Religion V: Utopianism, Fundamentalism, Apothesis

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

TP,

But, for many (if not most) Christians who are not "Sola Scriptura" the Bible alone isn't the full story. It is a teaching tool that contains metaphors and lessons that are more fully understood in the context offered by the Church Fathers. Insisting on a textual only understanding is like ignoring the clearly metaphorical nature of much of the Old Testament and insisting those Christians who do not accept that the world was formed in Six 24 hours days are not "really" Christians because they reject their "Holy Text".

[TerraPrime]

TP,

But, for many (if not most) Christians who are not "Sola Scriptura" the Bible alone isn't the full story. It is a teaching tool that contains metaphors and lessons that are more fully understood in the context offered by the Church Fathers. Insisting on a textual only understanding is like ignoring the clearly metaphorical nature of much of the Old Testament and insisting those Christians who do not accept that the world was formed in Six 24 hours days are not "really" Christians because they reject their "Holy Text".

Which is what I argued for in the first place - to say that slavery was a cultural artifact of the time and so was also accepted by the authors of the Bible at the time, but that it doesn't need to be a factor in modern worship. So, there's no need to argue that it's actually moral to tell a slave to obey their masters, or perform any number of other apologetics other than to say that it was wrong, and then move on.

That said, I do see that for the Christians who do rely on the Bible as the inerrant words, they will need to account of that, much like they'd need to account for many other instances of the Bible advocating practices that we no longer find acceptable today.

To me, both groups of Christians are "real Christians." Only Christians are so obsessed about weeding out the false Christians. To me, you are all Christians. Whether you're sola scriptura or not, your interpretation is just as valid as the next one. Roman Catholicism is no more valid than Eastern Orthodox than 7th Day Aventist than Methodist than Quaker than Church of the Latter Day Saints than the Heaven's Gate group than the Hassidic Judaism tradition than Sunni Islam than Wahabbism Islam than etc. etc. For secular reasons, I rank them in terms of acceptability. For theological reasons, they are all the same to me. So, I think your accusation that I am attempting to put one group of Christians as "the true Christians" over another group is entirely misplaced.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

TP,

Okay, I'm not saying that sola scriptura Christians are't Christians. They are Christians. I'm saying holding all Christians to the standards I though you were applying based on the text of the Bible doesn't make sense. I do see what you are saying now. Thank you for clarifying.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

TP,

Okay, I'm not saying that sola scriptura Christians are't Christians. They are Christians. I'm saying holding all Christians to the standards I though you were applying based on the text of the Bible doesn't make sense. I do see what you are saying now. Thank you for clarifying.

Even sola scriptura Christian traditions, such as Presbyterians (at least the PCUSA), would likely point to matters such as slavery, etc. as irrelevant and outdated cultural norms for modern understandings of faith.

[Gears of the Beast]

Sorry, I don't think you remember that correctly. In the concordance I own I could not find any such admonition in a New Testament book which has NOT been traditionally attributed to Paul.

First Peter 2:18

18Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. 19For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God. 20But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. 21To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.

These verses are really gross.

[Wicked Woodpecker of West]

Just like his winning strategy for appealing to women is telling them "22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything" as he does in Eph 5:22 when he starts this whole list of instructions for various members of the Christian household, because that's what this is; instructions for specific members of a Christian household - not some vague way of preaching acceptance to a society with lots of slaves.

I assume what was appealing to 100 AD women was words directed to husbands that are right after or right before that.

But, for many (if not most) Christians who are not "Sola Scriptura" the Bible alone isn't the full story. It is a teaching tool that contains metaphors and lessons that are more fully understood in the context offered by the Church Fathers. Insisting on a textual only understanding is like ignoring the clearly metaphorical nature of much of the Old Testament and insisting those Christians who do not accept that the world was formed in Six 24 hours days are not "really" Christians because they reject their "Holy Text".

Still I don't remember any strictly anti-slavery text from Church Fathers.

[Ormond]

Still I don't remember any strictly anti-slavery text from Church Fathers.

