Cancelling Dr. Seuss

[marshwiggle]

Random observations:

1) I get that some Southern whites have traditionally used this verse to justify slavery, but read clearly, it merely recognizes the existence of slavery, a ubiquitous fact in antiquity.  The verse is however regularly used in evangelical circles to mean essentially that people in subordinate relationships are to obey their superiors-- we have no slaves today, of course, but we do have employers, and what-not, and evangelicals traditionally teach that employees have to obey the boss or quit.   Unless,  of course, they can show, following Peter, that they had to 'obey God rather than man', as God is the only one whose authority is absolute and unconditional.

I thought that we should read the Bible literally.

Basically the essential 'variable' on the Christian theological spectrum from conservative to liberal is about how to read the Bible.

• Most conservative- totally literalist
• Most liberal - ignore anything unpleasant

There are a large portion of Christians in between those extremes who believe that Scripture can't just be ignored or read blindly, but must be read with as much context as possible. That is much harder than either of the extreme positions, since it means that you can't decide on the answer before you ask the question.

[Wahoo Redux]

Oh never mind.

Seriously, I remember a discussion not that long ago regarding...what was it?  Oh yeah, homosexuality, and in that case we had not right to contradict the Word.  Am I getting that wrong?

But apparently, "Slaves" in the Bible does not mean 'slaves.'

[apl68]

Random observations:

1) I get that some Southern whites have traditionally used this verse to justify slavery, but read clearly, it merely recognizes the existence of slavery, a ubiquitous fact in antiquity.  The verse is however regularly used in evangelical circles to mean essentially that people in subordinate relationships are to obey their superiors-- we have no slaves today, of course, but we do have employers, and what-not, and evangelicals traditionally teach that employees have to obey the boss or quit.   Unless,  of course, they can show, following Peter, that they had to 'obey God rather than man', as God is the only one whose authority is absolute and unconditional.

I thought that we should read the Bible literally.

I don't see where kay is failing to read the Bible literally here.  The point of the passage is about obedience to authority.  It's part of a broader section about what people owe to each other as part of their wider service to God.  Paul, the author of this letter says "Whatever you do, in word or deed, do all in the Name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him."  This is followed by instructions to wives to submit themselves to their husbands, to husbands to love their wives and not be bitter toward them, to children to obey their parents, to parents to avoid provoking their children through excessive harshness, so as not to discourage them. 

Then comes the part about slaves obeying their masters, serving them as if serving God himself.  Finally, masters of slaves are told to "give to your slaves what is just and fair, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven."  Whatever roles we are assigned on earth, we all have the same Master to answer to.  We submit to each other and seek to do right by each other as part of our submission to God.  Our pastor just spent several Sundays on this very passage in Colossians.

It doesn't take any far-out interpretation to see that the general principles given in the passage are applicable to modern employer-employee relations.  Especially since fair treatment of wage-laborers is specifically mentioned elsewhere in the New Testament.  Like marshwiggle said, it's generally understood by Christians who spend much time actually studying Scripture that interpretation of any given passage involves awareness of the greater context of Scripture.

That's part of where the coach went wrong.  He quoted the passage to players who were unaware of the context, without it apparently occurring to him that some of them might hear something entirely different from what he meant.

[little bongo]

I think the main takeaway relates to Marshwiggle's divisions of Christianity. It's not that some eliminate everything unpleasant and some go completely literal, and some struggle in-between. It's that everybody eliminates everything unpleasant, including the literalists. Everyone has their "unpleasant" limit, so we tap-dance, we play loosey-goosey, we finesse. We "fix" it until it sounds right to us.

The fact that the verse mentions slavery as an example for appropriate behavior is not merely an acknowledgment of slavery; it constitutes approval.

That's why our relationship (if we choose to have one) with scripture, verses, God and/or gods is just that: our relationship. It's pointless to dictate what works for us to anyone else. (It is not necessarily pointless, however, to talk about it together, and when appropriate, celebrate it together with those who wish to share.)

[Scout]

Of course, the guy was not saying the player was a slave, and he was quoting a bible verse.   Should he have been punished merely because someone took offense?

In my opinion, yes. He is in a position of authority over mostly young Black men, yet he quoted a verse that was widely used in the South to justify slavery. Not cool.

Why don't we have similar outrage by descendants of Holocaust survivors over the causal use of "Nazi", such as "grammar Nazi"? That was less than a century ago, and there are still living Holocaust survivors, while slavery ended several decades before that so there probably aren't even any living people whose parents were slaves.

Daughter of holocaust survivors here and I absolutely do get angry at it. It's so normalized (Soup Nazi anyone) that no one seems to care or take our complaints seriously, but hell yes, it outrages me.  It's hard enough getting antisemitism taken seriously...

