lines of Christian self-giving / love. He restores us to what we were meant to be from the beginning: true servants and helpers (before sin, and when the law became necessary...).

So slavery is both abolished and it is redeemed.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 9:44 am Yes, he did make remarks about slaves (you and I might collate them if you like) and they do recognise the unpleasant lot of slaves or why would it be an implicit threat to the ones in charge? I have got to say that negative evidence in this respect counts for something. That a known wrong was going on and Jesus was (supposedly) touting doing good, that he refers to slaves here and there but never says owning people is bad is a tacit endorsement of slavery. Wouldn't you say?
It is peculiar, and definitely counts for something. But we can't just fill the gap is my point. These texts are way too subtle to ignore what I agree with you is a glaring gap. To you, the answer is to assume the worst. To me, it is a calling to look deeper at what's really going on.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 9:44 am As to Roman Rule, I don't follow your drift. Jesus if anything, seemed rather partial to the Roman Rulers. If I have said anything disparaging about it I'll risk a crucifixion squad banging on my door at midnight.
I was just implying that to survive Roman censorship, writers / literature couldn't be flagrantly anti-Roman. Hence the writers had to be careful what they wrote. And talking openly of freeing slaves could be construed as rebellious or inciting revolt against the empire... I'm not saying that's the reason why Jesus didn't say it directly, but it's an interesting facet of the text.

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7956
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 931 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: A matter of faith and pride

Post #56

Post by TRANSPONDER »

theophile wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 9:08 pm
TRANSPONDER wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 9:44 am I think you are making a case against yourself here.
How so? I do wonder the same myself sometimes, but I don't think I am. Jesus dismantles the law (including its condoning of slavery), and in the process he transforms slavery into servanthood. Not indentured servanthood, but along the lines of Christian self-giving / love. He restores us to what we were meant to be from the beginning: true servants and helpers (before sin, and when the law became necessary...).

So slavery is both abolished and it is redeemed.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 9:44 am Yes, he did make remarks about slaves (you and I might collate them if you like) and they do recognise the unpleasant lot of slaves or why would it be an implicit threat to the ones in charge? I have got to say that negative evidence in this respect counts for something. That a known wrong was going on and Jesus was (supposedly) touting doing good, that he refers to slaves here and there but never says owning people is bad is a tacit endorsement of slavery. Wouldn't you say?
It is peculiar, and definitely counts for something. But we can't just fill the gap is my point. These texts are way too subtle to ignore what I agree with you is a glaring gap. To you, the answer is to assume the worst. To me, it is a calling to look deeper at what's really going on.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 9:44 am As to Roman Rule, I don't follow your drift. Jesus if anything, seemed rather partial to the Roman Rulers. If I have said anything disparaging about it I'll risk a crucifixion squad banging on my door at midnight.
I was just implying that to survive Roman censorship, writers / literature couldn't be flagrantly anti-Roman. Hence the writers had to be careful what they wrote. And talking openly of freeing slaves could be construed as rebellious or inciting revolt against the empire... I'm not saying that's the reason why Jesus didn't say it directly, but it's an interesting facet of the text.
That's actually a better argument than it ought to be. Obviously, talking about turning slavery into servantship (when humans were bought and sold as property) was not chattel slavery (it was) just because Jesus had preached the Good News, is not going to wash. It is not abolished as we know and 'redeemed' does not alter the fact that people are bought and owned as property.

I am inclined to smile at suggestions that it is too subtle for us to understand. So how can anybody trust understand or teach anything Jesus said? No, that failure to say (even in passing) 'slavery is bad, you know. You shouldn't own other people' does have a point that maybe you had in mind. It is arguable that Jesus did not come to right all the world's ills but give a message. He did not snap at crowds of "Jews", Pharisees and Teachers of the law that "Potholes should be filled, donkey droppings be cleared from the sidewalk and do something about all that unsightly graffiti" and reforming society was not his or even His purpose. It's one to think about but nevertheless bearing in mind that the OT did indeed not teach that "thou shalt not own another person as property" and while omission is not more than tacit endorsement, the instructions on how to treat slaves must (to any Reasonable person) explain why there is no commandment Not to enslave but permission to enslave (for life) anyone from the countries around.

Thus, in teaching a New Law, are they in place unless Jesus specifically revises them (such as join a litter -cleanup group on Sunday is better than going to Church) or are they all in the bin unless Jesus specifically rescues them and dusts them off?

It's hard to parse sometime, old mate, especially when 'Ye have heard...but I say unto you..' implies that it's all been superseded and we need to look for clues as to what way we should live from Jesus' occasional remarks. or in Slave -owning no remarks. "That's all fine, carry on as you have been doing". And in hearing the centurions' slave, "you shouldn't even own a slave" isn't there, the signal is, carry on slave owning.

The rich young ruler had observed...hang on...yes, specific commandments, don't steal, don't lie, keep your trousers buttoned and honour your father and mother (unless they won't join the Bible group in which case the group is now your Father and mother ;) ) . Yep, Jesus was sent to the lost sheep of Israel but not to revamp their infrastructure. And yet it's hard to avoid the conclusion that he didn't care tuppence that Chattel slavery was alive and thriving in Roman Judea, no more than God was bothered in the days of Josiah and Hezekiah other than issue a few rules ("Whup 'em seldom, but whup 'em good") or indeed Paul (supposedly taught Christianity by the followers of Jesus) other than to say that God intended them to be slaves so they should patiently endure it.

Come on dude, it doesn't look good for Christianity as a slave reformer does it?

Post Reply