Unfortunately this was very rare but there was Gregory of Nyssa

http://www.andrewfullercenter.org/blog/2013/06/the-first-abolitionist-gregory-of-nyssa-on-slavery/

http://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/110986.pdf

[Wicked Woodpecker of West]

I wouldn't say unfortunately.
We should remember that anti-slavery twist within Christianity is not a matter of Social Justice, because technically (at least within Catholicism) there are no strict anti-slavery law. Technically you can have a right to other man's work for some reasons. Of course he's still your fellow man which means all moral obligations towards him that came from commandment works. So suddenly rather than your full property you've got a worker you have to feed but you don't have to pay him. And he cannot leave. Well seeing all fault glories of ancient slavery this limited version is probably not really compelling for slavers ;)

[Jo498]

To me it seems rather that atheist critics (usually with rather poor knowledge of history) read passages that while acknowledging slavery as a social fact are extraordinary for their time by treating slaves like humans (with at least some rights) as if slavery was a commandment of the religion in question. I think that this is obviously and profoundly untrue of Judaism and Christianity and a very unhistorical distortion.

(This would be like attributing support of slavery to modern day Americans who swear by their constitution etc. because those slaveholders back then apparently forgot about them darkies when writing that all men are created equal etc. Or to hold today's liberal atheists responsible for the eugenic and racist attitudes of many famous predecessors 100 years ago.)

As I said, the release from the Egyptian bondage is the foundational myth of Judaism and its use as a motivation for treating servants well is explicitly in the text. (So it cannot just mean that the servitude was unjust because the Jews were the Chosen People.) The topoi of release from servitude and bringing justice for the oppressed are prevalent throughout the Hebrew Scriptures (not sure what the official PC name for the Old Testament is). Think of the story of Joseph and his Brethren etc.

I completely agree that it is a shame for Christianity that it took them so long to completely abolish slavery. But it's not that there was anyone non-religious complaining too loudly about it either and it seems that historically the most vocal opponents of slavery were often motivated by christian beliefs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism

[Gears of the Beast]

I don't think it's noteworthy that a regular historical person does not recognise how immoral slavery is, I tend to hold supposed gods to higher standards though...if we're talking about this from the perspective of Christianity and Judaism beings myths then that's totally different. I can look back at Thomas Jefferson and recognise what an admirable figure he was while noting that his position on slaves was immoral. Are Christians/Jews likely to take the same view of their god, or are we instead likely to find pathetic rationalisations?

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

I don't think it's noteworthy that a regular historical person does not recognise how immoral slavery is, I tend to hold supposed gods to higher standards though...if we're talking about this from the perspective of Christianity and Judaism beings myths then that's totally different. I can look back at Thomas Jefferson and recognise what an admirable figure he was while noting that his position on slaves was immoral. Are Christians/Jews likely to take the same view of their god, or are we instead likely to find pathetic rationalisations?

You may want to try asking a less loaded (and assholish) question.

[Gears of the Beast]

You may want to try asking a less loaded (and assholish) question.

It's not a loaded question. It's an unfair question because it's a lot easier for me to state some fallible human had an immoral position than it is for a religionist to state that their infallible god has an immoral position according to their primary sacred text...but that's not really my problem.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

"Religonist"?

[Jo498]

It's a rather ridiculous question. Slavery was a fact of most of human history (because for the losers in a war or similar struggle it was usually either death or slavery). This also applies to ancient Israel and surroundings. So god's law for the Israelites does not tell them to abolish slavery. (These texts were written by humans, so maybe they didn't get the message properly ;). Or put more religiously: God had to give his message in a form people in 1000 BC Palestine could understand) But it contains lots of remainders that the Jews were servants themselves in Egypt and so on, so they should be nice to servants and strangers and treat them well.

One can chose to read this as an endorsement of slavery because everything short of abolition is inhuman.

One can chose to read this to show that slaves were to be treated as humans, and that slavery while a necessary evil for the time being was to be left behind in a prophetic/utopian future (as shown in the regular freeing of slaves every 50 years or so).

