Kevin's Watch

rusmeister wrote: The pledge of allegiance is a specific example which does not support your case in general - because I will, again, largely agree with you. It is an artificial construction whose real aim is not Christian at all but at indoctrinating the support of the existing government - something the Declaration of Independence points out can be in need of actual change/abolishment. It is a very recent invention (1892) - I am talking in terms of centuries and millenia, and on that scale the PofA hardly registers - even for US history it didn't exist for the first half of that history. I think it a useless thing and would abolish it as a requirement. Let's speak to how the US got along without it prior to 1892.

Actually it supports my case quite nicely. You've selected "oaths" as part of our debate, as this in one in particular where the legal battle is largely joined, as there are many more people in this country who have recited the Pledge than have had to get up in front of a judge and swear to tell the truth. It's a clear example of how something was started, that even you admit, was not Christian in its intent, and was modified to be so, so that Christians would feel happier about their lives.

Which, by the way, if you are talking "centuries or millenia", that would also invalidate, in your view, all of our country's oaths...as they have only existed for a mere 100 years more, back to 1776 (give or take a few years).

As far as how the US got along prior to 1892, I would suggest that there was a lot more internal philosophical and physical strife between 1776 and 1892 then there has been between 1892 and today. The Civil War is a clear example of this.

rdhopeca wrote:

rusmeister wrote: The pledge of allegiance is a specific example which does not support your case in general - because I will, again, largely agree with you. It is an artificial construction whose real aim is not Christian at all but at indoctrinating the support of the existing government - something the Declaration of Independence points out can be in need of actual change/abolishment. It is a very recent invention (1892) - I am talking in terms of centuries and millenia, and on that scale the PofA hardly registers - even for US history it didn't exist for the first half of that history. I think it a useless thing and would abolish it as a requirement. Let's speak to how the US got along without it prior to 1892.

Actually it supports my case quite nicely. You've selected "oaths" as part of our debate, as this in one in particular where the legal battle is largely joined, as there are many more people in this country who have recited the Pledge than have had to get up in front of a judge and swear to tell the truth. It's a clear example of how something was started, that even you admit, was not Christian in its intent, and was modified to be so, so that Christians would feel happier about their lives.

Which, by the way, if you are talking "centuries or millenia", that would also invalidate, in your view, all of our country's oaths...as they have only existed for a mere 100 years more, back to 1776 (give or take a few years).

As far as how the US got along prior to 1892, I would suggest that there was a lot more internal philosophical and physical strife between 1776 and 1892 then there has been between 1892 and today. The Civil War is a clear example of this.

I guess that's just an example of internet misunderstandings more than anything else. I wasn't limiting my comments to the PofA or even to oaths formed and used in America - I was addressing the very idea or concept as it has always existed.

I don't think you mean to say that oaths implemented (especially the PofA) resulted in less strife. I would say that strife can be a good thing, if it means free people thinking freely and attempting to hammer out the best kind of free society, and the absence of strife a bad thing if it is one imposed by an oligarchy or aristocracy via education and media to ensure peace on their terms. (Uh, 1984, anyone?)

Of course the Civil War was a bad thing. But it was the result of an evil and anti-Christian policy - the institution of slavery and everyone who benefited from it. I think all of that - and even the PofA - are somewhat irrelevant, or more accurately, relevant only to a degree. If we have no oaths at all, we're left with the question of how much we trust someones word and when and on what basis do we punish anyone for lying. If we form an oath that pleases you and your ideal of pluralism, it probably would not please me or my ideals, and again we have the problem of how to enact any public policy in the face of opposing ideals. We're back to square one, where the lynch-pin of pluralism hinges on the idea that the beliefs are not important and should not impact public policy. The most important thing about it is the invisibility of the philosophy - it is there, but nobody talks about it, and as Stormer said, everybody claims that they don't deal in questions like that (I suppose that is true - most probably really ARE unaware of the guiding philosophy they actually live by). Again, my quote from heretics, ch 1. I think discussing that chapter would be the most productive thing we can do here.
www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/heretics/ch1.html

OMG..The Civil War was due to Southern States secession from the Union. Was that Anti-Christian? The idea of Freedom being the foundation from which Emancipation of the Slaves sprung from,, from which Woman's Right to Vote sprung from, etc etc only suites when Freedom coincides with " christian" values?. But when Freedom offends Christian Values then its evil..!?!?!?!?!..The duplicity of Christian Values as applied is obvious. This is the Tyranny of Conflicted Minds. United States Of America is founded in Freedom, not Christian Values. The imposition of Christian Values on my Freedoms is a Threat to my freedom. The imposition of Christian Values on my freedoms is anti-American. The self righteous imposition of Christian Values on all things Good of our society is an affront to reality.

The idea that Only Christian Values can lead to a just and free society is Hubris at some of its worse. The propaganda putting this idea forth today is exactly that..propaganda. It belittles the citizen. It belittles and humiliates Free Thinking. It is an insult and a historical embarrassment ; the likes of McCarthyism.

And I'd like to know how slavery is anti- christian, especially as it pertains to the bible.

rusmeister wrote: I guess that's just an example of internet misunderstandings more than anything else. I wasn't limiting my comments to the PofA or even to oaths formed and used in America - I was addressing the very idea or concept as it has always existed.

I don't think you mean to say that oaths implemented (especially the PofA) resulted in less strife. I would say that strife can be a good thing, if it means free people thinking freely and attempting to hammer out the best kind of free society, and the absence of strife a bad thing if it is one imposed by an oligarchy or aristocracy via education and media to ensure peace on their terms. (Uh, 1984, anyone?)

Of course the Civil War was a bad thing. But it was the result of an evil and anti-Christian policy - the institution of slavery and everyone who benefited from it. I think all of that - and even the PofA - are somewhat irrelevant, or more accurately, relevant only to a degree. If we have no oaths at all, we're left with the question of how much we trust someones word and when and on what basis do we punish anyone for lying. If we form an oath that pleases you and your ideal of pluralism, it probably would not please me or my ideals, and again we have the problem of how to enact any public policy in the face of opposing ideals. We're back to square one, where the lynch-pin of pluralism hinges on the idea that the beliefs are not important and should not impact public policy. The most important thing about it is the invisibility of the philosophy - it is there, but nobody talks about it, and as Stormer said, everybody claims that they don't deal in questions like that (I suppose that is true - most probably really ARE unaware of the guiding philosophy they actually live by). Again, my quote from heretics, ch 1. I think discussing that chapter would be the most productive thing we can do here.
www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/heretics/ch1.html

Let me understand this clearly:

1) Slavery is widely supported in the Bible, including rules on how to treat slaves
2) The Civil War was largely caused by a desire to maintain slavery in the South
3) You make the claim that slavery and the Civil War was caused by something "anti-Christian".

Using this argument, I will gladly call into question every quote of the Bible you make going forward, or any conclusion you have drawn with the Bible as your main source of reference.

As far as oaths are concerned, my argument has always been, that we can all agree to "swear to tell the truth" under societal rules regarding our country, and be punished for lying. It's only the "so help me God" that is irrelevant. So the oaths are clearly agreed upon by everyone as citizens in that fashion.

