“For we did not follow cleverly contrived myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ; instead, we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.” (CSB – Read the chapter)
Religion is an interesting thing. It’s a powerful thing. Some try to argue that it’s a bad thing. But the truth is that religion is just a thing. How it’s used, who’s doing the using, and for what purpose determines exactly what kind of a thing it is. It’s not all bad, and it’s ignorant to argue otherwise. Neither, however, is it all good. Only a fool would think that. It has to be taken on a case-by-case basis, and some religions are better than others. But try as we might, we can’t escape it. We’re drawn to it. That’s part of what gives it such power. What has me thinking about all of this is my recently finishing both watching and reading Frank Herbert’s sci-fi classic, Dune, in which religion plays a profound role. Let’s talk about it.
Trying to fully capture the story of Dune is a bit of a fool’s errand. But as you may not have read or watched it, I’ll do my best. In a nutshell, Dune is about interstellar politics, cosmic religious movements, and the dynamics of human power.
The story is set in a distant future where an intergalactic society is ruled over by a powerful empire, and where various noble houses rule over whole planets as fiefdoms. The most important planet of all is the desert planet, Arrakis. Arrakis is the only universal source of a peculiar chemical melange called “spice.” Spice is a fairly mysterious substance that has a variety of health benefits for those who consume it, but, more importantly, it is the key element that allows for interstellar travel. Whoever controls the spice, controls the empire.
As the story opens, the noble House Atreides has been directed by the Emperor to take control of Arrakis along with the production of spice from the evil and barbaric House Harkonnen. The Emperor is secretly jealous of the growing popularity of the Atreides, and so conspires with the leader of House Harkonnen to attack and wipe them out. The Harkonnens succeed with the secret help of the Emperor’s elite troops known as the Sardaukar in killing nearly everyone. Among the survivors are the son of the leader of House Atreides, Leto, and his beloved concubine and Paul’s mother, Jessica. The pair find refuge with the local Arrakis natives, the Fremen, a race of fierce warriors who are far more numerous than the racist Harkonnens ever imagined.
From here, things get complicated and strange. Jessica is a member of the Bene Gesserit, an all-woman religious and political group that is incredibly powerful and operates behind the scenes quietly controlling all of the great houses including the Emperor himself. Members of the group have put themselves through a rigorous training over the course of millennia that has resulted in their gaining mental superpowers. Against tradition, but in pursuit of the Bene Gesserit’s ultimate goal of producing a male superbeing known as the Kwisatz Haderach, Jessica has trained Paul in the Bene Gesserit ways.
As it turns out, Paul begins showing signs of being the Kwisatz Haderach, a genetically perfect man who is the result of hundreds and hundreds of year’s worth of genetic manipulation and careful breeding including Jessica herself who learns late in the story that she is actually the daughter of the leader of House Harkonnen. The Kwisatz Haderach is supposed to be possessed of incredible powers including the ability to see through time and to grasp all the possible futures each set of actions he takes might bring. He also happens to be a messianic figure of prophecy for the Fremen who believe he will lead them into a new golden age. Like I said: things get strange.
If you are a fan of science fiction, you’ll probably love the story. It’s an enduring classic that has been made into a movie three times for a reason. If you don’t, you’ll likely land somewhere in the neighborhood of lost, bored, and utterly confused. I’m told the sequels are also good, but get even weirder. I enjoyed the book, but I’m not rushing out to get the next one. I’m more of a fan of fantasy than science fiction.
What really captured my attention is the fact that Paul is a prophesied messianic figure for the Freman people. That in itself is only somewhat interesting (although it is also the central point of the plot). What is really interesting is that the prophecy was originally planted among the Fremen by the Bene Gesserit, not because they wanted the Fremen people actually looking for a savior, but merely as a means of exercising political control over them. Their cynically placed prophecy turns out not only to be true, but quickly becomes a threat to their entire existence.
The book handles all of this with a lot of interesting nuance. At first, Paul doesn’t want to accept any of it. Nor does his mother, Jessica. But they both gradually come to accept it as undeniably true. Among the Fremen, while there are some who cynically look down on the more religiously minded of their brothers and sisters (including Paul’s eventual lover, Chani), they all come to accept it because the evidence for its truthfulness is just too overwhelming.
The movie loses all of this nuance and the cynicism of the director toward religion in generally quickly becomes abundantly clear. Paul holds out on accepting it as long as he can, but once he steps into it, he becomes completely consumed by it. Jessica is the one who pushes it hard from the beginning, contrary to her portrayal in the book. The Fremen generally go from split between those who accept the prophecy and treat it like a religion (a very Islamic-like religion), and those who cynically reject it as old superstition, to an army of religious radicals who are ready to take over the whole universe in the name of their messiah. Chani, on the other hand, never accepts it, and the movie ultimately concludes with her driving (well, riding a giant worm, a creature I haven’t even mentioned yet, but which features prominently in the story) off into the sunset to get away from her crazy boyfriend.
While the book ultimately comes around to seeing religion as a generally good thing for helping to bring order, structure, and stability to our lives, and even as something that can unite large groups of people in pursuit of a common cause, the movie (well, movies plural; they gave it a two-part treatment so they didn’t have to give the details of the story too short a shrift) never gets beyond viewing it through a deeply cynical lens as something that is always and only made up for generally nefarious purposes. And indeed, while Paul doesn’t become a bad guy when he finally accepts his obvious identity, he’s also not really a good guy anymore either. The total lack of nuance gets boring quickly.
The truth is that many folks today see religion through a purely cynical lens. It is nothing more than a made up power play by the rich and strong and politically connected to keep the rest of the world in line. And, religious people over the centuries have given plenty of ammunition to these critics by committing heinous acts in the name of their religion. When one religion relentlessly persecutes people of other religions or no religion in the name of their religion, people who aren’t members of that religion start to think rather badly of it. Who wouldn’t?
But as I said back at the beginning, painting with a broad brush to simply declare all religion to be a bad thing merely reflects a general lack of understanding of any one religion in particular. Not all religions are the same. Not all religious people are the same. What we have to do is to carefully examine the truth claims and commands of a particular religion, observe what are the results of those being faithfully applied, and make our judgments from there. When a professed member of a particular religion deviates from its fundamental truth claims, does that result in more good things or more bad things in their life and in the lives of the people around him? When someone who has been only cursorily following a particular religion gets serious about it, does that result in her becoming a better person or a worse one? What kind of contributions has a particular religion been responsible for making to the world in general? When you examine the dark chapters of a religion’s history, are these the result of deviating from its central truth claims and commands, or of being faithful to them?
It will come as perhaps no surprise at all that I am rather strongly of the opinion that when you put Christianity through this rigor, it comes out pretty well in the end. Christianity is different from any other religion. Yes, there are broad similarities, but the differences are more numerous and incredibly profound. The way Christians describe the nature and character of God are unlike any other religion in history (the doctrine of the Trinity, for instance). The way we insist salvation works is truly unique (by faith alone). Our grasp of the nature and purpose of humanity stands apart from everyone else. Our fundamental hinge point, the one claim whose truthfulness is essential to our existence, the one point that if it is true means everything else is true as well, but if it is false renders the rest of it a bad joke, is an historical one. No other religion has something like that.
This is all part of what makes the New Testament so unique. All of its authors consistently insist that what they present as true is not something they cynically made up in order to grab power for themselves, but something to which they were eyewitnesses. That’s what Peter is making clear in this verse. “For we did not follow cleverly contrived myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ; instead, we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.” Indeed, if their goal was merely to grab power for themselves, they did a terrible job of it. While their fellow followers of Jesus certainly revered them, the apostles were persecuted relentlessly by both the Jews and the Romans. Nothing about the things they proclaimed to believe naturally lent themselves to anyone in their day. Their doctrines were weird and off-putting. It all seemed like so much nonsense to their critics. The whole endeavor would have just faded into obscurity except that they kept putting into practice the things the professed to believe and that made them different. Not a weird different either, but an incredibly attractive different.
The followers of Jesus kept living out His command to love one another as He had loved them. And He had loved them with a sacrificial and generous love to the point of being willing to lay down His own life for them. No one in the world had ever behaved the way Jesus’ followers did. The world had never experienced sustained, intentional compassion. Women had never been given such dignity as the Christians showed the women in their communities. Children and even babies were cherished in a way their society never had. And they didn’t only do these things for themselves. They turned this love out and poured it out on the people around them even when they didn’t share their beliefs; even when they were antagonistic toward them for believing what they did. And this love in the face of persecution kept changing hearts and minds, and the church grew. The religion spread.