I think the first reading is a distortion. I conced that the second reading might be too "whiggish", I just do not know enough about the actual practice of slavery/indentured service in ancient Israel to say more about it. But despite the sometimes gruesome stories of the conquest of the promised land the OT is very often a story of "losers", servants, exiles hoping for freedom, justice, reconciliation. This "spiritual" message seems incompatible with any endorsement of slavery; I cannot picture the ancient Israelites as brutal slaveholders but as I said I do not know about the actual history here. But in any case it seems a gross distortion to read rules demanding being comparably nice to slaves as endorsement of slavery, especially if the same body of text (the Hebrew Scriptures) are otherwise full with promise of liberation from oppression, justice for the poor etc. (And all this is usually not promised in some afterlife but set as a task for every righteous person.)

It seems that some form of slavery was just a fact of life, similarly to poverty.

Even Jesus said "the poor will always be with you", although if people would follow his example there would be no poverty anymore (but everybody would be comparably poor).

I wonder if there might be Jewish persons on this board who could shed light on how the "slavery laws" are interpreted in modern Judaism.

[Wicked Woodpecker of West]

I don't think it's noteworthy that a regular historical person does not recognise how immoral slavery is, I tend to hold supposed gods to higher standards though...if we're talking about this from the perspective of Christianity and Judaism beings myths then that's totally different.

Or maybe gods have different standards of whats moral and immoral than you.

Are Christians/Jews likely to take the same view of their god, or are we instead likely to find pathetic rationalisations?

Well if you have any non-pathetic rationalizations why God should change his moral stances toward modern ones, I'm willing to listen.

t's an unfair question because it's a lot easier for me to state some fallible human had an immoral position than it is for a religionist to state that their infallible god has an immoral position according to their primary sacred text...but that's not really my problem.

I get that myself as dreadful and warmongering theist believe that you can objectively say somethings immoral or moral. That's withing self-contained logic. But how exactly you my agnostic friend want to prove that Christian god theoretical stance about slavery is immoral? Where do you take those objective moral rules from?

[Gears of the Beast]

It's a rather ridiculous question. Slavery was a fact of most of human history (because for the losers in a war or similar struggle it was usually either death or slavery). This also applies to ancient Israel and surroundings. So god's law for the Israelites does not tell them to abolish slavery. (These texts were written by humans, so maybe they didn't get the message properly ;). Or put more religiously: God had to give his message in a form people in 1000 BC Palestine could understand) But it contains lots of remainders that the Jews were servants themselves in Egypt and so on, so they should be nice to servants and strangers and treat them well.

One can chose to read this as an endorsement of slavery because everything short of abolition is inhuman.

One can chose to read this to show that slaves were to be treated as humans, and that slavery while a necessary evil for the time being was to be left behind in a prophetic/utopian future (as shown in the regular freeing of slaves every 50 years or so).

This is simply bullshit, and one of the pathetic rationalisations I referred to. What is your contention here? That they wouldn't be able to understand a simple pronouncement that slavery is wrong? What are you basing that on? I don't think Jews in the region somehow lacked the cognitive ability to understand that slavery was wrong. There are plenty of instances in the bible where god/jesus does away with old immoral traditions. Is this really our standard for an infallible moral being? "Well he did tell them their slaves can't be beaten to the point where they die within 2 days, I mean that's a pretty good start!" What kind of absurdity is that? A practice is either immoral or it isn't. Slavery is immoral period. To say god can't give his message to humanity and communicate this essential moral truth that is being violated before him is absurd.

Or maybe gods have different standards of whats moral and immoral than you.

That's fine, I'm perfectly happy to admit that I'm a more moral being than the tyrannical bully depicted in the bible.

Well if you have any non-pathetic rationalizations why God should change his moral stances toward modern ones, I'm willing to listen.

Well first of all I don't believe in god. Secondly if god changed his moral stances it would be an admission that he was wrong and therefore fallible. One of the problems of the that god concept is that it offers static moral pronouncements that can't be changed. So what do you actually want me to do? Convince you that my position on slavery is more moral than god's? You already know it is.....I hope... so I'm kind of confused as what you're actually asking of me.

