I guess he’s saying that morals are relative to the society. Jesus’s teachings about how hard you can beat your slaves were progressive for their time, so that makes them relatively moral!
Please provide a citation from the Bible where Jesus talks about how hard you’re supposed to beat your slaves.
Geez, where’s a mod when you need one? I think that’s three posts in a row, in two different threads, where you felt your post was not complete without some gratuitous comment about my alleged ignorance.
You and your pals trying to split hairs about the Galileo incident remind me of the people who can post for pages about how the Civil War was not about slavery, but state’s rights.
Indirectly, he does:
Exodus 21, NIV:“20 Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.”
Matthew 5, NIV:“17 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.”
So, clearly, you are not to beat your slaves so hard that they die within a day or two. Anything less severe than that is OK.
In other words, the character of Jesus in the Bible doesn’t comment on how hard you’re supposed to beat your slaves.
Again, are you interested in the question posed by the OP–how non-literalist Christians understand the Bible? Or are you interested in complaining about how Christians are a bunch of fucking assholes? If you’re interested in the second, why don’t you drop out of this thread, and start another one?
If you’re interested in the first question, maybe you should be asking questions rather than providing answers.
[
](Luke 12:47-48 NKJV - And that servant who knew his - Bible Gateway)Does that count? Or because it’s really shitty and makes Jesus look like a creep, is it just a metaphor?
It seems to me that the non literal bible taking Christians believe largely whatever makes sense to them.
Do you think the bible contains supernatural information, and how do you tell which parts are supernatural, since so much of the bible is completely wrong or worthless bronze-age cultural baggage?
Not my position at all, but you seem determined to make me change my mind.
I think you may have me confused with someone else. All I did was respond to your previous post, which was a single line asking for a cite about Jesus’ position on slavery. Not sure why you posted it if you didn’t want an answer.
Well, I’m an atheist, so I don’t believe the Bible is any more historically or theologically accurate than the Iliad or the Baghvad Gita. Is the Iliad worthless?
I watched. I saw a lot of handwaving and a fair number of assertions about groups of people supported by ad hoc anecdotes presented as fact, but nothing persuasive to the earlier point.
Really? I have not been paying that much attention to specific posters in various threads, but I would say that if I have been prompted to remark on your ignorance, (lack of knowledge or holding distorted knowledge, not stupidity), on three occasions, you might want to start considering some good courses to improve your knowledge.
I have not split hairs about Galileo, at all. I have noted that some of the anti-church mythology that you have posted post is in error, (in fact, much of it has long since been debunked). I do not claim that the church was a shining beacon of justice in the case of Galileo; the Inquisition acted wrongly and came to a bad decision in the first trial and there is a certain suspicion that his conviction in the second trial was based on forged evidence. Those points, however, do not support the claim that you wish to assert regarding Galileo and the church, particularly in regards to treating the bible literally. When you are attempting to make some grand point by holding up erroneous beliefs regarding the events that occurred, it is not nitpicking to note the errors of your claim. Regardless how badly the members of the Inquisition acted in the two trials of Galileo, nothing in those trials can reasonably held to demonstrate that the church insisted that the bible was to be treated literally, in general, far less your assertion that even the poetic parts had to be treated literally.
LOL. Yes, we mustn’t conflate the Church with its officials acting with Papal authority. And to support your claims, we know that the Church overturned the verdict of the Inquistion, just as you would expect it to do when overzealous inquisitors exceeded their authority. It was almost 400 years later, but who’s counting?
I’m well aware that that is what you would say.
I would say it’s an indication that
a) you confuse your opinion with unassailable fact; and
b) you have a propensity to throw gas on a fire, which is not what mods are supposed to do. Why not try refuting with credible citations, instead of your own questionable opinion backed by snark and sneers?
But in the future, not here. I’m really not interested in arguing with anyone who is convinced that the sky isn’t blue, or that the Church has not persecuted people who espoused unorthodox interpretations of scripture whenever it felt like it, and had the secular power to do it. Note that naming a few people who got away with it does not refute the general principle.
Espousing unorthodox interpretations of scripture got many people in trouble with the church. Your charge against me is false because I have never denied that. I simply note that your insistence that the church held that the bible was always literally true is wrong. Unlike you, I have actually provided citations for some of my points.
I have not named anyone who “got away with it.” If you think that Augustine setting forth principles that became standard doctrine in the church is simply a lone bishop “getting away” with something, then you are simply too wrapped up in your erroneous beliefs to even consider facts.
So, now you have to resort to accusing me of things that I have never said in order to distract from the point that your claims are in error? I do not find that to be a persuasive debate tactic.
It is interesting that you now acknowledge that “overzealous inquisitors exceeded their authority,” given that the claim of heresy, (a claim not endorsed by all the judges at the trials), did not actually point to any doctrine that was contradicted–as, indeed, there was no doctrine contradicted by Galileo’s works. You are the one who wishes to confuse a single political trial, (that could not even garner unanimous opinion within its own judges), with church teachings.
In both cases, it was far more a matter of local politics than church teaching that brought the matters to court or directed the verdicts. It is a shameful episode in the church’s history, but it has little to nothing to do with erroneous claims that the church always held the bible to be literally true in all its books.
I see that sarcasm is lost on you.
Thanks for the lecture in your previous post about how bad it is “to resort to accusing me of things that I have never said.”
I suspected the sarcasm, but figured I’d give you the benefit of the doubt. I am not surprised, however, that you finally got one fact right, but only by trying to say the opposite.
You know, back when there were only twelve Christians, and they didn’t have the New Testament, there was still a bit of contention among them on how to live according to the example of a man who was standing right in front of them.
Now I find that I am hypocrital or perhaps even dishonest when I say that my faith does not require me to correct the theology of everyone I meet. My faith requires me to love them. I don’t understand them most of the time, and in a lot of cases, it is the folks who call themselves Christians I have most trouble loving. That, of course, is my failure.
I happen to feel that trying to use logic, or rhetoric to convince someone that I know what God wants them to do is fairly obviously evil. I try to avoid it. It isn’t about understanding, or being correct, or right, or convincing. It is about loving God, and everyone God loves. If you finish that part, get back to me with some advice, because it is keeping me busy full time, and I am loosing ground.
Tris
“Galileo was arrested for questioning biblical literalism!”
“No, he wasn’t.”
“You’re splitting hairs!”
Good argument, dude.
I guess there’s something to be said for homogeneity in moderators.
Yup, Miller and tomndebb are like two peas in a pod, and that’s for sure. :dubious: