Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
You probably remember creationist/geocentrist loony Tom Willis advocating, quite seriously, the "violent expulsion of all evolutionists from civilized society" and denying anyone who believes in evolution the right to vote or any job where they might influence people. Well now he is back with yet another moronic screed entitled Should Evolutionists Be Allowed to Roam Free in the Land?
You really have to laugh when he says things like this:
None of the responders seemed to get the real point of the article, which might be summarized:"Hard-line evolutionists spend their entire life declaring Christians to be ignorant, crazy and, probably dangerous. But evolutionism is totally contrary to the empirical facts of science. Anyone truly believing evolution is either totally deluded or ignorant. Regarding who is really the dangerous
group, in their unmitigated, and totally unjustified arrogance, evolutionists have caused more misery, and killed and tortured more people, in the last 90 years than all the wars of the last 2000 years."Thus, Evolutionist rhetoric, juxtaposed against the facts of science and history demonstrates that they are totally incompetent, in addition to being angry and dangerous. In a truly sane society, e.g., the one to be run by God, evolutionists, at a minimum, would not be allowed to vote."
No Tom, we got the real point of the article. We know exactly what you said. It's just that what you said is utterly moronic.
One smugly demanded that I produce quotes to prove that evolution contributed to slavery.
Yeah, you know us "smug" evolutionists -- always demanding evidence to back up claims. Evidence being of the devil and reality having a well known scientific bias, this is part of what makes us so evil.
This is more difficult than it might seem, not because evolution did not contribute to justification of slavery, but because no one used the word "evolution." Even Darwin did not use the word. The word "evolution" did not become popular until long after slavery had been abolished. Rather, evolutionists tended to claim blacks were inferior to whites, based on the "science of anthropology," often claiming they were different species or subspecies.
Darwin did not use the word? Go here to the Gutenberg text of On the Origin of Species and do a search for the word "evolution." It turns up many times. It's true that Darwin did not use the term "evolution" in the first edition of his book, but he did use the word "evolve" and the word "evolution" quickly was used in later editions of his book.
Of course, it's trivially easy to find quotes defending slavery based on it being ordained by God. Go back and read any defense of slavery in America from the side defending slavery and you will find lots and lots of appeals to the Bible (which explicitly endorses slavery - God literally commands the Israelites to take slaves from "the heathen" that are around them) and to God's created order. One need only look to Alexander Stephens' famous Cornerstone Speech, where he laid out the case for fighting the Civil War in order to maintain slavery as God intended and specifically contrasted this with the naturalistic ideas of those who opposed slavery:
I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal...With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite; then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of his ordinances, or to question them. For his own purposes, he has made one race to differ from another, as he has made "one star to differ from another star in glory."
Willis' stupidity continues:
As late as the 1930's, Hitler used evolution to justify his "theories" typically spoke of "development of species."
Well yes, he did indeed. He also used Christianity to justify his actions, but Willis doesn't mention that inconvenient fact. Let me fill in the gaps with Hitler's words:
My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited.
I could go on with such quotes for quite a long time. In public, in a predominately Christian society, Hitler invoked Christianity to justify his actions on an almost daily basis. Willis ignores all of that, of course, because, well, that's what Willis and his ilk do.
The communists also held to evolutionism as a foundation doctrine of their religion, but seldom used the word "evolution" in any language, one reason being their reluctance to credit an Englishman for anything.
Right. Which explains why Stalin forbid the teaching of Darwinian and Mendelian science in the Soviet Union in favor of Lysenkoism.
Evolutionism is the apologetic system of the end time religion. It will not be eradicated. Well, not until the antichrist kills all of them in order to promote and make way for, worship of himself.
Of course. Because the best way to "make way" for worship of yourself is to kill all the people who might otherwise worship you. Makes perfect sense.