As far as your argument that strife is a good thing, and the absense of strife is a bad thing, how does that reconcile both with missionary movements trying to stamp religious dissent, and your own claim that you know the One Truth and everyone that disagrees with you is wrong? It would seem to me that if strife is desirable, you'd be quite at home with everyone having their own opinion on this issue, as I am.

And as far as debating the chapter you have indicated, I will assume that such a suggestion means you have run out of counter-arguments and are attempting to shift the debate. But I've decided to at least read it, out of respect for your opinion. I might even come back and discuss it with you. Depends on how much credence I give it.

I have read the chapter in question, and recognize a great majority of it from the quotes you have included. I am not going to debate it point by point. Rather, I have decided to answer the chapter's example with an example of my own.

From the chapter:

Suppose that a great commotion arises in the street about something, let us say a lamp-post, which many influential persons desire to pull down. A grey-clad monk, who is the spirit of the Middle Ages, is approached upon the matter, and begins to say, in the arid manner of the Schoolmen, "Let us first of all consider, my brethren, the value of Light. If Light be in itself good--" At this point he is somewhat excusably knocked down. All the people make a rush for the lamp-post, the lamp-post is down in ten minutes, and they go about congratulating each other on their unmediaeval practicality. But as things go on they do not work out so easily. Some people have pulled the lamp-post down because they wanted the electric light; some because they wanted old iron; some because they wanted darkness, because their deeds were evil. Some thought it not enough of a lamp-post, some too much; some acted because they wanted to smash municipal machinery; some because they wanted to smash something. And there is war in the night, no man knowing whom he strikes. So, gradually and inevitably, to-day, to-morrow, or the next day, there comes back the conviction that the monk was right after all, and that all depends on what is the philosophy of Light. Only what we might have discussed under the gas-lamp, we now must discuss in the dark.

My version:

Suppose that a great commotion arises in the street about something, let us say a lamp-post, which many influential persons desire to pull down. A grey-clad monk, who is the spirit of the Middle Ages, is approached upon the matter, and begins to say, in the arid manner of the Schoolmen, "Let us first of all consider, my brethren, the value of Light. If Light be in itself good--" Once he is complete with his point, a vote is taken, and it is voted that the lamp-post should be removed by a wide majority. At this point the monk launches into a lecture about how all depends on the philosophy of Light, ignoring for the moment that the lamp-post in question is man-made, and that the light in question is artificial in nature. A brief discussion occurs, in which case some in the minority agree with the monk, but the majority is firm in insisting that the lamp-post be removed. The monk continues to rail at the crowd that they are all wrong and will all be punished for not listening to the one truth. Respectfully, the crowd moves their discussion to another corner down the street, where another lamp-post rests, or simply retire to their homes, content to wait for light of morning to arrive.

That which brings Joy to the heart,,exhilaration to ones spirit, elation to the days soul,,is as varied as human's hearts, spirits, and days are. That..is not owned nor dispersed by one of us. Its owned by all of humanity. Allow me the freedom to experience, That, as only I can.

rdhopeca wrote:

rusmeister wrote: I guess that's just an example of internet misunderstandings more than anything else. I wasn't limiting my comments to the PofA or even to oaths formed and used in America - I was addressing the very idea or concept as it has always existed.

I don't think you mean to say that oaths implemented (especially the PofA) resulted in less strife. I would say that strife can be a good thing, if it means free people thinking freely and attempting to hammer out the best kind of free society, and the absence of strife a bad thing if it is one imposed by an oligarchy or aristocracy via education and media to ensure peace on their terms. (Uh, 1984, anyone?)

Of course the Civil War was a bad thing. But it was the result of an evil and anti-Christian policy - the institution of slavery and everyone who benefited from it. I think all of that - and even the PofA - are somewhat irrelevant, or more accurately, relevant only to a degree. If we have no oaths at all, we're left with the question of how much we trust someones word and when and on what basis do we punish anyone for lying. If we form an oath that pleases you and your ideal of pluralism, it probably would not please me or my ideals, and again we have the problem of how to enact any public policy in the face of opposing ideals. We're back to square one, where the lynch-pin of pluralism hinges on the idea that the beliefs are not important and should not impact public policy. The most important thing about it is the invisibility of the philosophy - it is there, but nobody talks about it, and as Stormer said, everybody claims that they don't deal in questions like that (I suppose that is true - most probably really ARE unaware of the guiding philosophy they actually live by). Again, my quote from heretics, ch 1. I think discussing that chapter would be the most productive thing we can do here.
www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/heretics/ch1.html

Let me understand this clearly:

1) Slavery is widely supported in the Bible, including rules on how to treat slaves
2) The Civil War was largely caused by a desire to maintain slavery in the South
3) You make the claim that slavery and the Civil War was caused by something "anti-Christian".

Using this argument, I will gladly call into question every quote of the Bible you make going forward, or any conclusion you have drawn with the Bible as your main source of reference.

As far as oaths are concerned, my argument has always been, that we can all agree to "swear to tell the truth" under societal rules regarding our country, and be punished for lying. It's only the "so help me God" that is irrelevant. So the oaths are clearly agreed upon by everyone as citizens in that fashion.

As far as your argument that strife is a good thing, and the absense of strife is a bad thing, how does that reconcile both with missionary movements trying to stamp religious dissent, and your own claim that you know the One Truth and everyone that disagrees with you is wrong? It would seem to me that if strife is desirable, you'd be quite at home with everyone having their own opinion on this issue, as I am.

And as far as debating the chapter you have indicated, I will assume that such a suggestion means you have run out of counter-arguments and are attempting to shift the debate. But I've decided to at least read it, out of respect for your opinion. I might even come back and discuss it with you. Depends on how much credence I give it.

To respond to both you and Dromond, first of all, I'll say that you are coming from what appears to be Protestant Sola Scriptura presuppositions: showing quotes from the Bible, etc. The Bible is not to be understood in a vacuum - it requires a definite authority to interpret what it means. It would probably take me a half an hour just to outline the major weaknesses in Sola Scriptura (SS). In short, you wind up taking ancient texts, that have been translated, you don't usually know what has been lost in translation, you don't know the cultural assumptions and differences and are attempting to interpret it on your own - that may be fine when nothing of import hangs on it - when it doesn't matter whether you are mistaken or not. Last I heard, Catholics do not subscribe to SS, and Orthodox Christians certainly don't. In the most traditional (and therefore most valid) forms of Christianity one turns to the entire body of Church Tradition - which has already worked out, long ago, what the texts mean. When you do so, you begin to discover that a New testament means a new covenant, a new contract, if you will. Old Testament law is fulfilled in new ways, and adherence to old testament law as written is invalidated. It is the purpose, or spirit of OT law that is maintained, but the letter of the law is abolished. So Christianity is based on the New Testament, not the Old. Thus, simply quoting any Scripture is useless by itself - it needs to be examined in the face of Tradition, and secondly, OT quotes are doubly useless - they were the basis for ancient Jewish law.
So we're already in trouble in any discussion because we must agree on an Authority to correctly interpret Scripture, and that Authority cannot be us. Thus, I won't fling Scripture back and forth with you. I can discuss it in the framework of the Orthodox Church, and I believe that views on slavery are identical with those of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC).

It's purely a sidebar, but I challenge you to name one serious branch/established denomination of Christianity that advocates slavery.

