Sure. They were evangelizing slaves.
Women were also instructed to obey their husbands and keep their mouths shut. That’s just how the culture was. Trying to find non-literal meanings for these passages is really just an exercise in apologetics. Why not just admit that sometimes the Bible is wrong?
Hey, that’s often cited quote of Marx you used there, and if you’re going to say that Christians can’t use certain sections of the Bible without other sections, then you can’t quote part of Marx without embracing other things he said as well. Double edged sword and all that, you know.
And…as I pointed out earlier, slavery in biblical times, although apalling to modern times, was a way of life…and yes, if you were a slave you should obey. The above quotes you gave (I just reread them) do sound instructional. However, quotes from Jesus, I believe were not.
However, we live in 2004 now, where slavery is NOT a part of life, and is not to be tolerated, just like we don’t send women out to the tents for the menstruation, just like we wear mixed fabrics, and just like women are allowed to speak in Church.
A great deal of the Bible is a history book. Not every verse is a particular law.
I apologize for not being clearer about what I meant. As for specific verses condemning slavery…what the hell? If I don’t specifically come out and condemn something does that automatically mean I’m for it? Please.
Well, I’ve learned my lesson: defending Reeder is foolish.
When did I ever, EVER say it wasn’t? Cut and paste please.
Just where did I quote The Communist Manifesto or Das Kapital?
I must have missed it.
I agree. The Bible is a very old body of literature from a very different culture. Some of the things in it reflect the reality of that time. I’m not one who tries to put Christians in a box and insist that they reconcile themselves with anachronistic scriptural instructions. I think there are probably valid ways to find a more abstract intent in those passages- “slaves, obey your master.” could mean to accept your circumstances for what they are in the knowledge that you will be ultimately be rewarded.
It should be remembered that when these books were written, Christians believed that Jesus was coming back within their lifetimes, so slavery would have been seen as a temporary condition to be born with faith and that one should not grow bitter.
You didn’t have to, because you quoted one thing of his (you know, that whole “Religion is the opiate of the masses” business), and since you’ve said that Christians can’t pick and chose between the sections of the Bible they agree with, you don’t get to pick and chose between what Marx said, you’ve got to accept everything. Funny, how you’re happy to force people to accept the entirety of the Bible, while you refuse to do the same yourself when it comes to Marx.
I’d like you to elaborate on this. I’ve heard things along these lines before, but you’re going to have to convince me that a) there is any Biblical support for the idea (as opposed to being a later theological rationalization, though in my mind it makes things even worse), and b) that is makes any sense at all for eternal torment to be the desire of anyone’s heart. I have to admit that I’m a little sketched out by what your attitude seems to be here. I know you’re very convinced and comfortable with your beliefs, but given how scary and potentially evil this one seems to me, and given that I certianly don’t see that its a necessary component of Christianity, I really wish you’d reconsider it.
Which is why it’s silly of Reeder to assert that “christians HAVE to support slavery”, no?
So Marx’s works are the word of God?
Isn’t God considered to be infallible?
Ergo his book is infallible.
Right?
Reeder
“Religion is the opiate of the masses” is a quote from Marx.
Don’t feel too defensive about it, though. Marx was a very humane person and a genius to boot. He is not to blame for 20th century Communism. And citing that one famous quote does not make you a “Marxist.”
I’ve quoted Jesus but I’m not a Christian. I’ve quoted Bob Dole but I’m not a Republican. I’ve quoted GWB but I’m not an imbecile. It’s a fallacious jump to try to categorize someone philosophically from one quotation.
I said in one of my earlier posts that I don’t believe Christians “have to” support slavery. I don’t think they have to interpret the Bible in any way but which they choose.
I use to have long debates with an aggressively atheist poster named badchad about that very thing.
I, for one, shall make no claims about God or His/Her word, nor will I attack individuals who do not share my beliefs about a supreme being which might or might not exist when said individuals are sane and reasonable human beings.
If you agree with Marx on one thing, surely it is reasonable to conclude that he is right about other things? After all, if he’s right once, then he’s liable to be right again. If you chose to be narrow-minded and unthinking (as you’ve demonstrated in this thread you’re more than happy to be), you’ll agree with that.
My whole point right or wrong was that people can’t use the bible to denigrate homosexuality and then not support slavery. when both are contained in the same supposedly God written through man book.
It’s pure hypocricy.
Jarbabyj I do apologize if I got on your bad side. But when you came in and totally denied that the bible did not support slavery it got on my wrong side. When I knew it did.
Again. Pleases accept my apology.
With all due respect, this is not a fair comparison. There are claims made about the Bible which no one makes about Marx. Ther are Christians who do insist that one must accept every word of the Bible as at least figuratively, if not literally, true. That may be an irrational position to take on the Bible but that’s kind of the point and that’s a position which Christians do not take on any other book (and which even Marxists don’t take on Marx).
I think this is a fair point to make about some Christians but not most. There are indeed some Christians who are rather inconsistent in their passion for literalism and inerrancy.
If that was your intent, you still missed.
There are passages in both testaments that explicitly condemn some homosexual behavior.
There are no passages that explicitly encourage slavery or command that it be instituted. Passages addressing slavery follow the pattern of saying that slaves should be treated in humane ways and that slaves should behave in certain ways. One may eliminate slavery without violating any precepts in the bible, but if slavery exists, the bible provides rules of conduct regarding slavery.
So we still have no hypocrisy.
While I agree that selective readings do indeed undermine the strongest and easiest arguments for the truth of whatever one believes in the Bible, there is no reason why people can’t think that the Bible is complex and only impartially perfect or true,
This highly underrated post made me fucking shit myself laughing.
Carry on.