Nevertheless, I find it instructive and entertaining to analyze what should be done with evolutionists before their end comes. After all, they are manifestly the most dangerous and destructive people on the planet (Well OK, Muslims are strong competitors). Using their religion to dominate education, they have, as previously pointed out, killed more people than anybody in history...Clearly then, "evolutionists should not be allowed to roam free in the land." All that remains for us to discuss is "What should be done with evolutionists?" For the purposes of this essay, I will ignore the minor issue of Western-style jurisprudence and merely mention possible solutions to the "evolutionism problem," leaving the legal details to others:
* Labor camps. Their fellow believers were high on these. But, my position would be that most of them have lived their lives at, or near the public trough. So, after their own beliefs, their life should continue only as long as they can support themselves in the camps.
* Require them to wear placards around their neck, or perhaps large medallions which prominently announce "Warning: Evolutionist! Mentally Incompetent - Potentially Dangerous." I consider this option too dangerous.
* Since evolutionists are liars and most do not really believe evolution we could employ truth serum or water-boarding to obtain confessions of evolution rejection. But, this should, at most, result in parole, because, like Muslims, evolutionist religion permits them to lie if there is any benefit to them.
And then he blathers on like that for quite some time, imagining sending all "evolutionists" to Antarctica or Mars. The only thing he has established, of course, is his own insanity and utter stupidity. Unlike him, however, I do not advocate any legal consequences for that. Indeed I want him to continue to be allowed to write things like this. They are, at the very least, endlessly amusing.
Politics
Comments
Isn't this what Christians believe their God has been doing for thousands of years?
Posted by: Wes | August 25, 2008 9:42 AM
"For the purposes of this essay, I will ignore the minor issue of Western-style jurisprudence..."
Sounds like he's lobbying for a position in the Bush administration.
Posted by: CGM3 | August 25, 2008 9:55 AM
Has anyone noticed that the members of Congress who have the most support from the religious right are the most staunch supporters of the modern-day slavery that goes on in the Northern Marianas Islands, which include forced abortions? After all, the Bible still says "slaves, obey your masters." If you take it literally, someone has to be enslaved.
Posted by: Lisa D | August 25, 2008 10:23 AM
Are you sure its not a spoof?
Posted by: libarbarian | August 25, 2008 10:45 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't a big supporter of this idea one Louis Agassiz, Christian and Creationist?
I love the bullet points. Mars? At least the Nazi's only wanted to send the Jews to Madagascar.
Posted by: Dave S. | August 25, 2008 10:51 AM
It's not a parody. I'd sort of hoped it was, but it turns out he's really that much of a nutjob.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/zforum/99/nat082399.htm
Even worse, I'd be willing to bet there are a lot of people that agree with him.
Posted by: JThompson | August 25, 2008 10:58 AM
Sweet, I accept evolution. When can I board the shuttle to Mars? A whole new world populated mainly by scientist and rational thinkers? Sounds good to me. Sure, it might be tough at first, while the teraformers are doing their thing. But for the chance at a fresh start at least 100 million km from Willis and his ilk... puts a big ol grin on my face.
Posted by: Abby Normal | August 25, 2008 11:00 AM
Lisa D,
No it doesn't mean, by any rule of logic, and by any hermeneutic literal or otherwise, that someone has to be enslaved.
Posted by: heddle | August 25, 2008 11:02 AM
What to do with this:
Read his stuff into the record in school districts that are contemplating teaching "intelligent" design. Do it as if you believe in it. Do it as if you support the IDers and the YECies. Become one of them for a night and campaign for their cause. And be sure to include URLs so people can follow up for themselves.
Posted by: T.Malthus | August 25, 2008 11:07 AM
I want a T-shirt that says "Warning: Evolutionist!"
Posted by: namowal | August 25, 2008 11:09 AM
I'm with abby, the farther from those morons the better.
If they want shoot us to mars for free, great, I'm all for it.
Mars full of rational people will be more habitable than earth controlled by creonazi
Posted by: T_U_T | August 25, 2008 11:31 AM
What I'd like to know is why haven't we heard reports of Willis' arrest by HSA? The guy is obviously advocating terrorism against a class of citizens "I will ignore the minor issue of Western-style jurisprudence" "...we could employ truth serum or water-boarding to obtain confessions..."
He even admits that his whole basis for such treatment is religious: "like Muslims, evolutionist religion permits them to lie if there is any benefit to them."
Sounds like a clear-cut case for Homeland Security to me...
Posted by: Blaidd Drwg | August 25, 2008 11:33 AM
Posted by: H.H. | August 25, 2008 11:38 AM
H.H.,
Of course I disagree. It doesn't take an exegetical genius to deduce that the great command "love your neighbor as yourself" is incompatible with human bondage.
Posted by: heddle | August 25, 2008 11:48 AM
Isn't Paul pretty much commanding Philemon to love Onesimus?
If Paul intended Philemon to *free* Oneseimus he was certainly obtuse about it.
Posted by: KeithB | August 25, 2008 12:00 PM
"Of course I disagree. It doesn't take an exegetical genius to deduce that the great command "love your neighbor as yourself" is incompatible with human bondage."
Why? What is it specifically about "loving your neighbor" that states that that neighbor cannot be a slave? The Greeks, Romans, Jews, Christians, and many others, all apparently kept slaves with no such problems. I'd have thought that, if slavery was such an issue, Jesus might have said more about slavery than (to paraphrase) "slaves obey your masters".
Posted by: Badger3k | August 25, 2008 12:01 PM
"Of course I disagree. It doesn't take an exegetical genius to deduce that the great command "love your neighbor as yourself" is incompatible with human bondage."
Unless it's a TPE relationship, of course!
Sorry, couldn't resist. I'm leaving now.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | August 25, 2008 12:11 PM
It would be amusing if it weren't so damned scary, if world history weren't full of this sort of thing.
Posted by: T's Grammy | August 25, 2008 12:22 PM
The communists also held to evolutionism as a foundation doctrine of their religion, but seldom used the word "evolution" in any language, one reason being their reluctance to credit an Englishman for anything.
Obviously the fact that they never ever mentioned evolution is PROOF that they loved evolution and wanted to kill everyone!!1!
And yeah, it's pointless to blame slavery on Christianity. There were Christians on both sides of the issue. It was such a divisive issue that several denominations were formed as people took a stand on it.
Posted by: Iason Ouabache | August 25, 2008 12:25 PM
KeithB,
I don't think Paul was obtuse, he was more or less imploring Philemon to free Onesimus, even offering to pay any debt. Perhaps what you mean is that Paul did not say: "I demand you free him!" His failure to do so is consistent with the New Testament view on sin--it is not legalistic do's and don'ts, but a question of one's motivation. What Paul is hoping for is that Philemon frees Onesimus because he is convicted of the moral correctness of doing so, not because he has been commanded. If he doesn't, then the lesson shifts to Onesimus: obey Philemon and be a good witness.
Badger3k,
He did. He presented a great deal of moral teaching, much of which lends itself to a compelling conclusion: it is immoral to own humans.
Posted by: heddle | August 25, 2008 12:29 PM
Which explains all those passages against slavery. :)
Anyhoo, here's the Reverend Fred Ross and his book, Slavery Ordained of God, who discusses the Golden Rule and begs to differ on the question of slavery.
Posted by: Dave S. | August 25, 2008 12:39 PM
I mentioned this a few weeks ago, and I think it's appropriate here as well.
Among the relics on display at the Gettysburg Visitor Center is a book entitled, "Slavery: Ordained of God" by Rev. Fred Ross published in 1857, I believe. Doesn't get much plainer than that.
It also cracks me up when idiots like Willis conveniently forget that Martin Luther & Richard Wagner had far more influence on Hitler Darwin ever did.
Posted by: ZacharySmith | August 25, 2008 12:39 PM
Posted by: H.H. | August 25, 2008 12:48 PM
"His failure to do so is consistent with the New Testament view on sin--it is not legalistic do's and don'ts, but a question of one's motivation."
Hmmm, so 'slaves obey your masters' can be analogized to 'rapees submit to your rapists'? If that line appeared in the bible, it would be incorrect to say anything about the bible's view on rape and it's permissibility? Or is it just that the slave comment is contradicted, in your view, by many other statements that can be said to proscribe slavery? (why God can't just speak clearly in detail will forever be beyond me...)
Posted by: Spartan | August 25, 2008 12:53 PM
That rant is so ridiculous that it must be parody.