So on your points, (1) is invalid, we agree on (2) and (3) ought to be obvious to a brain-dead (insert your metaphor here). If you know anything at all about the spirit of Christianity, protestant or otherwise, it ought to be self-evident that slavery is anti-Christian and is evil.

I think we're dead-ended on talking about oaths. You keep talking about what you personally find acceptable and I keep talking about the historical bases on which oaths were formed, generally the commonly-accepted religion being the lynch-pin.

I said that strife CAN be a good thing, not that it IS a good thing. Hopefully you recognize the difference. We probably agree that IF there is such a thing as a just war, a revolution, a rebellion for freedom or whatever, then strife MIGHT be justified. On the strife itself, all I'm saying is that there is genuine conflict and that with opposing views, one must prevail and the other will not - or the nation will be torn in two.

Your assumption on my reference to the chapter is entirely wrong and unfair. I referred to it since the chapter is entirely relevant to our discussion, and it would save me time that I could use to spend with my own children (for example) rather than typing it all down here. I could make a (possibly equally unfair) assertion that your refusal to engage with the points in the chapter indicate a lack of ability to counter those points. My personal opinion is that to debate Chesterton is, most of the time, to lose. I find that while he may make debatable assertions regarding specific facts, his overarching points are nearly always right, dead-on, and said better than I could ever say them. I really do think that people are unable to counter Chesterton - they will say he's wrong, or he's bad, and stop right there. Because they can't say why. For the simple reason that he is right.

I'm out of energy - I'll get to your 'version' of the monk later. I do appreciate your making it!
Happy New Year!

rusmeister wrote:

rdhopeca wrote:

rusmeister wrote: I guess that's just an example of internet misunderstandings more than anything else. I wasn't limiting my comments to the PofA or even to oaths formed and used in America - I was addressing the very idea or concept as it has always existed.

I don't think you mean to say that oaths implemented (especially the PofA) resulted in less strife. I would say that strife can be a good thing, if it means free people thinking freely and attempting to hammer out the best kind of free society, and the absence of strife a bad thing if it is one imposed by an oligarchy or aristocracy via education and media to ensure peace on their terms. (Uh, 1984, anyone?)

Of course the Civil War was a bad thing. But it was the result of an evil and anti-Christian policy - the institution of slavery and everyone who benefited from it. I think all of that - and even the PofA - are somewhat irrelevant, or more accurately, relevant only to a degree. If we have no oaths at all, we're left with the question of how much we trust someones word and when and on what basis do we punish anyone for lying. If we form an oath that pleases you and your ideal of pluralism, it probably would not please me or my ideals, and again we have the problem of how to enact any public policy in the face of opposing ideals. We're back to square one, where the lynch-pin of pluralism hinges on the idea that the beliefs are not important and should not impact public policy. The most important thing about it is the invisibility of the philosophy - it is there, but nobody talks about it, and as Stormer said, everybody claims that they don't deal in questions like that (I suppose that is true - most probably really ARE unaware of the guiding philosophy they actually live by). Again, my quote from heretics, ch 1. I think discussing that chapter would be the most productive thing we can do here.
www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/heretics/ch1.html

Let me understand this clearly:

1) Slavery is widely supported in the Bible, including rules on how to treat slaves
2) The Civil War was largely caused by a desire to maintain slavery in the South
3) You make the claim that slavery and the Civil War was caused by something "anti-Christian".

Using this argument, I will gladly call into question every quote of the Bible you make going forward, or any conclusion you have drawn with the Bible as your main source of reference.

As far as oaths are concerned, my argument has always been, that we can all agree to "swear to tell the truth" under societal rules regarding our country, and be punished for lying. It's only the "so help me God" that is irrelevant. So the oaths are clearly agreed upon by everyone as citizens in that fashion.

As far as your argument that strife is a good thing, and the absense of strife is a bad thing, how does that reconcile both with missionary movements trying to stamp religious dissent, and your own claim that you know the One Truth and everyone that disagrees with you is wrong? It would seem to me that if strife is desirable, you'd be quite at home with everyone having their own opinion on this issue, as I am.

And as far as debating the chapter you have indicated, I will assume that such a suggestion means you have run out of counter-arguments and are attempting to shift the debate. But I've decided to at least read it, out of respect for your opinion. I might even come back and discuss it with you. Depends on how much credence I give it.

To respond to both you and Dromond, first of all, I'll say that you are coming from what appears to be Protestant Sola Scriptura presuppositions: showing quotes from the Bible, etc. The Bible is not to be understood in a vacuum - it requires a definite authority to interpret what it means. It would probably take me a half an hour just to outline the major weaknesses in Sola Scriptura (SS). In short, you wind up taking ancient texts, that have been translated, you don't usually know what has been lost in translation, you don't know the cultural assumptions and differences and are attempting to interpret it on your own - that may be fine when nothing of import hangs on it - when it doesn't matter whether you are mistaken or not. Last I heard, Catholics do not subscribe to SS, and Orthodox Christians certainly don't. In the most traditional (and therefore most valid) forms of Christianity one turns to the entire body of Church Tradition - which has already worked out, long ago, what the texts mean. When you do so, you begin to discover that a New testament means a new covenant, a new contract, if you will. Old Testament law is fulfilled in new ways, and adherence to old testament law as written is invalidated. It is the purpose, or spirit of OT law that is maintained, but the letter of the law is abolished. So Christianity is based on the New Testament, not the Old. Thus, simply quoting any Scripture is useless by itself - it needs to be examined in the face of Tradition, and secondly, OT quotes are doubly useless - they were the basis for ancient Jewish law.
So we're already in trouble in any discussion because we must agree on an Authority to correctly interpret Scripture, and that Authority cannot be us. Thus, I won't fling Scripture back and forth with you. I can discuss it in the framework of the Orthodox Church, and I believe that views on slavery are identical with those of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC).

It's purely a sidebar, but I challenge you to name one serious branch/established denomination of Christianity that advocates slavery.

So on your points, (1) is invalid, we agree on (2) and (3) ought to be obvious to a brain-dead (insert your metaphor here). If you know anything at all about the spirit of Christianity, protestant or otherwise, it ought to be self-evident that slavery is anti-Christian and is evil.

I think we're dead-ended on talking about oaths. You keep talking about what you personally find acceptable and I keep talking about the historical bases on which oaths were formed, generally the commonly-accepted religion being the lynch-pin.

I said that strife CAN be a good thing, not that it IS a good thing. Hopefully you recognize the difference. We probably agree that IF there is such a thing as a just war, a revolution, a rebellion for freedom or whatever, then strife MIGHT be justified. On the strife itself, all I'm saying is that there is genuine conflict and that with opposing views, one must prevail and the other will not - or the nation will be torn in two.

Your assumption on my reference to the chapter is entirely wrong and unfair. I referred to it since the chapter is entirely relevant to our discussion, and it would save me time that I could use to spend with my own children (for example) rather than typing it all down here. I could make a (possibly equally unfair) assertion that your refusal to engage with the points in the chapter indicate a lack of ability to counter those points. My personal opinion is that to debate Chesterton is, most of the time, to lose. I find that while he may make debatable assertions regarding specific facts, his overarching points are nearly always right, dead-on, and said better than I could ever say them. I really do think that people are unable to counter Chesterton - they will say he's wrong, or he's bad, and stop right there. Because they can't say why. For the simple reason that he is right.