Across the next 2,000 years of history through to today, followers of Jesus are still making an impact. The church is still growing. We haven’t always gotten everything He said right, and sometimes we have gotten it devastatingly wrong to our shame and to the apparent justification of the cynicism of our critics. But we’ve gotten it right a lot, and the world is a much better place because of it. Love lived out really is a powerful thing. Frank Herbert’s views toward religion are understandable. So are Denis Villeneuve’s, the director of the recent movies. Sometimes we’ve justified them both. But when we get things right, the whole world benefits. Let’s keep doing that and demonstrating to our critics just how wrong they are.
The Nexus 
Long term in the future, the one thing Christianity may will be remembered for will be opening the doors for secular humanism.
Consider some of the countries in Europe.
We don’t need religion to get things right, and in the main religion is highly divisive.
Even among your own religion, there are so many sects as to render it laughable.
Religion will eventually be regarded as something faintly quirky, as you might now regard Zorastism, which hardly features on the religious or any of the many now defunct religions.
From your personal perspective, it is unlikely you will need to consider getting a trade but that time will very likely arrive for most professional god-botherers.
Imagine a world where religion and all it’s supernatural delusional nonsense no longer held sway?
LikeLike
That’s perhaps a nice thought from a purely secular standpoint, but its far more likely to be a pipe dream that history is not suggesting will play out quite the way you or John Lennon imagined it might. Time will tell, but if I was a betting man, I wouldn’t put a single cent on your hypothesis here.
LikeLike
Of course not. But evidence suggests otherwise. Oh, wait… You don’t much care for evidence, do you?
LikeLike
I should add, as 1Peter is regarded as a forgery by critical scholarship this tends to devalue your post somewhat.
LikeLike
We’ve already addressed this before. And the opinion of critical scholarship that rejects it as a starting point and is looking for reasons to support that rejection doesn’t tend to factor in to my approach to the text.
LikeLike
Dishonesty on full display.
LikeLike
I just remembered 1Peter also supports / endorses slavery!
Oops…
🤦
LikeLike
Well, when you don’t understand the audience to whom he was writing, the context in which they were living, or the counsel he was giving them, I can understand why it would seem that way. But when you do understand all of those things, it is abundantly clear he wasn’t supporting or endorsing slavery at all. Your criticisms on this issue just continue to demonstrate that you don’t understand what you’re reading very well. I will yet get to your videos, but I’m still waiting for you to make anything like a convincing case on the question.
LikeLike
Once again, another condescending hand wave.
Yes, do watch the videos.
Alex O’Conner’s video addresses these issues more succinctly than Matt’s, or at least not quite as emotionally.
If the author, whoever this was, was not supporting slavery then please post the relevant passage ( I’m sure you know the one) and explain exactly what he was saying.
As for my ‘case’
Really? You need a case to demonstrate why owning another human being is immoral?
LikeLike
Are you interested in help gaining that understanding, or are you content to continue to sit back and criticize without it? I mean, that position will be enough to get attaboys from other skeptics and to sound convincing to believers who haven’t studied the text very well themselves. And if you’re good with that, I’ll leave you to it. But to any believer who has actually considered and studied the matter, you just sound like you don’t know what you’re talking about. I can help if you are interested in changing that perception at all.
LikeLike
More condescension.
You are getting good at this.
Apologetics 101. Can’t refutecl the argument, denigrate the atheist by insulting his intelligencen
Nothing like getting down and dirty in defense of the immoral monster you slavishly worship!
Go get ’em tiger!
Gotta love them Crisjuns, right?
🤣🤦
Thomas berated me for being too hard on you in my comments but your lofty
Holier than though approach knocks any snark from me right out the ball park.
So I ask, once AGAIN, identify a single verse, old or newt that actively condemns slavery and I will retract any statement I have made that mentions a lack of integrity for supporting, however vague, such a vile system that was sanctioned, condoned and regulated in the bible, the inspired word of your god, Yahweh.
All Yours…
LikeLike
I hadn’t had a chance yet to respond to your request the first time you made it. There isn’t a single verse that explicitly condemns slavery, but you already knew that. Why you keep feeling the need to ask question whose answers you either already know or about which you have already made up your mind regardless of what I say continues to puzzle me.
Can you explain to me why Christians started to meaningfully oppose slavery before anybody else in the world was doing something similar and at a time when their opposition was not gaining them any cultural credibility (just the opposite, in fact)? The documentary evidence of our opposition dates back to the first 2-3 centuries which almost certainly means it started well before then. Why, if the Scriptures so clearly support slavery, were they going against the Scriptures to oppose it?
And I didn’t mean for any of that to have the slightest bit of condescension. I was simply trying to help you understand that one the question of Peter’s supposed support for slavery, you very clearly don’t know what you’re talking about, and offering to help you come to better understanding of it. I did get a little snarky, though. I’ll confess that.
LikeLike
So no verses condemn slavery.
At least I don’t feel obliged to retract my comment regarding lack of integrity.
SOME Christians opposed slavery, the vast majority accepted it even to the point of owning slaves, including the Catholic Church.
No matter how you reply you are still ostensibly not condemning the fact it is condoned in the bible as per your god, Yahweh.
LikeLike
No, but as I said, you already knew that.
Nope. I’m saying that, yes, some, even many believers leaned into cultural assumptions of their day rather than faithfully applying the teachings of Jesus and found Scriptures to lift from their context in order to justify their actions. That’s been happening all along.
The real question to be answered is why there were any Christians who opposed it. What drew them to the conclusion that such a position (with supporting actions) was worth committing their life to even at a high personal cost when literally no one else in the world at the time was thinking, much less doing anything about that. Where did they get that idea when no one else did?
LikeLike
As I explained, SOME Christians seem to have developed a conscience.
Did Jesus condemn slavery?
No.
Therefore by the simple fact Peter and Paul accepted it and endorsed it we have to accept that, unless they were undermining Jesus’s teaching on the subject, he felt the same way.
LikeLike
You didn’t answer my question. How did these Christians develop this conscience as you put it. Given that they only had the teachings of Jesus and of the other apostles to go on, if those guys all supported slavery as you argue, where did they get the idea to oppose it?
And Jesus didn’t explicitly condemn a lot of things. That’s a weak argument from silence. It is far more reasonable given His command to love one another (which slavery is not consistent with), that had He spoken to it directly, Jesus would have condemned it.
LikeLike
Where did I get the idea to become vegetarian when all those around me are meat eaters and I had eaten meat all my life up that point?
They realized that owning another human being is immoral and acted upon this realization.
LikeLike
It’s like you’re avoiding the question rather than actually answering it. How did they come to that realization when no one else in the world at the time thought similarly. When you became a vegetarian, that was a thing that people did. When they started opposing slavery, no one did. There was a context in which your decision made sense. That didn’t exist for them.
LikeLike
Again, they developed a conscience. Why is such a straightforward answer so difficult for you to understand?
How else did they come to the realization owning another human being was immoral?
Or do you think Yahweh suddenly had a change of heart and sent them an email?
LikeLike
That’s a straightforward answer, yes, but it’s also not a very good one. How did they develop this conscience? Why? What ideas fed into it? Where did these ideas come from? Again, no one else in the world was thinking like this at the time; certainly no one in their immediate cultural context. If this group of only Christians suddenly developed this conscience at a certain time and place in history, why that time? Why that place?
LikeLike
It is irrelevant. As I suggested, perhaps Yahwrh sent them an email?
The fact is they did and that is all that counts.
Meanwhile, the rest of their brethren accepted and embraced/ indulged this vile behaviour.
Now, you can accept this obvious fact or you can continue your dance routine without providing an alternate evidence based reason for their behaviour.
Your choice.
LikeLike
It is not even remotely irrelevant. When a new idea suddenly appears completely out of historical context like that, why it appears is an entirely historically relevant question. The fact that you refuse to consider what the explanation for this shift might be is telling to me. For a not-insignificant percentage of the early church to suddenly, from out of nowhere to decide that slavery is wrong demands an explanation. The most rational and reasonable explanation is that they developed this thinking because of the teachings of Jesus and the other apostles. This new idea appeared about the same historical time as this new teaching. Arguing there was no possible connection between the two comes across as an unreasonable position staked out for ideological reasons, and not because of a careful examination of the relevant teachings.
LikeLike
I am not refusing anything.
Your explanation flies in the face of the bible text. Peter and Paul both disagree with your answer.
And I ask you, because of their stance on slavery were they undermining the teachings of Jesus or simply continuing with what they had been taught?