We really need a reverse Poe's Law. Call it Eop's Law: any legitimate religious rant will be mistaken for parody but someone.
Posted by: Neural T | August 25, 2008 12:59 PM
Ts, ts, H.H., that's a feature, not a bug. If it wasn't internally contradictory on practically any point humans might disagree over, then how could it be used to justify any of the changing and often contradictory human values over 2000 years?
Silly atheist.
Posted by: Coriolis | August 25, 2008 1:02 PM
Some people will try to make their religion/philosophy justify their personal desires and preferences.
A Christian who likes the idea of having slaves will justify it on biblical grounds. Non-Christians will justify it on other grounds - scientific or not. One of these can be genetics, but it's not the only possible one and if you take away genetics they will just latch on to the others.
Slavery existed before and apart from Christianity and before and apart from modern scientific method or the theory of evolution.
this blame game is so lame.
Posted by: libarbarian | August 25, 2008 1:07 PM
Heddle wrote:
"even offering to pay any debt"
The money Paul offers to pay has nothing to do with freeing Onesimus - It appears that Onesimus had stolen or take money from Philemon when he ran away:
"If he has done you any wrong or owes you anything, charge it to me. 19I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand. I will pay it back--not to mention that you owe me your very self."
In any case even if Paul is hinting that Philemon should free his slave, he clearly gives it as an option. Paul does not indicate that Philemon is comitting a sin by owning Onesimus. Also, Paul gives *no indicaton at all* that Philemon should free any other slaves he might own or that it would be wrong to continue to purchase slaves to replace Onesimus.
Posted by: KeithB | August 25, 2008 1:32 PM
DaveS,
and Zachary Smith
Yes, this is proof positive because of the well-known rule of rhetoric:
When someone interprets the bible in a manner advantageous to us, we uphold his exegesis as infallible. We ignore any possible personal motivation he may have harbored, or personal shortcomings, such as being a racist, and just score as many political points as possible by asserting that his interpretation is obviously the correct one, and the myriad of others who refute his interpretation are just not as honest.
H.H.,
Yes they are incompatible, if by that you mean that you can't live by both at once. But if you understand that the old is old (and confined to one people) and the new is new and universal, then they are not incompatible. The old said: sacrifice animals for forgiveness of sins. The new says: do not do that, trust Christ. Those two instructions are utterly incompatible. No big deal.
Spartan,
That's your opinion. I think it is crystal clear that Christ's teachings mean that Christianity is incompatible with slavery. I can't help it if you (and Rev. Fred Ross) don't agree.
KeithB,
Exactly. To sin or not to sin is always an option for Christians.
Posted by: heddle | August 25, 2008 1:45 PM
@heddle:
So your god not only approves of, but positively requires, one group of people in one period of history to keep slaves, but orders another group of people at a different time not to keep slaves. That looks an awful lot like that relative morality that you Christians are always accusing us atheists of possessing, doesn't it?
That is quite apart from the fact that in the Old Testament Yahweh was quite capable of laying down rules - see eg Leviticus - in considerable detail, yet doesn't actually find time in his brief 35 years on Earth to say anything like "don't keep slaves" in so many words.
Posted by: Robin Levett | August 25, 2008 2:05 PM
Oh, it's a big deal for those of us who care about truth. Intellectual honesty requires that we don't simply ignore or try to explain away such problems. Granted, it's not a big deal for those who wish to defend their religion regardless of its truth. But for such closed minds, no fact could ever matter. They are not interested in truth.Posted by: H.H. | August 25, 2008 2:08 PM
I don't think such are infallible, nor do I think it's obviously correct. I think it exists, and clearly some people thought it was correct. Yes, that's the problem with Biblical exegeses, regardless of which side you argue. It's everything to everyone. It was used both to defend and attack slavery. Each side could find passages to comfort them. Of course each side claimed to have the 'correct' exegesis. They always do.
Posted by: Dave S. | August 25, 2008 2:10 PM
Posted by: H.H. | August 25, 2008 2:22 PM
Robin Levett
No, it looks nothing like that. The concept of absolute morality is this: If it is wrong for person A to do B in circumstance C, where C is a complete description, then it is wrong for anyone to do B when in the same circumstance C.