I'm out of energy - I'll get to your 'version' of the monk later. I do appreciate your making it!
Happy New Year!

I will only say that point 1) is entirely valid...it was mentioned in several verses over this past holiday season. In spite of what you say, for a Church to present readings from scripture and then refute their very words is contradictory and self serving. It would be better for you to face up to the fact that slavery was at one point an accepted part of the very world that Jesus walked through, rather than say we "misinterpreted" the words upon which your faith is based. How can I possibly "misinterpret" "make sure you treat your slaves as you would yourself" during Advent? It basically says, "Hey, if you've got slaves, let's be nice to them during this holiday season...even though they are still slaves".

However, I will not belabor the point beyond this. I don't particular care to house this debate in terms of the slavery issue. I only brought it up because you chose to house the Civil War in "un-Christian" terms. I'll let it drop.

My refusal to engage your chapter on point per point is the same as yours, I have other things to do that take up my time, like my family. Which is why I chose to counter the specific behavioral example that the chapter closed with. I feel that that allows us to touch on points rather than me going paragraph by paragraph and offering a rebuttal.

I will say, however, that I am entirely amused (and I mean this) by Chesterton's repeated assertions that he finds people such as GB Shaw "brilliant, honest", and then turns around and says that they are wrong. If they are wrong, how can they be so brilliant in his eyes?

That said, give me the "brilliant, honest" people's viewpoint every time, over the absolutist, "I'm right" viewpoint. At least I know they might actually consider respecting what I'm going to say.

The support for slavery in the Bible raises some interesting problems.

Either:

1) God changes his mind on the nature of good and evil.
2) The Bible isn't (entirely) the Word of God.

I don't see how you can get around those two possibilities. Is there a third explanation why the Bible advocated slavery?

If we accept 1, it means good and evil aren't absolute--but instead dependent upon cultural conventions or interpretations of these mysterious "authorities." Or it means that what God views as good/evil is completely arbitrary . . . to the extent that He can view the same exact practice as alternately good, and then change His mind to the exact opposite. So the evil of slavery has nothing to do with the inherent evil of the practice itself, but rather upon the whims of an arbitrary Creator, who curiously holds moral beliefs based on human cultural conventions of the time. Or . . . 2.

If we accept 2, then the entire Bible is suspect, including the entire foundation for religion of Christianity. If some of it isn't the Word of God, then how can we say any of it is?

These mysterious "authorities" Rus mentions, who tell us what the Bible actually means, seem a bit ad hoc. If the Word of God can't speak for itself, but instead needs human mediators, then why is one human any better than another? If the Word of God depends upon what some human says, then we're not talking about the Word of God, but rather the word of some guy. That's an extremely unsatisfying way to deal with very obvious contradiction within a supposedly "Holy" text.

The Bible is not to be understood in a vacuum - it requires a definite authority to interpret what it means.

Who decides whom the authorities are? Another authority? What if my authority says your authority is wrong?

In short, you wind up taking ancient texts, that have been translated, you don't usually know what has been lost in translation, you don't know the cultural assumptions and differences and are attempting to interpret it on your own

God went to all the trouble to make sure we get His Word, but he can't be bothered to do some quality-control monitoring during the translation process?

What possible "cultural assumptions" could make slavery ok?

Old Testament law is fulfilled in new ways, and adherence to old testament law as written is invalidated.

I.E. "God changes His mind, and Good/Evil aren't absolute and unchanging." But even if you can find some way to excuse this change (for instance, "It is the purpose, or spirit of OT law that is maintained, but the letter of the law is abolished."), you can't get around the fact that at one time, God thought slavery was perfectly fine . . . even if He changed his mind. That's exactly the kind of wish-washy behavior I don't want to see in a being who holds my eternal fate in His hands.

Thus, simply quoting any Scripture is useless by itself - it needs to be examined in the face of Tradition, and secondly, OT quotes are doubly useless - they were the basis for ancient Jewish law.

Perhaps they are useless as a guide for today, but they aren't useless in showing how at one time God advocated and approved of things which are evil today . . . unless Jewish law had nothing to do with God's will, which begs the question: why is it in the Bible at all? (see 2 above).

So we're already in trouble in any discussion because we must agree on an Authority to correctly interpret Scripture, and that Authority cannot be us.

How very convenient for you! We can show you scriptures in the Holy Bible which advocate heinous evils, but you can dismiss them simply by claiming we're not "authoritative" enough to discuss them. Again, what authority, culture consideration, or translation error could possibly justify slavery? Explain that. The burden of proof is on you.

It's purely a sidebar, but I challenge you to name one serious branch/established denomination of Christianity that advocates slavery.

What difference does that make? It only shows that the church is at odds with the Bible. It doesn't prove that what the Bible says can be dismissed.

Malik23 wrote:The support for slavery in the Bible raises some interesting problems.

Either:

1) God changes his mind on the nature of good and evil.
2) The Bible isn't (entirely) the Word of God.

I don't see how you can get around those two possibilities. Is there a third explanation why the Bible advocated slavery?

If we accept 1, it means good and evil aren't absolute--but instead dependent upon cultural conventions or interpretations of these mysterious "authorities." Or it means that what God views as good/evil is completely arbitrary . . . to the extent that He can view the same exact practice as alternately good, and then change His mind to the exact opposite. So the evil of slavery has nothing to do with the inherent evil of the practice itself, but rather upon the whims of an arbitrary Creator, who curiously holds moral beliefs based on human cultural conventions of the time. Or . . . 2.

If we accept 2, then the entire Bible is suspect, including the entire foundation for religion of Christianity. If some of it isn't the Word of God, then how can we say any of it is?

These mysterious "authorities" Rus mentions, who tell us what the Bible actually means, seem a bit ad hoc. If the Word of God can't speak for itself, but instead needs human mediators, then why is one human any better than another? If the Word of God depends upon what some human says, then we're not talking about the Word of God, but rather the word of some guy. That's an extremely unsatisfying way to deal with very obvious contradiction within a supposedly "Holy" text.

The Bible is not to be understood in a vacuum - it requires a definite authority to interpret what it means.

Who decides whom the authorities are? Another authority? What if my authority says your authority is wrong?

In short, you wind up taking ancient texts, that have been translated, you don't usually know what has been lost in translation, you don't know the cultural assumptions and differences and are attempting to interpret it on your own

God went to all the trouble to make sure we get His Word, but he can't be bothered to do some quality-control monitoring during the translation process?

What possible "cultural assumptions" could make slavery ok?

Old Testament law is fulfilled in new ways, and adherence to old testament law as written is invalidated.

I.E. "God changes His mind, and Good/Evil aren't absolute and unchanging." But even if you can find some way to excuse this change (for instance, "It is the purpose, or spirit of OT law that is maintained, but the letter of the law is abolished."), you can't get around the fact that at one time, God thought slavery was perfectly fine . . . even if He changed his mind. That's exactly the kind of wish-washy behavior I don't want to see in a being who holds my eternal fate in His hands.

Thus, simply quoting any Scripture is useless by itself - it needs to be examined in the face of Tradition, and secondly, OT quotes are doubly useless - they were the basis for ancient Jewish law.