Therefore, unless you can show where the Bible character Jesus of Nazareth expressly condemned slavery and taught against it then the evidence from the bible suggests the latter., abd the relatively small number of Christians who rejected the idea of slavery was likely due to conscience, by simply ignoring the text that condoned slavery and decided to adopt the belief that the command to love one another was simply another way of saying slavery was bad.
LikeLike
Refusing to consider the real weight of the question is exactly what you are doing.
And, no, my explanation doesn’t fly in the face of the Scriptures at all. It is perfectly consistent with it which is why the early believers started to oppose slavery when they were figuring out how to put those teachings into practice. And, I’ve already said Jesus didn’t anywhere in the Gospels explicitly condemn slavery.
When I am back to my desk tomorrow, I’ll aim to explain how to properly understand Peter’s comments on slavery.
LikeLike
Not Refusing anything at all.
If the vast majority of the Christian world accepted the Bible’s stance on slavery then unfortunately you are the one who is wrong in your understanding, if for no other reason than you simply don’t like the fact your religion accepted and endorsed slavery while a small minority developed a conscience and interpreted the text to ease their troubled minds.
Perfectly understandable by the way, and good for them.
Just a shame it took over a thousand years before the rest of your degenerate sect, (with help from the enlightenment and some input from humanism) came to the party.
Oh, and before you reply, watch the darn videos!
I’m signing off for the evening to go make some toast then watch Euro 24.
LikeLike
Enjoy the matches. But, yes, you are absolutely and steadfastly refusing to engage with the necessary and relevant question of how these Jesus followers started opposing slavery and why Christians have consistently, if not universally, done so ever since.
LikeLike
Half time..
They interpreted the text they way wanted so as ti assuage their guilt about owning another human being.
Are you asserting therefore, that with the exception of these piddling number of believers the entirety of Christendom misinterpreted the Bible texts that plainly endorsed slavery?
LikeLike
I’m your halftime entertainment now? Why, Ark, you’re going to make me blush 😉
Why on earth would they have guilt about it when literally no one else in the world at the time considered it anything other than good and right? The going thinking was that some people were simply born to be slaves. Why did this single group of people right at the time these new teachings were spreading across the Empire come to such a radically countercultural conclusion? Why would they even think this was a way to interpret the text? Given all the other beliefs that got condemned at the time, why weren’t these beliefs condemned if they are so utterly foreign to a natural reading of the text?
And, yes, I am absolutely asserting that. And where’s your evidence they were piddling in number?
LikeLike
Guilt?
When the entirety of Christendom considered it right, and the Bible condoned and regulated it, and the Bible character Jesus of Nazareth accepted it, it must have taken a tremendous act of will to defy the status quo, so their sense of morality , (brought on by feelings of guilt) was obviously more highly developed than the majority of their god-bothering fellows as historical evidence shows.
If you consider almost the entirety of Christendom misinterpreted the text even though it is clear the Bible endorses slavery, how was this misinterpreted?
Please provide specific examples.
LikeLike
You’re thinking far too late to be able to answer the question well. Christendom didn’t come about for centuries after Christians already had a long record (which we have record of) of opposing slavery in meaningful and practical ways (like buying large groups of slaves in order to set them free).
Guilt? How or why would they feel guilt? That implies some standard they were conscience of not keeping. Where did that standard come from? How did they learn of it? Who set it? On what teachings did they base these feelings of guilt if not the teachings of Jesus and the apostles?
And you don’t have any evidence that Jesus supported slavery except an argument from silence and that’s too weak to be considered even remotely convincing.
It’s not clear the Scriptures endorse slavery. I’m not going to assume your position for the purposes of the debate. And those who have misinterpreted the text because they used common and well-established cultural assumptions as a means for understanding the text rather than letting it speak for itself and on its own terms. People still do that today in order to justify all kinds of things the church has historically opposed.
LikeLike
Your replies are becoming disingenious, Jonathan.
Do you consider owning another human being immoral. Yes or no?
LikeLike
And you’re avoiding the issue by seeking to hand wave it away as you nearly always do with questions whose answers are uncomfortable for your position. No, I’m being just as honest with you as I always am. You simply don’t like my answers as you nearly never do. And what do you honestly think the answer to that question is? If my position on that isn’t already clear to you by now, you haven’t really been playing the slightest bit of attention to anything I’ve yet had to say on the matter.
LikeLike
And you are avoiding dealing with the issue that the vast majority of Christians, including the Church and various Protestant sects fully accepted slavery as the will of your god, Yahweh and used the Bible to justify it.
You asserting they misinterpreted the text is nonsense as the text speaks for itself.
The Bible ( the claimed inspired word of your god, Yahweh) accepts, and endorses slavery to the point of regulating it.
Jesus’ silence on the matter is more damning than you are prepared to admit.
Remember, Jonathan: Not one jot or tittle of the Law.
And, if we are to accept texts such as Ephesians ( and other texts) as genuine then Paul was simply extending the received teachings ( sic) from the character Jesus of Nazareth.
Kudos to those Christians who opted to defy the Bible and the majority of Christian sects/ church teachings regarding slavery. Human decency is part of our evolution. However, it just shows how indoctrination works and how tyrannical and abusive religion can be.
As I mentioned before, it’s a shame the rest of your vile religion took over a thousand years to ‘catch a wake up’ , as we say down here.
Glad you think it is immoral to own another human being.
So why in Gehenna are you still defending the Bible?
LikeLike
I haven’t avoided dealing that at all. I’ve acknowledged many wrongly supported it, and made clear their understanding of the Scriptures was in error. But your continuing to play a game of whataboutism doesn’t conceal the fact that you still won’t answer or really even consider the question of how and why Christians started opposing slavery in the first place. Near as I can tell, the reason is that the only rational against cuts directly against the position you are so insistent on supporting.
LikeLike
Their understanding of scripture was not in error and you have failed to show why, and continue to defend biblical slavery, apparently insisting it wasn’t really slavery.
I have stressed time and again those Christians who opposed slavery did so out of basic human decency. They developed a conscience. A component of human evolution
Tell me, Jonathan why don’t you damn well read my replies?
LikeLike
With all due respect, you don’t believe any of the Scriptures are true or reliable. Your thoughts on who has the right interpretation or not aren’t completely meaningless, but they’re not much more than a half a step beyond that. And speaking of reading responses, you seem with unwilling or unable to accept the position I have staked out and continue to hold. Yes, slavery in multiple different forms appears in the Scriptures. Yes, various forms of slavery were assumed by the Mosaic law. These were all regulated in such a way as to point toward the full humanity and dignity of slaves and servants which was something novel in the world at the time. No, these weren’t the final and most reflective of God’s character statement on the matter. Yes, they were a step in that direction away from the place the people were by themselves. No, we don’t understand why God chose to take that particular path to finally helping humanity understand that human slavery is wrong in all circumstances. No, none of this means slavery is somehow condoned by the Scriptures.
And, yes, I read that response the first time you gave it. It’s a cop out response that avoids dealing with the more significant question. How did they develop this conscience? Why? What led to it? What moral teachings pointed them in this direction? Where did those come from? Why was it that only followers of Jesus for whom the only new teachings they were encountering were the teachings of Jesus and the apostles suddenly developed this conscience on the matter of slavery. If, as you have argue, they chose to reject those teachings in favor of opposing slavery, why did they do this? What led them to that conclusion? Where did they get this sudden enlightenment that Jesus and these other guys were totally wrong, and they needed to accept everything else they said, but not on this one issue? The impetus from this certainly didn’t come from the culture of the Roman Empire. So, where did it come from? And even assuming an evolutionary explanation for it, evolution is gradual change over time with a clear pathway leading from one form to another. This wasn’t a gradual change. This was a sudden and dramatic rejection of the previous position that was still held by everyone else in the world around them. If anything, from an evolutionary standpoint, this should have been a generational aberration that was quickly replaced by the historical norm. And, it essentially was. No one else agreed with Christians on the immorality of slavery. For hundreds and hundreds of years, Christians were alone in opposing slavery and not even all of them did that. It wasn’t until the Christian worldview had completely dominated the West that non-Christian groups started to meaningfully oppose it. Evolution doesn’t even begin to explain that. Yes, I read your replies just fine. I just didn’t accept your cop out answer.
LikeLike
Whether I believe the bible or not is irrelevant to the fact millions did and do and acted upon said beliefs, which included slavery as represented by the supposed inspired word of your god, Yahweh.
The more you skirt the major issue of the bible endorsing slavery the more your dishonesty on the matter is revealed.
I have addressed how certain Christians developed a conscience. That you assert otherwise is a blatent lie and I do not appreciate it.
Empathy is part of human evolution and if you don’t understand this fact then you best stop displaying your ignorance on the matter and go do some research before your next reply.
They were the Christians that did not succumb to the vile social mores of the period and behaved as any decent human should.
Very much like those who hid Jews from the Nazis.
“No one else agreed with Christians etc… ”
Most CHRISTIANS did not agree that slavery was immoral. And this included a great many Christian sects and churches, a scenario that remained the norm for over a thousand years.
I reiterate, Christianity endorsed slavery based on the texts of the supposed inspired word of your god, Yahweh and including the words of people like Paul.
So I ask, what the hell sort of idiotic disingenious argument are you trying to pull here, Jonathan?
And if you have the time to write these egregious replies then you surely have time to watch a couple of short videos.
LikeLike
Then you’re going to have to go back and quote for me exactly where you gave something that wasn’t just a cop out response to the questions. I don’t remember seeing it. I asked a whole series of questions there, none of which I have seen you even come close to addressing with anything but hand waving.
When you say, “They were the Christians that did not succumb to the vile social mores of the period and behaved as any decent human should,’ where did they get the idea that opposing slavery was decent human behavior? No one else in the world at that time thought that.
Let’s assume empathy is part of human evolution for the sake of argument. Why did this particular kind of empathy suddenly develop among this particular group of people at this particular time and place in history?
Yes, I acknowledge many Christians supported slavery, But for hundreds and hundreds of years it was only Christians who opposed it. Why only them?
The harder you keep trying to avoid the obvious and rational conclusion here, the sillier the position you are defending looks.
And I did finally watch Dillahunty video. My presuppositions about it were right on the money. He didn’t present anything you haven’t already presented, and he wasn’t any more convincing on the point than you have been. I’m looking up the other video now.
LikeLike
There is no “assumption” regarding empathy. It is part of evolution and evidence has shown this.
Why shouldn’t they develop empathy?
I explained their compassion outweighed the social conventions and tyranny of the Church of the day. That took some serious courage.
If you dismiss Dilahunty’s video then I am sorry you are simply being blindly dishonest.
MOST Christians supported slavery because it is endorsed in the bible.
You even had a civil war over it, remember?
I have already laid out the rational conclusion, the same way some people hid Jews during the war.
LikeLike
But why did their compassion outweigh the social conventions of the day? And there was no “tyranny of the church” when Christians started opposing slavery. There was the tyranny of the Roman Empire, but this was before Constantine. What led them to conclude that this courage was worthwhile to pursue? What was the source of this? And no hand waving here: You have to explain why they did develop empathy. Not only that they did, but at that particular time and in that particular place.
Most Christians supported slavery because they lived in cultures that supported slavery and found justification for their cultural acceptance rather than taking the Scriptures on their own terms and as a unified whole.
Okay, why did those Christians decide to hide Jews during the war? What inspired them to do that? Could it have been their faith in Jesus and their application of His teachings to their current circumstances? If that’s the case, then, yes, it was just like that in the earliest centuries of the church. Those anti-slavery believers took Jesus’ and the apostles’ teachings and applied them to their current circumstances.
LikeLike
What anti slavery teaching of Jesus are you referring to?
Please direct me to the specific verses that Jesus condemned slavery.
Thanks.
LikeLike
So, you’re still going to just avoid the questions I’ve asked? I’d rather you not waste both of our time with disingenuous questions like this, all things considered.
LikeLike
I have answered your pertinent questions
You just don’t like my answers as they don’t fit your presuppositional narrative.
My question is not disingenious.
Your reply is, though.
Probably because you know full well Jesus accepted slavery.
But as Yahweh-come-in-the-flesh it is more than a little disturbing he did not utter a single recorded word condemning the practice.
Why do you think this is, Jonathan?
LikeLike
No, you’ve only answered the questions that you can answer in ways that fit your predetermined narrative. You have steadfastly refuse to engage with harder questions whose answers point back in the direction of the fundamentally anti-slavery nature of the Christian worldview.
You and I both know very well there aren’t any verses that have Jesus explicitly denouncing slavery. To ask that at all was disingenuous.
No, I don’t know full well or even partially well that Jesus accepted slavery. His teachings applied beyond the immediate confines of the text are what inspired the first people who meaningfully opposed slavery in the world. It is not even remotely disturbing that there isn’t such a verse. The issue was never raised to Him that we know of, so we don’t have a verse where He explicitly addressed it. You are once again relying on a weak argument from silence. Again, that kind of thing may get attaboys from other secularists, and it matters be intimidating to believers who haven’t actually studied the matter at all. For folks who have, it just sounds like you are grasping at straws to justify an argument that just doesn’t have any traction in the Scriptures properly understood.
LikeLike
Therefore if the Bible character Jesus of Nazareth did not expressly condemn slavery on what grounds can you assert early Christians used his teachings to consider slavery to be bad, especially as Paul and Peter taught otherwise?
Furthermore, as you consider Jesus to be Yahweh come in the flesh why didn’t he address the issue?
After all, he addressed a multitude of other sinful issues, so why not slavery?
LikeLike
When you start engaging meaningfully with the questions I’ve asked, I’ll start answering your questions on this issue again.
LikeLike
That you avoid engaging the really tough questions with any genuine integrity and continue to resort to apologetics and condescension illustrates not only your wilfull ignorance but a degree of cowardice that seems de riguer for those Christians who simply will not deal honestly with this subject.
LikeLike
Funny for you to make that kind of an observation while literally doing the same thing…
LikeLike
I have addressed every relevent point
You simply refuse to acknowledge the fact the inspired word of your god, Yahweh, condones slavery.
Once you acknowledge this fact then perhaps the rest of your approach will be honest rather than apologetic.
You can start by addressing the Leviticus passage.
LikeLike
No, you’ve addressed all the ones that are safest for you to address without risking giving any ground. The relevant questions you keep skirting, hand waving away, or outright avoiding.
And I’m not refusing to acknowledge anything because there’s nothing to be acknowledged. Your position is in error. The Scriptures cannot be accurately construed in such a way that they condone slavery.
Is there an argument to be made? Of course. Secularists like you and Christians have both made it. And I understand how or why someone might make the argument. It’s simply wrong.
That’s not apologetic, it’s just honest. The trouble you seem to be having is that you have decided otherwise and don’t like it when I don’t share your position on things. Near as I can tell, that’s one of the reasons you keep coming back. As I’ve said before, would that all of my folks here were as committed to Christian evangelism as you are to secular evangelism.
As for Leviticus, I said I would take a look at it when I got to my office tomorrow. I don’t promise an answer by then, but I’ll make time to at least take a look at it.
In more important news, how’s the match going and do we care who wins?
LikeLike
Italy managed a draw against at Croatia scoring in the 96th minute ensuring their progression to the round of 16 and almost certainly sending Croatia home.
LikeLike
I don’t understand your football, but that sounds…exciting?
LikeLike
I am a little bemused a professional pastor like you has to look into that particular passage in Leviticus. For someone who gives the impression he takes time to hone his apologetics til they are razor sharp I am surprised you don’t know the content of this particular passage, by heart and have a Christian answer down pat?
Oh, well, perhaps you may have to consult with Blomberg or, the gods forbid, Lane Craig?
LikeLike
This may completely burst the bubble of your vaunted image of me, but while my knowledge of the Scriptures is fairly broad (though not nearly so broad and deep as others who have been at this longer than I have), it is not encyclopedic. Slavery isn’t an issue I spend much of any time addressing with my congregation today. Why would I? It has long since been outlawed and we assume on its immorality. And, I’m a pastor, not a Pentateuchal scholar. While I’ve read Leviticus several times, I haven’t taken the time to do a detailed study of it like I have with Hebrews, 1 Peter, Mark, and Matthew, and am doing with Exodus. I’ll get there eventually. You can gripe about those blogs when I do. I’ll probably go Romans next after finishing Exodus, though. I’ve been looking forward to a detailed study of that treasure trove of Gospel goodies for a long time.
As for your snark at the end there, Blomberg is a New Testament scholar, and Craig is a philosopher. I wouldn’t look to either of them for counsel in better understanding Leviticus. But that you would even playfully mock my taking the time to see what other bright Christian scholars have had to say about a tough, but obscure passage, comes across rather hypocritical given the amount of time you spend searching for what bright secular scholars have to say about any number of issues in order to back up or justify some argument you make to me.
As for Leviticus itself, answer me one question before I dive in, and depending on your answer, I’ll gladly share some more thoughts. Are you actually interested in a nuanced, contextual, exploration of the historical situation of the passage and the Hebrew language nuances that help us get a better sense of why God might have directed Moses to write what he did here, or is your mind already made up as to what it means, and if I don’t spout off the answer you’ve already decided is correct, you’re just going to mock or dismiss or otherwise gripe about my lack of integrity or honesty in my comments?
LikeLike
If you can find nuance in the term ‘property’ and several other words used to denote ownership of another human being than you can call me super impressed.
On the flip side if you cannot find any nuance you have to acknowledge the fact and be prepared to retract your assertion that certain Christians misinterpreted the text.
Fair enough?
Have at it my man
Oh, just as an aside you don’t truly believe the character Moses wrote the Pentateuch, surely?
LikeLike
And now I found it in my trash folder in the comments section. Well, it’s on here twice now. I’ll just leave it. That was still really weird.
LikeLike
Okay, some combination of keystrokes just deleted your response. I have no idea how I managed to do that, and no idea how to get it back. I assure you that was not at all on purpose. If you can remember what you wrote close enough to post it again, I’ll make sure that doesn’t happen again. That was really weird. I started trying to type in my response and suddenly the whole thing was highlighted and gone. And to think, I finally deleted something and didn’t save it for something really insightful that I could have kept the world from seeing all in the name of Jesus. Ah technology…
LikeLike
The reply shows on my side, or are you referring to a different thread.
I mentioned that if you can’t find nuance you should acknowledge the fact.
I also asked if you truly believe the character Moses wrote the Pentateuch!
LikeLike
Yep, I think I got it figured out…not why it happened in the first place, but how to fix it. About to hit send so you can start picking it apart ;~)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Never mind, I found it in my email still. Here was your comment in full:
If you can find nuance in the term ‘property’ and several other words used to denote ownership of another human being than you can call me super impressed.
On the flip side if you cannot find any nuance you have to acknowledge the fact and be prepared to retract your assertion that certain Christians misinterpreted the text.
Fair enough?
Have at it my man
Oh, just as an aside you don’t truly believe the character Moses wrote the Pentateuch, surely?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I see you did…
Now there are two comments, just to emphasize the point.
LikeLike
Want to make sure nobody misses it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, just in case there are a few lurkers around, right?
LikeLiked by 1 person
And my computer apparently hates me today. I wrote up a whole response that was way longer than you probably wanted to read…hit send…and it told me I could send it and promptly deleted all of it. I’m now beating my head on my keyboard. I give up for now. It may be tomorrow before I can get to this.
LikeLike
This has happened to me on occasion.. For long replies, type in Word, save it then copy and paste as need be.
If it does the dirty on you again you have a backup.
LikeLike
Yes indeed. Lesson learned. Well…stay tuned. I’ll yet give you all the nuance you can handle and then some :~)
LikeLike
Please don’t. I would prefer some straight up honesty and recognition that we are not talking about indentured servitude but slavery, plain and simple.
LikeLike
Everything I wrote was straight up honesty. But the point was that, yes, we are talking about indentured servitude or a prisoner of war situation here and not “slavery, plain and simple.”
When you take the time to actually dig into the Hebrew language being used and the cultural situation into which these commands were given, that’s exactly what you find. A lack of understanding and nuance here is certainly easier and, conveniently for you, helps you make the case you’ve been trying to make to me for days now. The trouble is, when you actually give the text an honest and carefully studied look not through the lens of modern cultural assumptions, but taking it on its own terms, the situation is very different from what secular assumptions (not to mention badly erring Christians in the past) would like for it to be.
You tell me, then: I can rewrite most of what I had written tomorrow, mostly word-for-word, or you can decide that you aren’t going to accept it out of the gate because you’ve already made up your mind on the matter and my input won’t make a meaningful difference, and I can save both of us the time (well, me double the time; you just the time once).
LikeLike
Whole indentured servitude is mentioned regarding Israelites the text asserts that foreigners can be enslaved as chattel and are considered property which can be inherited by one’s children.
That is slavery.
Did you miss this? In fact did you even read the text?
I can copy and paste if you want?
LikeLike
Thus the necessary nuance I had written. When you take the time to actually learn and consider the historical and cultural situation and the Hebrew language being used in the passage rather than opening up your trusty KJV and going with that, the situation becomes clearer…and far less like the chattel system you errantly insist must be the case.
I’ll type the thing back up for you tomorrow.
LikeLike
I also asked if you truly believe the character Moses wrote the Pentateuch?
Did you miss that as well?
LikeLike
Nope. I had responded to that too. Yes, I do accept that. Other than the parts written after his death, I have yet to see a compelling case why Mosaic authorship in spite of most of it being technically anonymous is at all problematic. It’s just like with the Gospels. In spite of their technical anonymity, the arguments in favor of traditionally accepted authorship just aren’t very compelling.
LikeLike
The most compelling reason is the Exodus as described is a myth.
LikeLike
I don’t find that compelling at all because I reject the premise from the start.
LikeLike
And yet the archaeological evidence demonstrates otherwise, which is largely the basis for the across the board scholarly consensus.
Therefore, on what grounds do you reject the evidence?
LikeLike
It is the basis for secular scholarly consensus, but, nope, not going to go back to that one. We’ve been round and round on that more than once. It’s not worth either of our time retreading old ground that we didn’t agree on then just so we can not agree on it now.
LikeLike
Archaeological evidence is not “secular”
Furthermore, many of those archaeologists who established the Exodus is myth were Jewish.
Do you call paleontologists who dig up dinosaur bones and fossils, “secular” ?
How are you ever going to establish fact if your approach denies scientific evidence?
Ostensibly, such scientific denial is simply lying to yourself.
How do you teach the Exodus as fact ( to your kids for example) when the evidence flatly refutes it?
Surely this type of denialism borders on lying to others?
LikeLike
I told you, I’m not going to go back into all of that with you. We’ve already been there. More than once.
LikeLike
How am I expected to engage you on an intellectual level in the pursuit of fact/ truth when you refuse to accept scientific evidence?
You might as well tell me right now that no matter what evidence I present or mention on any biblical subject you will automatically deny it.
Is this the case?
LikeLike
Bait all you want. I’m not going back to that conversation with you. We’ve long since covered that ground.
LikeLike
Okay. Duly noted.
As a final hurrah on the topic, is there a Christian scholar / archaeologist you have read, watched / consulted (Name of scholar, Kitchen, Friedman maybe?) that helped frame your opinion of the Exodus narrative? Or is your interpretation solely from your personal reading of the text underpinned by your faith?
LikeLike
My own study underpins a fair bit of it. So does the larger grasp of the Christian worldview I’ve developed over the years. I’ve also read/listened to/etc. a variety of other folks on the matter, but don’t honestly remember names that I could quote for you.
LikeLike
1. What areas regarding the Exodus narrative did you own studies encompass?
2 What has the Christian Worldview got to do with whether the Exodus tale is fact or myth?
LikeLike
1. Not the same things as you. My current journey through it is the most detailed attention I’ve given it. My focus now is devotional, not evidential. My goal has not been to examine archaeological evidence because I’m assuming on the historical nature of the document.
2. We’ve talked about that before. As before, I don’t feel the need to retread old ground.
LikeLike
So, once again, you are ignoring the archaeological evidence in favour of belief in a mythological tale.
Don’t you feel in the least bit ashamed of such an approach?
You probably accept archaeological evidence for such things as paleontology yet reject the entire body of work conducted over decades by hundreds if not thousands of qualified men and women, including goodness knows how many volunteers from around the globe, simply because the facts skewer your faith like holes in the net of Galilean fisherman?
Oh, boo frigging hoo, Jonathan.
Does reality really impinge on your rose tinted delusional glasses so much?
LikeLike
Aw, it’s cute when you put on your bully posture. As I just wrote a second ago, I don’t do that at all. I simply accept that they haven’t found everything there is to find yet, so the picture they’ve been able to recreate isn’t complete.
LikeLike
Really, Jonathan?
And what do you think will turn up to exonerate the fictional tale of a global flood?
😂
You realise the epic starring Russel Crowe is a movie and not a documentary, right?
LikeLike
That movie was awful. Truly awful. Although given that it was made by an atheist who thinks the whole thing is a joke, I figured you’d be all for that one.
LikeLike
Never saw it.
Was it as awful as the book version?
LikeLike
Worse if you can imagine. Although Anthony Hopkins made for a fun Methuselah.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The movie was worse than the book?
Well, I suppose the book version appealed to those who were unfamiliar with how the world worked, or those indoctrinated to simply reject scientific evidence.
Don’t you feel a little bit sorry for those kids subject to this nonsense?
LikeLike
Which kids?
LikeLike
Your’s for example and every other unfortunate little ones who is lied to in the name of delusional religious garbage just to satisfy the egos of insecure adults who should know better.
LikeLike
Except that it’s true you’re probably right. I am curious though how long you would be willing to tolerate my insisting to you that you are abusing your children before finally telling me to shove it and blocking me. The charge is comical nonsense, so I just keep ignoring it, but I wonders sometimes what the shoe would be like on the other foot. Once before I suggested that I reciprocated your belief that I am operating entirely out of ignorance and you stormed off like a angry teenager for a couple of weeks before deciding you missed me too much to stay gone much longer. Just idle thinking I guess. Time to go get the kid from camp. I’ve got some work to finish up tomorrow, so it may be a day or so before I can get back to the other things. Later!
LikeLike
Well, DO you tell your kids your god, Yahweh flooded the entire world annhilating all life on earth save for a few animals and one soon to be incestuous family?
Do you not consider this is abuse?
LikeLike
The movie imagined the Nephilim as giant rock monsters. Really, the only three points of overlap between the book and the movie were a character named Noah, a flood, and a big boat filled with animals. The rest Aronofsky just made up as he went along.
LikeLike
“Made up as he went along…”
So, pretty much just like Christianity, then.
LikeLike
And before you say it: Isn’t that what the Genesis account was doing too?
We’ve been at this long enough. I know where your mind was going 😉
LikeLike
“Leviticus describes a two-tier model of slavery that distinguishes Israelites from foreign slaves. It requires that Israelites be indentured only temporarily while foreigners can be enslaved as chattel (permanent property).”
Oxford University Press.
LikeLike
And if you use the English translation only, and disregard the cultural and historical context, that’s an easy, if incorrect, conclusion to reach.
LikeLike
1.
2. What other translation must one use?
Which one did you use to discern that chattel slavery did not mean ownership?
3 Furthermore you did not address the fact chattel slaves could be passed on to one’s children as they were regarded as property. As described in the text.
Please address these point by point
LikeLike
I told you I was going to address all of that when I typed back up my response. You’ll have to wait. I’d rather give it all at once rather than piecemeal.
LikeLike
Sorry, yes you did.
I’ll wait.
But please, can you focus on the specific points raised and bullet point your answers rather than reams and reams of prose?
LikeLike
To the best of my limited ability.
LikeLike
Simply confine your response to the points I have raised. This will keep the discussion as narrowly focused as possible abd new points can be added along the way.
I don’t want to have to wade through apologetic style prose going back and forth.
LikeLike
I already said I would. And when you stop using “apologetic” as a substitute for “argument I don’t agree with,” that will also help keep things focused.
LikeLike
Fair enough.
Out of interest do you or have you studied apologetics?
LikeLike
A pretty fair bit. I was on the border of pursuing PhD studies in it twice, but both times those doors closed and I stayed focused on being a pastor. I’m by no means an expert, but I’m reasonably widely read in the discipline for someone with no formal training in it.
LikeLike
So why do you object to my use of the term apologetics?
LikeLike
I don’t object to your use of the term in general. Apologetics is the discipline of making reasoned arguments both positively and negatively in defense of the Christian worldview.
When you complain that my responses are filled with apologetics, you are using the word in a way that consistently communicates “arguments I don’t like.” Using your definition, literally all of my arguments to you are apologetics and will always be apologetics. You make persistent arguments against and otherwise challenge me over and over again on the reasonableness of the Christian worldview in one form or fashion. I counter with what I at least intend to be reasoned arguments in favor of it and against the positions for which you advocate. All of those arguments are apologetic by definition. Our entire conversation dating back to the very first time you asked me for evidence about the resurrection after Club and I had been going back and forth for a while has been one long exercise in apologetics. It’s like you want me to make secular arguments for the Christian positions I hold. That’s just silly. Just accept that I am going to make Christian arguments for the Christian positions that I hold. It’ll save us both a lot of grief.
LikeLike
I use the term apologetics because this is how your arguments come across.
They are presented in a manner that suggests the use of formulaic responses, or even simply knee jerk reactions.
Furthermore, they are not presented with evidence but usually as unsubstantiated claims, which when challenged you usually retort the fault is simply because of my secular / atheist bias.
Also, your arguments are generally not supported by critical scholarship and you seem to reject scholarly consensus.
Of most importance though, you reject scientific evidence at every point where it is in any sort of conflict with your faith based position.
Notably but not limited to: Adam and Eve, Noah and the global flood, Captivity, Exodus and Conquest.
LikeLike
Not reject, but accept that while it is amazing and thorough, it may not yet give us the most complete picture of the details of the ancient past. And of course my arguments aren’t going to be supported by critical scholarship. Once again, I’m making arguments in defense of the Christian worldview. Critical scholars not only aren’t interested in defending the Christian worldview, they are generally pretty motivated to argue against. Their secularism, though, doesn’t necessarily make their arguments better, nor does it somehow enable them to be more likely to see what’s true. It just means their bias has them coming at the issues in question from a different direction.
LikeLike
Trying to defend the Christian Worldview without evidence cannot possibly succeed as it’s primary defense is faith and in specific cases solid scientific evidence wipes the floor with any sort of faith-based approach.
To then throw in terms as ‘secular bias’ is disingenious and simply risible.
At that point whatever credibility faith based belief was clinging to is flushed down the toilet.
LikeLike
Happily, the Christian worldview doesn’t depend primarily (or, really, even secondarily) on a defense of the Exodus, the Flood, Adam and Eve, or any of the other Old Testament narratives that you spend all our time complaining about. It depends pretty singularly on the resurrection. And while we’ve talked much about that before and I’m very familiar with your position on the matter, I still find the arguments and evidence for that to be overwhelmingly compelling and true. All of the rest of those questions flow from there.
And when you are willing to stop waving around the idea of Christian “indoctrination” as a club, we can stop talking about the secular bias of critical scholars.
LikeLike
1. Of course it doesn’t depend on those things.
However, there is context, which you are regularly at pains to remind me. On this basis the New Testament is built on the foundation of the Old so when the bible character Jesus of Nazareth acknowledges these events/characters as real it brings into question his bona fides, especially as solid scientific evidence flatly refutes these tales as fiction and geopolitical foundation myth.
My question, once again, is why do you hedge your bets when the evidence makes any such defense look ridiculous?
2. Why do you object to the term indoctrination?
Young children who are unable to seriously question their parents, guardians, teachers at such an early stage in their development are most certainly indoctrinated into the faith.
Why would you consider it different for those adults who are struggling with certain emotional issues?
LikeLike
Here goes at last. It’s blog length, but you’re used to reading that. I did mostly bullet point everything for you.
I’ll try to remember as much of this as I can…
First to your points…
1. I wasn’t referring to a specific English translation. The original text was written in ancient Hebrew. If you rely primarily on any English translation for your perspective on the text, you are necessarily less informed than you could or should be.
Because of this, 2. There wasn’t/isn’t a specific English translation that best clarifies the matter. You have to go back to the original language to the best of our ability (which is pretty good, all things considered) as well as explore the original contextual and historical setting through the lens of the whole passage rather than these few verses.
Now for the rest…
1. The Hebrew word most commonly translated “slave” is more accurately (given the historical and cultural context) translated as servant, namely a kind of indentured servitude. The text is talking about owning people, yes, but not in the same sense that slaves were owned in the chattel slavery system of the 17th-19th centuries in the West. The majority of the situations being described in the relevant “slavery” passages are describing cultural situations that were entirely more like those of the Europeans who indentured themselves in order to gain passage to the Colonies, worked for their predetermined period, and then were free. Or, if they found that they really enjoyed the companionship of their “owner” (who would more accurately be called their boss in modern parlance, but because of the nature of the economic transaction that had taken place to put the person in that situation, the boss held a level of authority over them that was far greater than a moder boss has over her employees even though no one in that day considered the situation to be one of ownership), they could remain in his employ indefinitely.