I get that myself as dreadful and warmongering theist believe that you can objectively say somethings immoral or moral. That's withing self-contained logic. But how exactly you my agnostic friend want to prove that Christian god theoretical stance about slavery is immoral? Where do you take those objective moral rules from?

Not exactly sure what you mean by 'that's within self-contained logic' because "bible ∴ god ∴ moral" is not all that logical. You can assert that you have objective moral standards but I won't allow you to claim that assertion is anything other than baseless. Assuming your question is actually in good faith (hehe) here's the most concise way of answering that incredibly complex question - because (not to sound too condescending) morality is pretty complex when you're not simply appealing to an old book of stories. Video should start at 11m43s.

[Sci-2]

I gotta say I think Gears is winning this one.

If God has all the powers He is claimed to possess, making sure humanity never had slavery would seem to be simple enough? The very inclusion of historical context seems to lend more credit to Gears, at least if we're sticking with God possessing the varied omni-powers.

[Wicked Woodpecker of West]

So what do you actually want me to do? Convince you that my position on slavery is more moral than god's? You already know it is.....I hope... so I'm kind of confused as what you're actually asking of me.

No I don't. Actually I don't give a crap about what modern people think is more moral, and that they made any moral progress since lets say 1345. You need something more than "me and all my friends thinks so then its true".

If God has all the powers He is claimed to possess, making sure humanity never had slavery would seem to be simple enough? The very inclusion of historical context seems to lend more credit to Gears, at least if we're sticking with God possessing the varied omni-powers.

1. yeah, generally He could like cut off our free will, so why not
2. and obviously there's always a chance God doesn't thinks slavery is always and from its nature evil

That's fine, I'm perfectly happy to admit that I'm a more moral being than the tyrannical bully depicted in the bible.

Aren't we all in a middle of our soft, comfortable, private systems of moral and ethic beliefs?

You can assert that you have objective moral standards but I won't allow you to claim that assertion is anything other than baseless

It's based on certain ontological beliefs. Which are impossible to prove, correct. But belief that universe you see, smell and understand with your mind is real, is as much improvable. Theres always faith, there's always blind belief or unprovable assumption before any kind of knowledge begins.Obviously there is a chance that mine belief is wrong, so could be your, or both of them most likely. I'm not asking you about objectively proved base of your moral belief, because there are no such a thing for no one. I'm asking how you make such strong moral claims from within atheistic worldview.

Assuming your question is actually in good faith (hehe)

the most concise way of answering that incredibly complex question - because (not to sound too condescending) morality is pretty complex when you're not simply appealing to an old book of stories

Life is more preferable to death, health is more preferable to sickness...
Yeah, that's a discovery. Basically simple utilitarianism. Sorry I cannot submit myself to this simplification. My empathy won't be my guide.

[Castel]

It's based on certain ontological beliefs. Which are impossible to prove, correct. But belief that universe you see, smell and understand with your mind is real, is as much improvable. Theres always faith, there's always blind belief or unprovable assumption before any kind of knowledge begins.Obviously there is a chance that mine belief is wrong, so could be your, or both of them most likely. I'm not asking you about objectively proved base of your moral belief, because there are no such a thing for no one. I'm asking how you make such strong moral claims from within atheistic worldview.

Life is more preferable to death, health is more preferable to sickness...

Yeah, that's a discovery. Basically simple utilitarianism. Sorry I cannot submit myself to this simplification. My empathy won't be my guide.

No one asked you to submit. You asked a question and received an answer. Whether you prefer secular morality is irrelevant to the question at hand: whether or not it is inadequate and whether theistic morality fills the holes that it doesn't.

It is a bit strange to talk about simplifications after failing to provide any real defense of theistic morality centered around an omni-god than "well...we all have faith man".

[TrueMetis]

It's based on certain ontological beliefs. Which are impossible to prove, correct. But belief that universe you see, smell and understand with your mind is real, is as much improvable

Uh no, cause we see, smell and understand it. All the evidence points to the existence of the universe. The universe is very very proven, and the tiny chance that our senses are being fooled is not at all comparable to religious faith. So no, no faith.