Cancelling Dr. Seuss

[kaysixteen]

Random points:

1) Accepting the Bible 'literally' does not ignore that a) there are various literary genres in the Scriptures that must be read 'literally' in different ways, not all being mere 'as it actually was' historical analysis, and b) the Bible, like, ahem, more or less any ancient literature, often uses some words metonymally, i.e., to mean more than just what is said directly, i.e, the idea that slaves should obey their masters is one aspect taught here of the general principle that human authorities should be obeyed (unless, of course, doing so commands disobedience to God).

2) The Bible accepts the institution of slavery, and does not call Christians to rebel against it.  This does not mean that it does not exhort Christians to free slaves they do own (see Philemon), nor that it approves of manstealing people into slavery (see the OT law commanding death for that action).  Nor would it forbid the magistrate from seeking to outlaw it, but the magistrate's authority ain't the same as the individual private citizen's. 

3) Christianity has different views wrt how rebellious or combative a Christian ought properly to be.   I confess that my latent Anabaptist tendencies shine forth here.

[Wahoo Redux]

Both ultra-conservatives and ultra-liberals think that advice should be given for an ideal world.

Hmmmmm.  Very wise and insightful. 

I don't think I was working towards an "ideal world" when I asked about the rubric for reading the Bible literally.  Sometimes readers are very certain of the message, sometimes readers rationalize or modulate the message.

Nobody has said that advice in the Bible for "slaves" wasn't actually directed at people who were literally slaves. The question is what that tells us about the institution of slavery.

It was you who said:

The passage kind of specifically says "slaves," nevertheless.  We can't really pretend it doesn't.  Being a slave serves God.  I don't think this contradicts what you and kay just posted.  God wants slaves to obey their masters.

Your interpretation is not the only one available. By similar logic, one could argue that a doctor's recommendation that a limb be amputated due to cancer or something else implies that limbs being amputated is good, rather than the best compromise out of a bad situation that cannot be made into what it should have been in the first place.

I repeat: some people try to rationalize or modulate the clear messages in the Bible to fit a certain end.

Or one could just admit that the Bible has some horrific dictates and is, in fact, wrong, that the Bible is not, in fact, in infallible document.  Killed any witches lately?

And then ask yourself, who is working toward the "ideal world?"

[Wahoo Redux]

2) The Bible accepts the institution of slavery, and does not call Christians to rebel against it.  This does not mean that it does not exhort Christians to free slaves they do own

It plainly tells salves to obey their masters.

[kaysixteen]

Yes, it does.   What's your point?

[Wahoo Redux]

Yes, it does.   What's your point?

I would think this should be obvious within the context of the discussion.

You have done some work there to rationalize the presence of this passage in the Bible.  But the Bible, as translated, does none of the things you suggest it does...

This does not mean that it does not exhort Christians to free slaves they do own (see Philemon), nor that it approves of manstealing people into slavery (see the OT law commanding death for that action).  Nor would it forbid the magistrate from seeking to outlaw it, but the magistrate's authority ain't the same as the individual private citizen's.

...but clearly tells slaves to be subservient.  Your commentary is very nondiegetic.  It implies none of those things.  There is no evidence of it being a metonym which is a form of metaphor and thus must imply both the tenor (the slave) and the vehicle (the thing compared).  This is very clearly an imperative.  Apparently slave owning among the early Christians was not unusual. 

I find the "manstealing" passage in Exodus 21:16.  Is that about kidnapping and selling a free person into slavery?  Seems like it.  Or it seems like a clear contradiction within the document.   (I thought Christ nullified the laws of the OT anyway.) 

In other words, you are trying hard to not believe what the oft-translated Bible clearly says.  In other instances you seem bound to the very literal translation of the Bible. 

It looks a little like cherrypicked hermeneutics to me.

[kaysixteen]

None of your innovative interpretation is true.   What is true, is, of course:

1) Christianity is responsible for the elimination of slavery in the western world

2) The Bible acknowledges the existence of slavery and tells slaves not to rebel, as it similarly tells Christians to submit to other authority structures, save only when such obedience compels disobedience to God.   So I ask again, what is your point?

[marshwiggle]

It was you who said:

The passage kind of specifically says "slaves," nevertheless.  We can't really pretend it doesn't.  Being a slave serves God.  I don't think this contradicts what you and kay just posted.  God wants slaves to obey their masters.