[jimbogumbo]

https://medium.com/@stevesan/faculty-leaders-criticized-abortion-law-indiana-u-told-them-they-violated-policy-1f23591f10e5

[Wahoo Redux]

Random observations:

1) I get that some Southern whites have traditionally used this verse to justify slavery, but read clearly, it merely recognizes the existence of slavery, a ubiquitous fact in antiquity.  The verse is however regularly used in evangelical circles to mean essentially that people in subordinate relationships are to obey their superiors-- we have no slaves today, of course, but we do have employers, and what-not, and evangelicals traditionally teach that employees have to obey the boss or quit.   Unless,  of course, they can show, following Peter, that they had to 'obey God rather than man', as God is the only one whose authority is absolute and unconditional.

I thought that we should read the Bible literally.

I don't see where kay is failing to read the Bible literally here.  The point of the passage is about obedience to authority.  It's part of a broader section about what people owe to each other as part of their wider service to God. 

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.

[marshwiggle]

Random observations:

1) I get that some Southern whites have traditionally used this verse to justify slavery, but read clearly, it merely recognizes the existence of slavery, a ubiquitous fact in antiquity.  The verse is however regularly used in evangelical circles to mean essentially that people in subordinate relationships are to obey their superiors-- we have no slaves today, of course, but we do have employers, and what-not, and evangelicals traditionally teach that employees have to obey the boss or quit.   Unless,  of course, they can show, following Peter, that they had to 'obey God rather than man', as God is the only one whose authority is absolute and unconditional.

I thought that we should read the Bible literally.

I don't see where kay is failing to read the Bible literally here.  The point of the passage is about obedience to authority.  It's part of a broader section about what people owe to each other as part of their wider service to God. 

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.

You'd make a good ultra-conservative, Wahoo.

[Wahoo Redux]

Random observations:

1) I get that some Southern whites have traditionally used this verse to justify slavery, but read clearly, it merely recognizes the existence of slavery, a ubiquitous fact in antiquity.  The verse is however regularly used in evangelical circles to mean essentially that people in subordinate relationships are to obey their superiors-- we have no slaves today, of course, but we do have employers, and what-not, and evangelicals traditionally teach that employees have to obey the boss or quit.   Unless,  of course, they can show, following Peter, that they had to 'obey God rather than man', as God is the only one whose authority is absolute and unconditional.

I thought that we should read the Bible literally.

I don't see where kay is failing to read the Bible literally here.  The point of the passage is about obedience to authority.  It's part of a broader section about what people owe to each other as part of their wider service to God. 

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.

You'd make a good ultra-conservative, Wahoo.

Who's to say I'm not an ultra-conservative already?

But just out of curiosity, I think what I have posted comes pretty squarely from the heathen liberal camp.  Why do you think I'd be a good U.C.?

[marshwiggle]

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.

You'd make a good ultra-conservative, Wahoo.

Who's to say I'm not an ultra-conservative already?

But just out of curiosity, I think what I have posted comes pretty squarely from the heathen liberal camp.  Why do you think I'd be a good U.C.?

Both ultra-conservatives and ultra-liberals think that advice should be given for an ideal world. Moderates believe advice should take into account the world as it exists. For a current example,

What advice should be given to women in Afghanistan? Should they

• Go out with their hair and face uncovered without a male family member?
• Stay in their homes and only go out when they are covered up and in the company of a male family member?

The first one is likely to place women and their families at great risk, even though for women in the West the second would be completely normal. Ultraconservatives and ultraliberals may disagree on what advice they would give, but they will agree that the same advice should be given at all times and places.

[jimbogumbo]

"Saving" kids from Holocaust stories in Florida: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/03/10/ron-desantis-book-bans-martin-county-jodi-picoult/

[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.

That strikes me as pretty "real world," wouldn't you say?

Nice try, however.

[Wahoo Redux]

Don't know don't if this fits here exactly.

IHE: $4.175M Settlement in Iowa Football Racial Bias Suit

Hawk Central: $4M to be paid in Iowa football discrimination suit; Kirk Ferentz 'disappointed' in result

[Wahoo Redux]

This one definitely belongs here:

IHE: Idaho College Rejects Artist's Work That Mentions Abortions

Lydia Nobel, a New York artist, told the news outlet she was surprised to learn her piece, "As I Sit Waiting," a series of four interviews—three on video and one on audio—with women discussing reproductive health care, including abortions, would not be included in the "Unconditional Care" exhibition about women's health.

College officials removed her work and those of other artists from the lineup, citing Idaho's No Public Funds for Abortion Act, which "prohibits the use of public funds for abortion, including speech that would 'promote abortion' or 'counsel in favor of abortion.'"

Idaho Statesman:  'Art is being censored.' Parts of exhibit at Idaho college removed for abortion messaging

[marshwiggle]

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.