2. The specific situation being addressed in Leviticus 25 in the larger context of the Year of Jubilee (which, although we have zero evidence of the Israelites ever actually practicing it, is nonetheless clearly laid out as the ideal for them to follow here), is a situation of dire poverty. God through Moses is giving the people some regulations for how those situations should be handled. In a day with no kind of social safety net or public support, if a person ran into sufficiently hard economic times, their options were fairly limited. You could starve yourself and your family, or you could enter into an economic relationship with another family that would see your own family members adequately cared for in exchange for labor, in other words, an indentured servitude. God put some pretty tight restrictions on these situations that pointed insistently toward the equal dignity of folks in them. Some of these seem bad to us, but they were generally wildly progressive for that day. The laws in Leviticus 25 were aimed at making sure Israelites were caring well for their fellow Israelites (including doing things like offering interest-free loans to help someone avoid extreme poverty) as well as to give everyone an avenue back to being self-sustaining.
3. When it comes to the specific situation of foreigners and the permission God gives for the Israelites to “own” them, an important question needs to be answered. How and why did these foreigners arrive in Israel? There’s no warrant in the text anywhere that I’m aware of at least for the idea that Israel was going around merely looking for people to enslave. Neither did people travel around from place to place just for the heck of it then. There would have been two primary ways a foreigner could have ended up in Israel.
The first would have been in pursuit of poverty relief through an economic indentured servitude. We catch a glimpse of this in the story of Ruth. Naomi and her family originally went to Moab in pursuit of economic relief. They may have indentured themselves to a Moabite, but evidently worked out of that situation and became self-sustaining. When Naomi’s husband and both sons died, she and her daughters-in-law were destitute. She decided to return to Bethlehem where there was family and where she could indenture herself to someone there. More specifically, she got Ruth married off to Boaz, which although there seems to have been a mutual attraction element from the details of the story, would have been an economic arrangement to provide for Ruth and Naomi as well. In this kind of an economic situation, most of the laws governing Israelites economic situations, including the treatment of these indentured servants, would have applied.
The second situation would have been in the context of prisoners of war. Israel was attacked and did their own fair share of attacking. This kind of thing was pretty well par for the course in that historical era. Nations were always attacking other nations and they were always religious wars because they were fundamentally attempts to enlarge the territory and power of their god to their own economic benefit. In the case where Israel won a battle against another nation, there were two options for what to do with the survivors. Kill them all so they no longer represented a martial threat to Israel, or take them captive. With women and children whose husbands and fathers had been killed in the conflict, leaving them alone would have consigned them to a life of poverty and likely starvation. Taking them back to care for them in exchange for labor was the more compassionate option that while obviously not perfect, would have been much preferred to the available alternatives.
For men who were taken back as prisoners of war, if they were in fighting shape, they represented an ongoing threat to the safety of the Israelites if they were simply freed under their own recognizance. Therefore, they had to be kept under tighter restrictions. In doing this, though, and from the context of the broader laws on these kinds of situations, the Israelite taking on the responsibility for this person was committing to an economic cost over time. It would have been seen as reasonable for the prisoner of war to help provide for his own care and provision. Yet because he was a warrior for another tribe, his imprisonment would have likely been indefinite. If he happened to outlive the man who originally took “ownership” of him, this “ownership” or responsibility for his care, would have passed to the man’s sons. A similar thing would have been true for the foreign women and children in a prisoner of war situation. Their care would have been passed to the next generation.
None of this was like the chattel system that you have in mind. Where the text uses ownership language here, it is less like slave ownership in the recent past and more like a sports team purchasing the contract of a player and thus “owning” that player until the contract is fulfilled. This is especially true in the case of the economic indentured servant relationships. The prisoner of war situation would be akin to modern prisoner of war settings where prisoners are afforded food and medical care and even quite a few other amenities (at least in most U.S. long-term prisoner of war situations). The U.S. “owns” those people, but not in a slavery sense.
4. The one last thing to keep in mind here is God’s regular statement regarding His opinion on foreigners (ger, in Hebrew). He said over and over that He loved them and was concerned with their receiving justice and that the Israelites should reflect His compassion for them in their own treatment of them because they were once ger and also ebed in Egypt.
Okay, that’s not all that I wrote last time, but it’s at least most of it. There is a strong case to be made that your description of the situation, while totally understandable to make, is not accurately reflective of the actual historical and cultural situation in which these laws were given. The language is hard for us, absolutely, but a bit of cultural and historical exploration helps us see that it’s not what it appears at first read (especially in modern English translations). What’s more, though, none of these situations were considered to be ideal. God wasn’t giving His active thumbs up for any of this. He was acknowledging what the cultural realities were and putting in place regulations and restrictions to keep these non-ideal situations from devolving into what all the other nations around Israel practiced.
LikeLike
The Hebrew word you are looking for is edeb. This means slave / servant is and is used throughout and refers to a number of functions and situations, including bondsnman or indentured servitude, debt slavery and also slave to Yahweh, for example.
Accept that I am not a rookie on this having done research long before I posed the question for you to answer.
But ebed also means slave as we generally understand the term and it is clear the text in question ( and several others) reflects this. No amount of tortured semantics is qoing to wish this fact away and in the interest of honesty and integrity you really need to acknowledge this.
The point about chattel slavery.
You did not address the fact that Israelites could BUY non Israelite slaves from neighboring tribes/ nations.
You also did not address the fact that any children from any slave union would remain slaves for life ( if the male slave did not want to leave his family behind upon his emancipation. And what father/husband would do that? Would you?) and could be passed on / inherited to the slave owner’s kids as their property.
Right, so now we have established/highlighted the parts you seem to have missed please address these specific points as I previously asked.
And you don’t need to write a tome either.
We can then look at virgin slaves as war booty ( apt under the curcumstances)
LikeLike
Typo. Ebed.
LikeLike
Thanks
LikeLike
In retrospect, I knew I should have typed that in something other than WordPress and then cut and pasted it in. Sigh….
LikeLiked by 1 person
The fact his chief disciple Peter endorsed slavery and so did Paul is strong indication Jesus held the same perspective, unless you are asserting Pete and Paul actively undermined Jesus’ teachings?
LikeLike
Not at all. I’m saying you don’t understand what they were saying, to whom, and why. When you understand that, it is obvious they were not giving support to slavery as an institution. That’s why Christians started to oppose it as early as they did.
LikeLike
Oh, I don’t understand!.
Fair enough, then as you DO seem to understand then please explain what they meant and explain how you know whereas an awful lot of people flat out disagree with you.
The floor is yours…. Away you go.
LikeLike
Look for the answer by R Bevilaqua.
As comprehensive an answer as you will likely come across anywhere.
https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-Bible-condone-slavery-and-no-where-condemns-it
LikeLike
He sure is. And in Paul Copan’s book, Is God a Moral Monster, he deals with just nearly all of his questions and criticisms to show why, no, the Scriptures cannot be accurately construed to demonstrate support for slavery at all.
LikeLike
So he is a Christian apologist?
Why am I not surprised.
LikeLike
Can’t be construed?
Exodus 21 etc
Did you read the Qora link?
LikeLike
I said accurately construed. Of course they can be construed inaccurately. That happens all the time. It’s what you’ve been doing since you fired back up this debate.
LikeLike
You mean apologetically.
If you consider the bible does not condone slavery you are either indoctrinated up the wazoo or your reading skills leave an awful lot to be desired.
LikeLike
Or, I have spent the time necessary studying the whole thing fully in context and have come to understand it well.
And, no, I meant just what I said.
LikeLike
Nope. You are defending the indefensible and that is disgusting.
LikeLike
Nope again. I’m defending the fact that the Scriptures do not support slavery when properly understood.
LikeLike
Then you do not understand the text and are suffering from bias as a result of indoctrination.
Tell you what, find me a non Christian scholar/ historian who supports your Christian perspective.
LikeLike
Or, you as someone who thinks the whole thing is a joke and doesn’t believe any of it anyway may not actually understand the text as well as people who have spent their lives studying it carefully.
And, do you even realize how silly of a thing that is for you to keep asking? If they supported the Christian perspective, they’d more than likely be Christians.
LikeLike
I do not consider slavery a joke at all. And the fact you continue to defend the Bible on this issue as did your fellow slave owning Christians is quite frankly, utterly disgusting.
And can you not see how revolting it is that you will not entertain the thought that any non Christian historian/scholar will defend your stance on biblical slavery?
In fact this just makes the point.
LikeLike
I don’t either. Christians who participated in or otherwise supported slavery were wrong. They were wrong on the merits of their actions and wrong in their understanding of the text.