Your interpretation is not the only one available. By similar logic, one could argue that a doctor's recommendation that a limb be amputated due to cancer or something else implies that limbs being amputated is good, rather than the best compromise out of a bad situation that cannot be made into what it should have been in the first place.

I repeat: some people try to rationalize or modulate the clear messages in the Bible to fit a certain end.

Or one could just admit that the Bible has some horrific dictates and is, in fact, wrong, that the Bible is not, in fact, in infallible document.  Killed any witches lately?

And then ask yourself, who is working toward the "ideal world?"

I'm still waiting to hear what advice you would give to women in Afghanistan today, that will make sense for the next 2000 years to all of the people who read it regardless of the context in which they live.

[Wahoo Redux]

I'm still waiting to hear what advice you would give to women in Afghanistan today, that will make sense for the next 2000 years to all of the people who read it regardless of the context in which they live.

??????

EDIT: Wait, I get it.  You want me to put myself in the place of early Christians 2,000 years ago.  The issue is drafting a sacred text that would be resonant now and equally resonant and practical to culture 2,000 years from now, right?  Yeah, that would be virtually impossible for a human being to do, huh?

However, if we are dealing with the infallible Word of God that we base our lives and beliefs around, that is a different story.  God should be able to tell us what to do 2,000 years ago and that same revelation should be perfectly relevant today.

So, if you tell me the Bible was written by fallible people, I would say, sure, that makes sense, and the Bible it is still a beautiful work of literature.

But if you tell me we should follow the precepts laid out in the Bible because it is the Word of God as recorded by Moses and the Apostles, well, then it's a problem unless God deliberately wants to confuse and confound us.

[Wahoo Redux]

None of your innovative interpretation is true.   What is true, is, of course:

1) Christianity is responsible for the elimination of slavery in the western world

How do you figure?

The Yankees ended slavery in America.  Most civilized countries had already repudiated slavery.   

https://time.com/5171819/christianity-slavery-book-excerpt/

And anyway, that changes nothing that is written in the Bible.

2) The Bible acknowledges the existence of slavery and tells slaves not to rebel, as it similarly tells Christians to submit to other authority structures, save only when such obedience compels disobedience to God.   So I ask again, what is your point?

Don't pretend to be obtuse.

I explained my "point" pretty clearly, I think.

This is the first time you have acknowledged that. 

[marshwiggle]

I'm still waiting to hear what advice you would give to women in Afghanistan today, that will make sense for the next 2000 years to all of the people who read it regardless of the context in which they live.

??????

EDIT: Wait, I get it.  You want me to put myself in the place of early Christians 2,000 years ago.  The issue is drafting a sacred text that would be resonant now and equally resonant and practical to culture 2,000 years from now, right?  Yeah, that would be virtually impossible for a human being to do, huh?

However, if we are dealing with the infallible Word of God that we base our lives and beliefs around, that is a different story.  God should be able to tell us what to do 2,000 years ago and that same revelation should be perfectly relevant today.

So, if you tell me the Bible was written by fallible people, I would say, sure, that makes sense, and the Bible it is still a beautiful work of literature.

But if you tell me we should follow the precepts laid out in the Bible because it is the Word of God as recorded by Moses and the Apostles, well, then it's a problem unless God deliberately wants to confuse and confound us.

So how, exactly, would the distinction between being written by fallible human beings versus being written by God change what could be expressed for posterity, given the limitations of the human language that would have to be used in any case? Presumably the words that God could use would be the same words that fallible human beings could use. (Especially since no-one disputes the fact that the Bible was actually written by fallible human beings, whether is was inspired by God or not.) Why should God's "inspiration" somehow result in the impossibility of anything other than a single, timeless, context-insensitive interpretation?

[FishProf]

(Especially since no-one disputes the fact that the Bible was actually written by fallible human beings, whether is was inspired by God or not.)

You MUST be joking.

[Wahoo Redux]

So how, exactly, would the distinction between being written by fallible human beings versus being written by God change what could be expressed for posterity, given the limitations of the human language that would have to be used in any case? Presumably the words that God could use would be the same words that fallible human beings could use. (Especially since no-one disputes the fact that the Bible was actually written by fallible human beings, whether is was inspired by God or not.) Why should God's "inspiration" somehow result in the impossibility of anything other than a single, timeless, context-insensitive interpretation?

That's some tortuous prose there, my friend.  Can you make your thoughts a little clearer?

Are you talking about the "impossibility" of language to accurately relay the Word?