The concept of absolute morality does no preclude situational ethics. The bible is chock full of situation ethics or case law.
Relative morality would mean this: in the exact same circumstances, it is permissible for one person to do one thing, but not permissible for another person to do the same thing, merely because it "feels right" to one and not the other.
But he did: Love your neighbor as yourself implies don't own slaves.
H.H.,
Does that actually address the clear example I gave, where the old and new are incompatible it a way that is clearly understood and not a problem? Where, in fact, the concept of the old and new being incompatible is quite understandable given that when Christ came, things (*gasp*) changed? I think it (your comment) does not. It reads like a deflection.
Posted by: heddle | August 25, 2008 2:26 PM
"That's your opinion. I think it is crystal clear that Christ's teachings mean that Christianity is incompatible with slavery. I can't help it if you (and Rev. Fred Ross) don't agree."
Oh please. 'Crystal' clear means it's about as clear as it can be; the fact that you cannot point anyone to a specific passage and verse in this ample tome that says in nice clear words that Christianity is incompatible with slavery means it could be a whole lot clearer. Where does the bible say anything negative at all concerning slavery? Handwaving aside, an unbiased reader would read the passage 'slaves obey your masters' and legitimately ask whether slavery is proscribed or not, especially since there is no 'masters, do not hold slaves' to counteract it.
I have trouble jiving this with what I thought you (forgive me if I have the wrong theist) offered as a reason why indeed more than a 'jot and tittle' of the old testament laws are no longer applicable. I thought one of the reasons offered for that was that Jesus either said specific laws no longer apply or through example violated some of these old laws (working on the Sabbath), so we can also disregard those specific laws he did. In this case though, you seem to be taking the general over the specific. Even though 'slaves obey your masters' technically does not say 'slavery is okay', it's unqualified inclusion is curious and certainly muddies the bible's supposed stance against slavery. It most certainly is legitimate to assume given at least that specific passage and the non-condemning text surrounding it that slavery appears to be okay.
Are there other examples of the bible treating sins from such a detached viewpoint? There's quite a bit stating what is sinful and what happens to you if you are sinful, but I don't know of anything that talks about sinful relationships like slavery without making it clear that specifically is a sin. Is there somewhere saying that adulterers and mistresses should also treat each other well without saying a little something about the wrongness of adultery for example?
Posted by: Spartan | August 25, 2008 2:27 PM
Holy texts - all of them, including your prized New Testament myths - are not only written by people, they are interpreted (and misinterpreted, and re-interpreted) by people. Your refusal to acknowledge the purely human origin and consequently the flawed/ self-contradictory/ ambiguous content of your preferred holy text is an article of faith, and I suspect we'd all think somewhat better of you if you would quit trying to pretend that it's a conclusion of reason. Of course, we'd think even better of you if you gave up believing things in the absence of evidence (and frequently the presence of evidence to the contrary), but I for one am ready to applaud the baby step of admitting that your faith beliefs are faith beliefs instead of constantly trying to fool people who know better into thinking that your faith beliefs are reasoned conclusions.
Posted by: G Felis | August 25, 2008 2:35 PM
Heddle, I was going to ask you this a while back in another thread and never got to it. It's way OT here, but whatever. Can I presume that Christ's referencing the Flood in the NT is evidence that he was convinced that it happened?
Posted by: Josh | August 25, 2008 2:38 PM
If one is not a bible literalist, than it's easy to dismiss the relevant slavery passages as not being divinely inspired, but instead human bigotry.
What I don't think one can reconcile or harmonize is the acceptance that the Bible is the inspired inerrant word of God and that the Bible condemns slavery for us here and now. To claim both positions is a text-book example of cognitive dissonance those who know the relevant slavery passages and have studied Matthew and Hebrews.
I believe delusion plays a large part as well. I've challenged fundie family members on this point several years back, they claimed to have had no idea such verses existed until I pointed them out. When this issue was revisited a couple of years later, it was as if they were once again hearing it for the same time without having any affect on their absolute certainty that the Bible is the inerrant word of God (a phrase I get right off their church website describing their dogma).