Perhaps they are useless as a guide for today, but they aren't useless in showing how at one time God advocated and approved of things which are evil today . . . unless Jewish law had nothing to do with God's will, which begs the question: why is it in the Bible at all? (see 2 above).

So we're already in trouble in any discussion because we must agree on an Authority to correctly interpret Scripture, and that Authority cannot be us.

How very convenient for you! We can show you scriptures in the Holy Bible which advocate heinous evils, but you can dismiss them simply by claiming we're not "authoritative" enough to discuss them. Again, what authority, culture consideration, or translation error could possibly justify slavery? Explain that. The burden of proof is on you.

It's purely a sidebar, but I challenge you to name one serious branch/established denomination of Christianity that advocates slavery.

What difference does that make? It only shows that the church is at odds with the Bible. It doesn't prove that what the Bible says can be dismissed.

I wasn't going to go here, and now I'm glad I didn't. This basically sums it up.

As I said about internet misunderstandings...
They can be willful, or not. I'll assume not.

I said in my previous post that a definite authority is required (and I'll add here that you cannot quote Scripture without identifying who is interpreting what that Scripture means, not excluding the larger context in which that scripture is found). If the interpreter is you (and is therefore limited by your own knowledge and current understandings) please say so.
You turn around and respond as if I had not said that. maybe you didn't see it, maybe your screen had a blur from a slain moth on that part, I don't know. But further discussion is fruitless unless you get that. I can attempt to explain why - but going on about how Scripture supports slavery just ignores flat-out what I said there.

As a matter of fact, I DO face up to the fact that slavery was at one point an accepted part of the very world that Jesus walked through. Indeed, for that reason some Scripture addresses attitudes toward those unfortunates. But while Christianity does ultimately bring freedom, it does not do so via revolutions in the sense of this world, but in changing the hearts and minds of each man, one at a time. Thus, the Christianization of Rome eventually brought an end to slavery in the world ruled by Rome.

I will say, however, that I am entirely amused (and I mean this) by Chesterton's repeated assertions that he finds people such as GB Shaw "brilliant, honest", and then turns around and says that they are wrong. If they are wrong, how can they be so brilliant in his eyes?

C'mon, this one's easy. Do we not find one another to be both honest and intelligent, although we disagree?
I can say that I can easily concede Stephen Hawking and Bertrand Russell to be brilliant thinkers, but quite wrong on the question of faith, if I see their philosophy to be based on quicksand. They may still reason brilliantly on the whole, while missing a critical flaw by holding a central assumption unexamined. (Malik, your post is an example of excellent reasoning based on a flawed premise - if you would first examine the question of what exactly the Bible's role in the Christian faith is

the Bible advocated

, and whether that faith actually supports slavery

The support for slavery in the Bible

, your excellent reasoning might begin to produce accurate results.)
Both GKC and Shaw recognized a high degree of intellect in the other, and so respected each other greatly while strongly disagreeing. They both considered the other brilliant and honest and both had what you think of as an "absolutist", "I'm right" point of view. IOW, the one does not exclude the other.

It really is a question of authority - identifying the authority. If you start from this end of history, you very nearly cannot identify it at all. If you trace from the beginning and learn what the history actually is, it is actually possible to come to reasonable conclusions. And it is not mysterious at all.
My conclusion is that that authority is the Church - which I have further identified as (in modern times) the Orthodox Church. But again, this requires extensive research to learn why such a proposition is actually reasonable. Put in extreme short the Church existed before the Bible did, the early Christians got along with little to nothing except the rare Epistle and in some cases what we call excerpts from the Old Testament, and thus, the concept of Holy Tradition - which includes both oral and written tradition and is explicitly referred to in Scripture - the careful gathering of all that was passed down - the doctrine, the worship, and everything that developed to clarify what the faith is. (The Catholic Church is still rather close to this Tradition, although the existence of a Papacy - a single man who actually does rule unilaterally and has no equivalent in Orthodoxy, which has always been collegiate - has done much to separate the two Churches.

The difference between your authority and mine is that i surrendur mine to the church - I admit that there is something bigger and better than me, that knows more than I do, which I just plain need to learn from. My ultimate authority is not me. I recognize my own limitations.

God went to all the trouble to make sure we get His Word, but he can't be bothered to do some quality-control monitoring during the translation process?

Boy, Malik, no wonder you're such a skeptic!
It is that Tradition (as distinct from the infamous "traditions of men") that ensures that the correct understandings cross cultural and linguistic boundaries. It is precisely referring to (for example) the writings of St John Chrysostom or Gregory of Nyssa to clarify certain passages of Scripture or the meaning of certain forms in worship or whatever.

I.E. "God changes His mind, and Good/Evil aren't absolute and unchanging."

On the contrary. It is we who change our minds, and it is our understandings which are too primitive and simplistic. I would attempt a brief explanation as being the intersection of eternity and time. Christ (God) appeared (incarnated) in a definite historical time and place. That puts an event "after" some events and "before" others in time.How are the people who are limited by the tunnel vision of time to live - under what code and rules? It is a transformation, but only as far as we are concerned. Your response indicates that you see God as existing within time. The analogy of an author of a play might help here - the author is outside the play and as far as the characters of the play are concerned is eternal - he exists at all points and can insert any changes he sees necessary at any point.
I realize that is a little garbled, but hope there is something there that makes sense to you.

I agree with your attitudes toward the individual regarding authority. Your understanding, however, of what the Bible's role in Christianity makes it difficult to talk to you - you insist on base assumptions that I deny - most especially that the individual can simply pick up a Bible and fully understand deep matters of doctrine for himself (completely ignoring the limitations of the individual). A valid Authority must be corporate and span the centuries.

I agree with you both to a great extent on the kind of Christianity you reject. I reject it, too, and there's an awful lot I think we agree on. The difficulties mainly arise over what you don't know about the Christianity that I DO believe in.

I agree with your attitudes toward the individual regarding authority. Your understanding, however, of what the Bible's role in Christianity makes it difficult to talk to you - you insist on base assumptions that I deny - most especially that the individual can simply pick up a Bible and fully understand deep matters of doctrine for himself (completely ignoring the limitations of the individual). A valid Authority must be corporate and span the centuries.

Here's my "base assumption": That the Bible, if it is the word of God, as stated in a Church Mass, that I can accept it as it is said. Thus, the phrase "treat your slaves as you would treat yourself" is equally valid and accepted as "Jesus suffered, died, and was buried. on the third day He rose again".

You can't have a priest, a representative chosen by the Church, say both these things, and then tell me one is true and the other is not. They've had 2000 years and uncountable translations to remove references to slaves from the text, and haven't done so. I'll take that as proof of its truth over your assurances otherwise.

I said in my previous post that a definite authority is required (and I'll add here that you cannot quote Scripture without identifying who is interpreting what that Scripture means, not excluding the larger context in which that scripture is found). If the interpreter is you (and is therefore limited by your own knowledge and current understandings) please say so.

As I said, no one is interpreting here. I'm quoting a phrase from a Catholic Mass. How can I possibly "misinterpret" "treat your slaves as you would treat yourself" as meaning any other than "it's ok to have slaves"? What interpreter would you choose who would consider that to have any other meaning?

How are the people who are limited by the tunnel vision of time to live - under what code and rules? It is a transformation, but only as far as we are concerned.

I thought that was what the ten commandments and the bible and the Churches were for. To define these transformations for the people. The people shouldn't be deciding anything on their own, as far as the Church is concerned.

It is we who change our minds, and it is our understandings which are too primitive and simplistic.

What makes my personal "transformation" any less acceptable than yours, if we are allowed to change our minds on an individual basis? It seems you want it both ways. You want to be able to change your mind, but only if we all agree on what is the correct place to change our minds to.

I would tend to think that if we are allowed to change our minds, that supports my multiple truths ideas quite handily: someone wrote a book a while back about a Great man, and we all took it as each of us desired and ran with it to different conclusions.

Put in extreme short the Church existed before the Bible did, the early Christians got along with little to nothing except the rare Epistle and in some cases what we call excerpts from the Old Testament, and thus, the concept of Holy Tradition - which includes both oral and written tradition and is explicitly referred to in Scripture - the careful gathering of all that was passed down - the doctrine, the worship, and everything that developed to clarify what the faith is. The Catholic Church is still rather close to this Tradition

And it is the Catholic Church to which I am directly referring, as that is the basis of my exposure to Christian faith. Once they stop telling me the Scripture is the Word of God, I'll stop quoting it here.

And one thing I would like to add. You have repeatedly stated that your faith is the most correct, and others, while close, such as Catholicism, are less correct, or perhaps entirely incorrect.

Let's say I go into a restaurant and am offered fifteen flavors of ice cream. I try one, and have an allergic reaction to it. Why would I continue to try others of a different flavor in the hopes that I would not have a similar reaction?

That's basically how I feel when told that there are forms of Christianity out there that you would suggest I disavow for various reasons, but that your form of Christianity is correct, accepted, and desired. I was raised going to a Protestant Church, and spent the last ten years attending Catholic Church. Neither speak to me. Why should yours, and on what basis should I consider trying it, when my worldview works for me?

rdhopeca wrote:

I agree with your attitudes toward the individual regarding authority. Your understanding, however, of what the Bible's role in Christianity makes it difficult to talk to you - you insist on base assumptions that I deny - most especially that the individual can simply pick up a Bible and fully understand deep matters of doctrine for himself (completely ignoring the limitations of the individual). A valid Authority must be corporate and span the centuries.

Here's my "base assumption": That the Bible, if it is the word of God, as stated in a Church Mass, that I can accept it as it is said. Thus, the phrase "treat your slaves as you would treat yourself" is equally valid and accepted as "Jesus suffered, died, and was buried. on the third day He rose again".

You can't have a priest, a representative chosen by the Church, say both these things, and then tell me one is true and the other is not. They've had 2000 years and uncountable translations to remove references to slaves from the text, and haven't done so. I'll take that as proof of its truth over your assurances otherwise.

But you have set yourself as the interpreter to tell yourself exactly what that text says about the stand of the faith itself towards slavery. The priest quoted something, and you interpreted it for yourself without asking for any explanations, footnotes or whatever. Have you ever asked a priest what that text means and whether that means that Christianity at that time approved of slavery? 1,000 to one the answer is no.

rdhopeca wrote:

I said in my previous post that a definite authority is required (and I'll add here that you cannot quote Scripture without identifying who is interpreting what that Scripture means, not excluding the larger context in which that scripture is found). If the interpreter is you (and is therefore limited by your own knowledge and current understandings) please say so.

As I said, no one is interpreting here. I'm quoting a phrase from a Catholic Mass. How can I possibly "misinterpret" "treat your slaves as you would treat yourself" as meaning any other than "it's ok to have slaves"? What interpreter would you choose who would consider that to have any other meaning?

If there is no interpretation then there is no understanding. If the Egyptian pharoah has a wierd dream, he may be able to describe it, but it still needs someone to explain what it means.

rdhopeca wrote:

How are the people who are limited by the tunnel vision of time to live - under what code and rules? It is a transformation, but only as far as we are concerned.

I thought that was what the ten commandments and the bible and the Churches were for. To define these transformations for the people. The people shouldn't be deciding anything on their own, as far as the Church is concerned.

Looks like we agree - as long as we understand the Church to be not merely a bunch of guys making up the rules as they go along but as a body that includes both living people and an ancient Tradition that they may not contradict.

rdhopeca wrote:

It is we who change our minds, and it is our understandings which are too primitive and simplistic.

What makes my personal "transformation" any less acceptable than yours, if we are allowed to change our minds on an individual basis? It seems you want it both ways. You want to be able to change your mind, but only if we all agree on what is the correct place to change our minds to.

I would tend to think that if we are allowed to change our minds, that supports my multiple truths ideas quite handily: someone wrote a book a while back about a Great man, and we all took it as each of us desired and ran with it to different conclusions.

You want to be able to change your mind

You seem to have taken those words to mean a position that I endorse - Eternal truths exclude 'changing one's mind' about them, so I do not advocate that at all and do not 'seek to have it both ways'.

rdhopeca wrote:

Put in extreme short the Church existed before the Bible did, the early Christians got along with little to nothing except the rare Epistle and in some cases what we call excerpts from the Old Testament, and thus, the concept of Holy Tradition - which includes both oral and written tradition and is explicitly referred to in Scripture - the careful gathering of all that was passed down - the doctrine, the worship, and everything that developed to clarify what the faith is. The Catholic Church is still rather close to this Tradition

And it is the Catholic Church to which I am directly referring, as that is the basis of my exposure to Christian faith. Once they stop telling me the Scripture is the Word of God, I'll stop quoting it here.

And one thing I would like to add. You have repeatedly stated that your faith is the most correct, and others, while close, such as Catholicism, are less correct, or perhaps entirely incorrect.

Let's say I go into a restaurant and am offered fifteen flavors of ice cream. I try one, and have an allergic reaction to it. Why would I continue to try others of a different flavor in the hopes that I would not have a similar reaction?

That's basically how I feel when told that there are forms of Christianity out there that you would suggest I disavow for various reasons, but that your form of Christianity is correct, accepted, and desired. I was raised going to a Protestant Church, and spent the last ten years attending Catholic Church. Neither speak to me. Why should yours, and on what basis should I consider trying it, when my worldview works for me?

On the first statement, i can only refer you, again, to the question of interpretation. Show me the Tradition of the Catholic Church that expounds on that Scripture in support of slavery, and an accepted statement by canonical clergy to that effect. Otherwise, you are just taking Scripture and twisting it to mean what you would like it to mean.

The latter part poses a good question, but for now I will say that as long as your worldview 'works' for you, I can offer no reasons to try something else that would be convincing to you. It is only when that worldview ceases to work that the question will be answerable.

rusmeister wrote:

rdhopeca wrote:

I agree with your attitudes toward the individual regarding authority. Your understanding, however, of what the Bible's role in Christianity makes it difficult to talk to you - you insist on base assumptions that I deny - most especially that the individual can simply pick up a Bible and fully understand deep matters of doctrine for himself (completely ignoring the limitations of the individual). A valid Authority must be corporate and span the centuries.

Here's my "base assumption": That the Bible, if it is the word of God, as stated in a Church Mass, that I can accept it as it is said. Thus, the phrase "treat your slaves as you would treat yourself" is equally valid and accepted as "Jesus suffered, died, and was buried. on the third day He rose again".