I was saying we either consider the Bible is a work of fallible humans with all their prejudices and mistakes----and thus we admit that we cannot necessarily accept as law what is in it-----or we concede that God was very contradictory and His messages are very confusing.  We either take the Bible as the Word of God, therefore reading literally, or we accept that we have a human artifact with typical human blunders in it, therefore we take into consideration culture and context, including our own culture and context and what is important to us now.

[marshwiggle]

So how, exactly, would the distinction between being written by fallible human beings versus being written by God change what could be expressed for posterity, given the limitations of the human language that would have to be used in any case? Presumably the words that God could use would be the same words that fallible human beings could use. (Especially since no-one disputes the fact that the Bible was actually written by fallible human beings, whether is was inspired by God or not.) Why should God's "inspiration" somehow result in the impossibility of anything other than a single, timeless, context-insensitive interpretation?

That's some tortuous prose there, my friend.  Can you make your thoughts a little clearer?

Are you talking about the "impossibility" of language to accurately relay the Word?

I was saying we either consider the Bible is a work of fallible humans with all their prejudices and mistakes----and thus we admit that we cannot necessarily accept as law what is in it

That would be the ultra-liberal position.

-----or we concede that God was very contradictory and His messages are very confusing.  We either take the Bible as the Word of God, therefore reading literally

That would be the ultra-conservative position.

, or we accept that we have a human artifact with typical human blunders in it, therefore we take into consideration culture and context, including our own culture and context and what is important to us now.

That would be the atheistic position.

Many, if not most, Christians would disagree with both the ultra-conservative and ultra-liberal positions, and would say something more along the lines of "The Bible was written over centuries in different geographical and cultural contexts, and so explanations, instructions, and advice given in any of those contexts would have been clear to those people *in those contexts. The best way for us to determine how they are relevant to us is to look at them in the context of all the rest of the Bible to see what seems to be universal and what seems to be culturally-specific." (Note: This differs from the ultra-liberal position because it doesn't assume our current culture as somehow of greater importance than Scripture. Where the consistent message of Scripture contradicts things in our culture, then our culture is wrong.)

*Even at those times, it's clear that prophets and Jesus himself said things that many or most people misinterpreted because they did not want to consider the implications of certain interpretations. When Jesus' own words to people in person could be misinterpreted, it's ridiculous to suggest that at great historical, linguistic, geographical, and cultural remove there should be no possibility for confusion.)

[Wahoo Redux]

Are you sure you are using "ultra-liberal" and "ultra-conservative" correctly?  I think of the Duggars as "ultra-conservative" and "ultra-liberal" as, I dunno, name someone----I'm not sure who.  Jerry Garcia?

And I think what you are arguing is the "atheistic position" is pretty much the same thing as your definition of the "ultra-liberal" position.  It is more or less what I said.  Atheists just pretty much denounce the whole shebang, however; that is their position, generally speaking.

Oh well, it doesn't really matter.  I think you pretty much agree that the Bible is very open to interpretation, so when it comes to things like, say, oh I don't know, sexual orientation (which comes up sometimes) we cannot simply denounce them because of the OT anymore than we can kill witches.  If we can deny that God wants slaves, we can deny that God disowns gays.   

[little bongo]

Oh well, it doesn't really matter.  I think you pretty much agree that the Bible is very open to interpretation, so when it comes to things like, say, oh I don't know, sexual orientation (which comes up sometimes) we cannot simply denounce them because of the OT anymore than we can kill witches.  If we can deny that God wants slaves, we can deny that God disowns gays. 

And we have bingo. Not for the first time, either. I admire Wahoo's stamina and patience--can't be easy maintaining a discussion where you're the only participant who can put two and two together and come up with four. It's a shame we can't apply a virtual frying pan to some virtual heads.

In other words, if you like yourself some shrimp but hate yourself some gays, you can make the Bible work for you, with an "innovative" interpretation.

If you're gay and find guidance and wisdom in the Bible, you can also make the Bible work for you with an "innovative" interpretation.

And yes, if you're an atheist who appreciates the Bible as ancient literature, you can make the Bible work for you with an "innovative" interpretation.

Anyone who uses, reads, and/or worships with the Bible must be in some way "innovative"--nobody necessarily more so than less. Being clear and honest about that is helpful.

Which, again, is why dictating the way the Bible works for you to other people is at best annoying, and at worst really dangerous. And also why discussing, perhaps arguing about, and perhaps celebrating what you love and what most moves you about the Bible in a community setting COULD be valuable and uplifting.