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 25, 2008 2:39 PM
G. Felis,
There are no parts of the NT "quite accepting of and positive about slavery." None. Zero. Nada. There are only parts that acknowledge the reality of its existence.
Of course, feel free to demonstrate your claim.
Posted by: heddle | August 25, 2008 2:40 PM
"Hard-line evolutionists spend their entire life declaring Christians to be ignorant, crazy and, probably dangerous...
That's because MANY hard-line Christians spend their entire lives BEING ignorant, crazy, and certainly dangerous; and pretending such ignorance and insanity is a virtue.
Posted by: Raging Bee | August 25, 2008 3:06 PM
heddle, try these:
Ephesians 6:5
Colossians 4:1
Titus 2:9-10
Posted by: Atheologian | August 25, 2008 3:16 PM
Heddle, as I demonstrated above, if there is any deflection occurring, it is clearly in your responses and not mine.Posted by: H.H. | August 25, 2008 3:26 PM
heddle, how can all those passages that "just acknowledge the reality" of slavery's existence - without ever, not even ONCE, explicitly condemning slavery in any way - not be seen as accepting of slavery? Seriously. That's what "accepting" means, if it means anything at all. Your pretense that a text which never has a specific negative word to say about slavery - despite slavery and slaves coming up an awful lot - is anything other than accepting of and generally positive towards slavery requires such fervent rationalization that there's clearly nothing I or anyone else could ever say to convince you otherwise. Which, come to think of it, was the larger point about textual interpretation and faith that my comment was really focused on - and which you ignored completely, not that I expected better.
Feeding a troll is feeding a troll, even when the troll is as generally well-spoken as heddle. I shoulda known better than to try. And now I have another kitten weighing on my conscience.
Posted by: G Felis | August 25, 2008 3:28 PM
Posted by: Taz | August 25, 2008 3:46 PM
Spartan,
Only if you assume that the style of the NT is to spoon-feed instructions in the form of checklists for idiots. It is not. There are basically a semi-infinite number of things which are morally wrong that Christ did not discuss explicitly. One is expected to use one's brain.
No it doesn't. If Jesus or an apostle decided to give instruction to those falsely imprisoned, we can safely infer it would have been along the lines of "to those falsely imprisoned: be model prisoners. Obey your guards." That would not imply that false imprisonment was acceptable, it would only acknowledge that it happens and that, should you find yourself in that situation, you are still called, first and foremost, to be a good witness. Same instruction for slaves. You are to be a good witness. That does not, in any manner, condone slavery.
Josh,
Yes.
G. Felis,
The NT does not talk about slavery "an awful lot." In addition to Christ's teachings, which cannot be reconciled with any sort of advocacy of slavery, you might want to read or recall the epistle of James which instructs people to pay workers a fair wage.
Posted by: heddle | August 25, 2008 3:48 PM
I asked: Can I presume that Christ's referencing the Flood in the NT is evidence that he was convinced that it happened?
Heddle replied: Yes.
Huh. So, do you have any thoughts on that?
Posted by: Josh | August 25, 2008 3:58 PM
Taz,
That's what the lesson is, regardless of whether or not many slaves accepted it. From every indication Onesimus accepted it--that is, it appears that he returned with the understanding that he may find himself, once again, enslaved. And really, who cares if you find it edifying? Your finding a biblical lesson edifying is not all that important. It is what it is. I too might be happier if the NT was more of a social gospel, but it's not. My finding a lesson edifying is just as unimportant.
Posted by: heddle | August 25, 2008 4:06 PM
xx
Posted by: xx | August 25, 2008 4:08 PM
Josh,
Not really. It means that Jesus believed Noah was an historic figure. It says nothing about the details of the flood, whether it was local (as I believe) or global.
Posted by: heddle | August 25, 2008 4:11 PM
Posted by: Taz | August 25, 2008 4:13 PM
It says nothing about the details of the flood, whether it was local (as I believe) or global.
I don't have a Bible handy, but didn't at least one of those passages strongly imply that Jesus thought the flood was global? Maybe Luke...something about destroying "them all." Maybe I'm thinking of someone else...not Jesus.
Posted by: Josh | August 25, 2008 4:22 PM
Thats it - some people here need to learn a lot more about Paul and his context before spouting off about his morality and/or views on Slavery & Authority.
ALL of Pauls messages MUST be considered in light of the fact that he apparently believed in the imminent end of the world.!!!!!! (That is if you want to be intellectual honest and consider things in their context and not in ours).
The reason Paul told slaves to "obey their masters" - and generally had a "dont rock the boat" attitude to earthly authority in general - is intimately connected with his view that the end-of-days was coming right quick and that it was FAR more important (in his eyes) to save souls and get people morally right before God before The End than it was to work towards (in his eyes) an earthly liberation that would be radically cut short by the end of the freaking world!
We can mock him all we want for his apocalyptic religious beliefs but he had a point - if the world is going to end real soon (aka. before your preaching could have any chance of actually effecting political change) anyways then what the hell is the moral or ethical imperative in preaching against slavery compared to trying to help people get right with God. Slavery becomes a non-issue. Besides, in his view the liberation of slaves was coming soon with the Kingdom of God and preaching anti-Slavery would be like an abolitionist trying to spark a slave uprising when he knows that the Emancipation Proclamation is coming in the next few weeks. How moral would it be to challenge the economic system of an empire, with associated loss of life due to war or just persecution, when they will all be both free and alive soon anyways?
Summary: Pauls views on Slavery in his letters DO NOT reflect his political philosophy. The represent his views on how people should act if the world is going to end within their lifetime (and probably sooner than later). Given that, he consistently told everyone to focus on inner spiritual matters as opposed to material things (which were coming to an end soon anyways).
I'm no Christian but I have an academic interest in religious history and I just wanted to provide some of the context that some people were ripping Paul out from.
Posted by: libarbarian | August 25, 2008 4:30 PM
Jumping in a bit late here, but here goes...
Heddle:
Oh, I would agree that the both abolitionists and slaveholders alike used the bible to justify their positions. It would seem that the assumptions came first (either "slavery is OK" or "slavery is an abomination") then came the bible-based rationalizations.
The important point is, if the bible can be used to justify two such strongly opposing conclusions, then what the hell good does it do as a source of moral guidance?
Answer: none. The bible only serves to affirm our own prejudices. No degree of nuanced interpretation or re-evaluating a verse in the context of the tense of the original Hebrew verb will change this.
Posted by: ZacharySmith | August 25, 2008 4:31 PM
Josh,
If you can post here then you have a bible handy, unless your work blocks biblegateway.com. At any rate, the passage you are referring to is from the Olivet discourse, Matthew 24:38-39:
It not only does not imply a global flood, it does not even imply a local flood that killed all humanity except Noah and his family. In and of itself this verse implies only those unspecified "people." Similar to saying, "people were on the beach and the tidal wave came and washed them all away." Genesis, of course, gives more details.
Posted by: heddle | August 25, 2008 4:31 PM
Heddle, one more thing.
I'm certainly glad that you feel Rev. Ross was wrong. I think so too.
But what makes your religious opinion any more valid or meaningful than his?
In the end, after all, that's what scriptural interpretation really is: opinion.
Posted by: ZacharySmith | August 25, 2008 4:39 PM
@heddle:
Now there's an interesting definition of relative morality. care to point to any atheist taking that view?
As for situational ethics, I've learnt something new today; there is a Christian theologian who, all of 40 years ago, formalised utilitarianism around agape and taught that it was good Christian morals. Since when, however, has Fletcher been representative of mainstream Christian theology? Ends justifying means? He was even accused of relativism - with justification, since it was an explicit tenet of his ethics - which brings us back to the point.
You say that genocide, slavery and mass rape is good when practised by the Israelites upon the Midianites in pre-Christian times, but bad when practised by say Hutus on Tutsis. I say it is bad in both cases. What makes the difference in the situation? Was it the fact that the Israelites were invading a foreign country, so the Midianites weren't neighbours whereas the Hutis and Tutsis had lived cheek by jowl in the same country. so were neighbours? Help me here?