And, no, the fact that non-Christian scholars mostly don’t support a particular Christian position on any issue is not something I find revolting at all. I find it entirely unsurprising. Typically, where you find Christians supporting a non-Christian position on some issue, you find a Christian on their way out of the faith. On the contrary, where you find a non-Christian supportive of a Christian position on some matter, you find someone who is on a journey to Jesus that often ends in their becoming a Christian. That you keep waving that banner around like it means anything at all is what I find silly.
LikeLike
You gave to demonstrate a single example of why they were “wrong” in their understanding of the text, which, based on the actions of the millions who did accept the text, including various churches and Christian sects strongly suggests you are the one in the wrong.
That you find everything about my position silly is simply opinion unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.
Would an impartial historian, or scholar familiar with the bible text, the language and the culture support your Christian view of Bible slavery?
This is a yes or no question.
LikeLike
What do you mean by “impartial”? Secular?
LikeLike
What do you think I mean by impartial? Are the words in my comment not self explanatory?
LikeLike
You’re seeking a golden goose there. Secular scholars are going to bring a secular bias to the matter. Christian scholars will bring a Christian bias. Neither makes one more “impartial” in dealing with the text than the other. What you really mean is somebody whose position I already agree with versus somebody whose position I don’t. The only question that matters is what the text, properly understood in its historical context means. A secular scholar is no more likely to grasp that properly because of his secularity than a Christian scholar is because of his Christianity. The text can’t mean something it could never have meant. That Biblical Interpretation 101. A secular scholar insisting on using a modern cultural lens to interpret the text is far less likely to understand it properly than a Christian willing to take it on its own terms. Your entire method of engagement is flawed, therefore your conclusions could not possibly be valid.
LikeLike
“The text can’t mean something it never meant”
Indeed! And the text, Old and New, accepts and endorses slavery and never once condemns it, not even from the lips of the bible character Jesus of Nazareth, who had, for example, things to say about an adulterous woman ( even though that tale is a forgery) and made a point about what goes in isnot important but what comes out.
But not a single, solitary mention about the heinous practice of owning another human being. That is telling, don’t you think?
My methodology is flawed?
Hmmm, whereas yours come across as simply dishonest.
Perhaps your understanding of what is slavery is flawed?
LikeLike
Well, I would argue your understanding of slavery or servitude presented in the Scriptures is flawed, but I’m pretty comfortable with my understanding of them on this issue.
LikeLike
My understanding?
Do you consider owning another human being is right or wrong?
LikeLike
Not your understanding of slavery generally; your understanding of slavery or servitude as presented in the Scriptures. Yours is wrong and pretty much everyone you’ve had me read or listen to so far (minus the videos, though I don’t have high hopes for them) has been wrong as well.
LikeLike
I’ll wait til you’ve watched the videos. Your ignorance on this topic comes across as wilfull to blatent. So much so as to be verging on gross dishonesty.
LikeLike
That’s fine, but if they don’t offer a whole lot more than what you’ve demonstrated or shown me so far, I’m not expecting very much.
LikeLike
Your snarky bias is noted…
How about showing a little integrity for a change and open your mind to the very real possibly you are horribly wrong?
Defending slavery in the bible for whatever reason you harbour does not make you look good at all.
LikeLike
I’ll be glad to join you in that effort 😉
And I wasn’t being snarky at all. I was being entirely honest. Given the kinds of arguments you have made so far, and making the guess that those are the same arguments these videos are going to present, I don’t have high hopes they’ll be any more convincing than you have been. Their secular biases are likely just as thick as yours. And, I wasn’t impressed with Dilahauty (I don’t think I have that spelled right) last time.
And, once again, I haven’t yet defended slavery in the Scriptures. I’ve argued that they cannot accurately be construed to support it at all. Those are two different things.
LikeLike
Your arguments fail as limp wristedc apologetics. It seems in fact you do not understand the texts or, sorry to say, are simply being dishonest.
LikeLike
There you go using that word that means you just didn’t like my answer. But again, given that you reject the text entirely and don’t think any of it is worth the paper it’s printed on, your assessment of whether or not I understand it properly just doesn’t mean anything to me. You think the whole thing is nonsense and all your opinions and understandings of it get filtered through that biased lens. I reject that lens entirely and for reasons we’ve talked about before.
LikeLike
🤦
LikeLike
Okay, I can’t find one of the video links anymore. It has vanished. I found the Dillahunty one, but the takedown of D’Souza has disappeared. If you can send that one again, I’ll give it a look.
LikeLike
Morning Musing: Exodus 25:23-24, 29-30
Scroll down.
LikeLike
Thank you. Found it. Meh. D’Souza certainly wasn’t very good, but they’re both wrong that the record of Christians opposing slavery only started in the 1700s. And, D’Souza let him get away with waving around a banner verse from Paul lifted entirely from its historical context and intent.
LikeLike
Sorry, your defense of slavery in the bible is simply revolting. You should be ashamed.
Because I am prepared to honor your request regarding language
I will simply zip it and leave….
LikeLike
I haven’t yet defended slavery in the Scriptures in spite of your persistent attempts to frame my position in those terms. I have argued that the Scriptures cannot be accurately construed to condone slavery when understood properly in their historical context. But yes, I suspect we should both zip it and leave on this topic. Time to get to work for the week. I’m sure we’ll be in touch again soon :~) Have a good rest of your Monday.
LikeLike
Weasal words. As slavery is clearly stated in the Bible then you are ostensibly defending biblical slavery.
LikeLike
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/01/a-harvard-exhibit-on-slavery-and-christianity/#:~:text=In%20the%20modern%20era%2C%20Christianity,often%20used%20to%20justify%20slavery
LikeLike
Okay…and…?
LikeLike
🤦
LikeLike
Football is about to start but I thought I would leave you with this.
If you can provide an honest answer I may come back at half time.
As you consider my understanding and interpretation of bible slavery is in error, (as it was for millions upon millions of Christians) please correct my misunderstanding and explain: leviticus 25: 44-46.
There are some notable others but this will do for a start.
LikeLike
If by “honest,” you mean sufficiently secular that you’re willing to agree with it, I’m afraid I’ll probably leave you disappointed. Either way, I don’t have time to tackle that today, but I’ll take a look at it tomorrow. Enjoy today’s matches.
LikeLike
3rd answer on the page. Just scroll down.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Have you watched the videos yet?
LikeLike
Nope. I told you it would be at least Monday. I’m just leaving church now. It’s Sunday morning here still.
LikeLike
Fair enough…
LikeLike
Again, they developed a conscience. Why is such a straightforward answer so difficult for you to understand?
How else did they come to the realization owning another human being was immoral?
Or do you think Yahweh suddenly had a change of heart and sent them an email?
You mentioned there was no difference in this and you becoming a vegetarian. Who sent you the email to be a vegetarian. Or maybe you “developed” a dislike of meats. So you’re saying it’s possible you learned that eating meats was not for you, you had an epiphany and decided to become a vegetarian. I don’t think you can develop a conscience just like you don’t wake a one morning and decide to stop eating meats. I think it comes from another source or from learning from others.
LikeLike
Of course I was aware of vegetarianism, as I am sure you are, but it did not make a dent in my food choices one bit and I tborougybenjoyed tucking into rust chucked bacon or pork and steak.
Then, one evening, ine of my dogs walked into my office and laid her head in my lap while I was editing some work.
I looked at her and she looked up and I was struck by the thought:
I could never contemplate eating you, so why do I eat cows and pigs and chicken?
I got up from my desk, walked to the kitchen and informed my wife I could not eat meat ever again, I hope she understood?
She looked a bit surprised but said okay , and the next morning we went shopoing for vegetarian / vegan meals to tide up over unril we were up to steam preparing said meals.
That was years ago.
Haven’t touched meat or fish since.
Conscience.
By the way, if you eat other animals maybe you should give some thought what this involves!
LikeLike
I admire your choice. But again, your pet helped you develop a conscience about eating meat. You had a reason for no longer wishing to eat meat. It was not an epiphany. Just like Christians did not wake up one morning with a conscience about slavery. It doesn’t just happen that way.
LikeLiked by 1 person
To that I would add that vegetarianism goes back a long, long way. Daniel was a practicing vegetarian for at least some portion of his tenure in Babylon. Opposing slavery, on the other hand, was novel. No one was doing anything like that around them, and no one had ever meaningfully done it at any point in history leading up to that moment. Your argument still fails and you have yet to address the historically necessary question of where, if not from the teachings of Jesus and the apostles (the only new worldview inputs to which they had been exposed), did they suddenly develop the idea that slavery was immoral and should be opposed sometimes at personal risk with anything more than hand waving.
LikeLiked by 1 person