You can't have a priest, a representative chosen by the Church, say both these things, and then tell me one is true and the other is not. They've had 2000 years and uncountable translations to remove references to slaves from the text, and haven't done so. I'll take that as proof of its truth over your assurances otherwise.

But you have set yourself as the interpreter to tell yourself exactly what that text says about the stand of the faith itself towards slavery. The priest quoted something, and you interpreted it for yourself without asking for any explanations, footnotes or whatever. Have you ever asked a priest what that text means and whether that means that Christianity at that time approved of slavery? 1,000 to one the answer is no.

rdhopeca wrote:

I said in my previous post that a definite authority is required (and I'll add here that you cannot quote Scripture without identifying who is interpreting what that Scripture means, not excluding the larger context in which that scripture is found). If the interpreter is you (and is therefore limited by your own knowledge and current understandings) please say so.

As I said, no one is interpreting here. I'm quoting a phrase from a Catholic Mass. How can I possibly "misinterpret" "treat your slaves as you would treat yourself" as meaning any other than "it's ok to have slaves"? What interpreter would you choose who would consider that to have any other meaning?

If there is no interpretation then there is no understanding. If the Egyptian pharoah has a wierd dream, he may be able to describe it, but it still needs someone to explain what it means.

rdhopeca wrote:

How are the people who are limited by the tunnel vision of time to live - under what code and rules? It is a transformation, but only as far as we are concerned.

I thought that was what the ten commandments and the bible and the Churches were for. To define these transformations for the people. The people shouldn't be deciding anything on their own, as far as the Church is concerned.

Looks like we agree - as long as we understand the Church to be not merely a bunch of guys making up the rules as they go along but as a body that includes both living people and an ancient Tradition that they may not contradict.

rdhopeca wrote:

It is we who change our minds, and it is our understandings which are too primitive and simplistic.

What makes my personal "transformation" any less acceptable than yours, if we are allowed to change our minds on an individual basis? It seems you want it both ways. You want to be able to change your mind, but only if we all agree on what is the correct place to change our minds to.

I would tend to think that if we are allowed to change our minds, that supports my multiple truths ideas quite handily: someone wrote a book a while back about a Great man, and we all took it as each of us desired and ran with it to different conclusions.

You want to be able to change your mind

You seem to have taken those words to mean a position that I endorse - Eternal truths exclude 'changing one's mind' about them, so I do not advocate that at all and do not 'seek to have it both ways'.

rdhopeca wrote:

Put in extreme short the Church existed before the Bible did, the early Christians got along with little to nothing except the rare Epistle and in some cases what we call excerpts from the Old Testament, and thus, the concept of Holy Tradition - which includes both oral and written tradition and is explicitly referred to in Scripture - the careful gathering of all that was passed down - the doctrine, the worship, and everything that developed to clarify what the faith is. The Catholic Church is still rather close to this Tradition

And it is the Catholic Church to which I am directly referring, as that is the basis of my exposure to Christian faith. Once they stop telling me the Scripture is the Word of God, I'll stop quoting it here.

And one thing I would like to add. You have repeatedly stated that your faith is the most correct, and others, while close, such as Catholicism, are less correct, or perhaps entirely incorrect.

Let's say I go into a restaurant and am offered fifteen flavors of ice cream. I try one, and have an allergic reaction to it. Why would I continue to try others of a different flavor in the hopes that I would not have a similar reaction?

That's basically how I feel when told that there are forms of Christianity out there that you would suggest I disavow for various reasons, but that your form of Christianity is correct, accepted, and desired. I was raised going to a Protestant Church, and spent the last ten years attending Catholic Church. Neither speak to me. Why should yours, and on what basis should I consider trying it, when my worldview works for me?

On the first statement, i can only refer you, again, to the question of interpretation. Show me the Tradition of the Catholic Church that expounds on that Scripture in support of slavery, and an accepted statement by canonical clergy to that effect. Otherwise, you are just taking Scripture and twisting it to mean what you would like it to mean.

The latter part poses a good question, but for now I will say that as long as your worldview 'works' for you, I can offer no reasons to try something else that would be convincing to you. It is only when that worldview ceases to work that the question will be answerable.

C'mon Rus. "Treat your slaves as you would treat yourself". Do you really expect me to approach a priest and say "ok, so does this mean they had slaves back then?"

Given that, I should assume that when they say "On the third day He rose again", I should also approach and say "ok, does this mean that he really rose from the dead?"

Further, I should then expect a reply that advocates a "pick and choose which truth the priest shall interpret as correct today". Slavery is not terribly popular, so let's say that that wasn't true even though it's obvious to everyone that can understand English that that's what the statement said...but yeah, someone rose from the dead, and I expect you to believe that.

I'll stand by the fact that there is no interpretation of the statement "treat your slaves as you would treat yourself" that arrives at the conclusion that slaves did not exist or were unacceptable. And from that, I can conclude that God did want us to have slaves, and that He did want us to treat them nice from time to time.

And if you are saying that all of this is open to "interpretation", you are admitting that the omniscient, omnipresent, all-powerful being at the center of your faith made a mistake that is open to human correction, which should not have been possible...and a big mistake too: humans treating other humans as animals to be owned. I'd be a lot more forgiving if you were trying to correct a mistake that revolved around, say, humans having organs that no longer have any practical application.

Rus, rdhopeca has a point. All you have to do to prove your point is provide that oh-so-elusive interpretation which (which we're not qualified to know) that shows our understanding of these verses about slaves to be mistaken. So far, all you've proposed is a method by which that might happen, but you haven't applied that method to actually do it.

rdhopeca, as you might know, the Bible says a lot more than simply "treat your slaves nice." It also says you can pass them down to your children as property (so we are talking about slaves, not merely "the hired help,") and the Bible says that it's okay to have slaves as long as they come from the countries around you (i.e. foreigners). So Candians and Mexicans are fair game for me, as far as the OT is concerned.

Sounds like someone is arguing that if it's in the bible, it must be true. It's impossible for everything in the Bible to be true, because so much contradicts each other directly.

Jesus' Father:
MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.
--------------------------------------------------------

Which first--beasts or man?
GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

And so on. There is no choice but to pick and choose what to believe or be told what to pick and choose and believe.

sindatur wrote:Sounds like someone is arguing that if it's in the bible, it must be true. It's impossible for everything in the Bible to be true, because so much contradicts each other directly.

Jesus' Father:
MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.
--------------------------------------------------------

Which first--beasts or man?
GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

And so on. There is no choice but to pick and choose what to believe or be told what to pick and choose and believe.

Actually, I am not arguing that if its in the Bible it must be true per se. I'd quite happily argue that the Bible is a work of fiction, personally, in large part for the very reasons you describe.

What I am arguing is that if one is going to quote from the Bible, and call it "the Word of the Lord", and present the Word of God as truth, I should be able to accept it as such.

This discussion stems from an attempt to establish a One Truth (which I argue can't be done) using "interpretations of the Bible" as part of the basis for that Truth (which I submit should not require interpretation when it's the "Word of the Lord" and read aloud in services as examples of the faith's philosophy, especially on some concepts that are referred to widely and quite clearly). The only reason this discussion went down this path is because I was informed that slavery was non-Christian (vis a vis the Civil War and its causes), and I mentioned that it was widely held as acceptable in the Bible. I was then told that the Bible had been "interpreted to mean something else" and that slavery was not Christian; I thereupon decided to "interpret the Bible to mean what it said" for the basis of this discussion.

Be Careful...The Old Testament is written in Parable form, as is much of the New Testament. The parable,, is a Eastern form of thinking and perceiving,,not Western. So.. applying western Logic and reason to a Eastern Parable form is not correct.

yet,, even in its parable form,,is the implied, that the understanding of the parable is never ending,,understanding is infinite,,and in the infinite is Your Label for choice of Deity or Deities. Where, in the ever expanding sphere of understanding , you decide to stop understanding,,is where your " God " is. So, even from a Eastern perspective,,being absolute on a " God" is only making a statement on the amount of understanding. If one acknowledges the omni, infinite,,then alot of the discussion becomes nothing more than repitition for validation. If one acknowledges the omni, the infinite,,ones can see the paradox of the absolute and get wrapped around the axle about that for the rest of ones life.

rdhopeca wrote: C'mon Rus. "Treat your slaves as you would treat yourself". Do you really expect me to approach a priest and say "ok, so does this mean they had slaves back then?"

Not at all. Ask rather, "Does this mean that the Church approved of slavery in the beginning?"

rdhopeca wrote:Given that, I should assume that when they say "On the third day He rose again", I should also approach and say "ok, does this mean that he really rose from the dead?"

Actually, yes, you should.

rdhopeca wrote:Further, I should then expect a reply that advocates a "pick and choose which truth the priest shall interpret as correct today". Slavery is not terribly popular, so let's say that that wasn't true even though it's obvious to everyone that can understand English that that's what the statement said...but yeah, someone rose from the dead, and I expect you to believe that.

No. What you don't seem to realize is that priests, while human and can make mistakes, are not allowed to make up their own interpretations. They are to go back to the same Tradition (which they are supposed to get full drilling of at seminary, which, like any other discipline, takes years of study). So the priest's explanation must chime with every other priest's explanation on matters of dogma.

I think a problem is that when we say "slavery", we mean certain things that are outrageous to both man and yes, God. While there is no formal teaching against slavery per se, there ARE teachings that condemn the behaviors we find outrageous. See my next response.

rdhopeca wrote:I'll stand by the fact that there is no interpretation of the statement "treat your slaves as you would treat yourself" that arrives at the conclusion that slaves did not exist or were unacceptable. And from that, I can conclude that God did want us to have slaves, and that He did want us to treat them nice from time to time.

I agree with the first sentence. However, neither does it mean that slavery was to be encouraged. Therefore your second sentence does not follow at all. If you find a comment in a medical book that tells you to deal with an illness in a certain way, it does not follow that the medical authorities who compiled the book support the illness - but rather that removing it is not a simple affair. The book is not going to keep coming out and saying that illnesses are bad. It's going to be obvious that if you follow the procedures and aims that the medical authorities laid out, that the illness may be cured, as that is the aim of the book. Slavery is one such illness (or symptom of the illness).

rdhopeca wrote:And if you are saying that all of this is open to "interpretation", you are admitting that the omniscient, omnipresent, all-powerful being at the center of your faith made a mistake that is open to human correction, which should not have been possible...and a big mistake too: humans treating other humans as animals to be owned. I'd be a lot more forgiving if you were trying to correct a mistake that revolved around, say, humans having organs that no longer have any practical application.

Again, your conclusion does not follow from the premise. The book itself is open to interpretation in a sense. But it HAS been properly interpreted. An interpreter must know an awful lot to correctly understand a text, especially an ancient text. Are you fluent in any foreign languages? If you have ever dealt with translation, you would know the extent of the problem. Most people never become translators or interpreters. It's not even enough to merely be fluent yourself. You have to understand the problems of translation. For example, in the English text, Protestants see the word "brother" and say, "Oh - Jesus had brothers. That means that Mary had children with Joseph after Jesus." An entirely reasonable supposition - if the only language you know is English. You will find, however, that in a number of eastern languages - including Greek and Russian - the word brother also encompasses what we call " (male) cousin". Indeed, I have a dickens of a time, teaching in English only, to break younger children of the habit of counting their cousins when I ask them if they have brothers or sisters. Thus, your ability to interpret correctly is limited by the limitations of your knowledge. Having it written "in black and white" leads you into error - thus, Protestants, who do interpret Scripture on their own, do indeed conclude that Jesus had brothers, and thus deny the doctrine of Mary's ever-virginity, something that even Martin Luther never did. The Nativity scenes depict a young Joseph (same age as Mary), a western stable rather than a cave (which is where they always sheltered animals in those parts) and many other errors, both great and small.

What Christianity actually did (in this case) was convert the masters - so that they stopped treating slaves like slaves and rather like employees and family members, and even freed their slaves and gave up their wealth to the poor and joined a then-persecuted Church - one which had no political power or ability to free slaves - living their own lives in peace and (often voluntarily-assumed) poverty was difficult enough.

It's funny that in court we would not accept the idea of a book of law being its own interpreter -we readily acknowledge the need for a judge to interpret the law in light of precedent, etc, but accept that on something of this gravity we do accept the strange idea of just reading the book for yourself.

What I am arguing is that if one is going to quote from the Bible, and call it "the Word of the Lord", and present the Word of God as truth, I should be able to accept it as such.

here's one of the problems - you most frequently, despite an ostensibly Catholic exposure, reference Protestant attitudes and forms - and Orthodoxy is neither. To us, the Word of God is not the Bible - it is Christ Himself, the Logos. Christ is the living Word of God. The Bible is a holy book - the most holy book - but by itself, it is only a book. Jesus Christ is the Truth. You can't pin Him down and limit Him to what you read in the Bible and your understandings of it. We reverence the Bible - it is held up and read in our services - but we do not worship it. This probably differs greatly from your existing understandings. When you say "the Bible means what it says", you fall into a trap - that of mixing up a book with its writer(s). It is the writers, who, yes, inspired by God, said things and meant things. The book itself does not mean them. If you want to know what the writers meant, you have to turn to some kind of authority that knows what they meant by saying thus-and-so.


Malik, from the inside, I can tell you that all that we condemn in slavery is unimaginable in the Faith. We live in a time when people really are theoretically free. If you can imagine living in a time when they were not, then speak about a religion that is a formula, if you will, for changing every man from the inside, not for external cosmetic changes in government. That's one reason many Jews were so disappointed in Christ and called for His crucifixion. They wanted an earthly kingdom here and now - and Christ said, "My Kingdom is not of this world." You are applying words originally written for the ancient world to the modern world via your own (hopefully admittedly) limited understanding. What is the spirit and intent of those words (at the time they were written)? I dare say, if the Epistles were being written in today's world, some things would be written differently because the world itself is different. But they were written in a definite historical context.


Sindatur, you are right in pointing out that it is impossible to take everything in the Bible literally. It could still be true - however, you would have to abandon the literal ("fundamentalist") interpretation. There are explanations to resolve apparent contradictions.

Lurch is also quite right that the book is heavily influenced by Hebrew culture - which loves parables, riddles and repetitive (rephrasal?) verse, just for example. (I think you're also right, Lurch, that the understanding is far deeper than we can grasp and that there are things that could be said to be infinite.)