As for "love thy neighbour as yourself" as a commandment against slavery - doesn't it all depend on who you define as your neighbour? Paul presumably knew of Christ's teachings; why did he not (given that he knew he was writing for posterity) explicitly tell Philemon that Christ was absolutely and implacably opposed to slavery, and that he had no right to keep Onesimus as a slave, since he must love his neighbour as himself? Since Philemon was a Christian in good standing, there could be no problem with this, surely - he wouldn't have disobeyed a commandment from Christ, and would he not have thanked Paul for explaining the position?
Posted by: Robin Levett | August 25, 2008 4:42 PM
"Love your neighbor as yourself" does not necessarily preclude slavery. Your neighbor would be the one owning the slaves, not the slaves themselves. The bible does not command you to love your neighbor's horse, or dog, or wife, or any of the other lower creatures he may happen to own. In fact the only thing it says about your neighbor's property is not to covet it.
It seems obvious today to view the, "love thy neighbor," passage as being against slavery in part because we're used to thinking of everyone as full people. But for much of history that was not the case, particularly with regard to non-Christians. In fact, viewing some people as lesser beings was sometimes seen as being the only way to reasonably reconcile what might otherwise be seen as contradictory passages.
The Teutonic Knights and Knights Hospitaller for example made fortunes in the slave trade. Pope Nicholas V instituted hereditary slavery in 1452. In 1488, Pope Innocent VIII accepted a gift of 100 slaves. Those are just a few examples of devoutly religious and well-educated biblical scholars who believed the Bible supports slavery.
However in 1462 Pope Pius II declared slavery to be a "great crime" and in 1537 Pope Paul III condemned it as well. Here are four Popes in a span of just 85 years, two in favor of slavery and two against it. These sorts of contradictory proclamations and actions have been part of Christianity since at least the fifth century. It hardly seems to me that the Bible could be considered "crystal clear" on the subject.
Posted by: Abby Normal | August 25, 2008 4:45 PM
Not really. It means that Jesus believed Noah was an historic figure. It says nothing about the details of the flood, whether it was local (as I believe) or global.
Really?
Mathew 24. "But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. "
It doesn't prove he thought Noah was historical any more than a reference to an event that is going to surprise people "just like Luke was surprised when he found out Vader was his father" means that I think Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader are historical characters or "They are more in love than Romeo and Juliet" means I think Romeo and Juliet is non-fiction.
Jesus spoke in parables and metaphors. You are welcome to interpret them as you like but don't fool yourself into thinking that your interpretation is obvious or the only rational one.
Posted by: libarbarian | August 25, 2008 4:48 PM
"Only if you assume that the style of the NT is to spoon-feed instructions in the form of checklists for idiots. It is not."
We are talking about what is 'clear' in the Bible. Here's the score as I understand it: God commanded people in the OT to take slaves; Jesus makes statements that he is not here to abolish the law and to my knowledge no where states that what God/Jesus did in the OT was wrong; the NT speaks of slaves obeying masters and masters treating slaves well, but no. where. says anything negative specifically about slavery; he does say things such as 'love your neighbor' which could apply to slavery, but as long as we're parsing, that depends on how he wants you to show your 'love' and who he considers a 'neighbor' to be.
Your false imprisonment is a good try, but implicit in the word 'false' is the fact that someone has been wronged, whereas that is exactly what we are trying to determine concerning slavery. Again, you wouldn't find it strange and perhaps a little unclear if you saw 'rapees treat your rapists well' in the bible with no admonishment?
I don't disagree with your conclusions that slavery is wrong in Christianity, but it is not abundantly clear and I think you know it; you don't think that just one line, 'having slaves is sinful' would make it clearer than your apparent crystal?
Posted by: Spartan | August 25, 2008 4:54 PM
librarian - You completely missed the point. I would bet a large percentage of readers here understand Paul's perspective perfectly. We are debating with heddle given a certain assumption, which is that the Bible's plain meaning condones slavery, which by default means God condones slavery if one takes the position that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Paul has nothing to do with it, God either directed the words or not (on this topic, not arguing for an all or nothing in this case).
If one argues that Paul in his writings in the NT believed the end of the world would occur within a matter of a few short years like you do here, then the whole "the Bible is the inerrant word of God" premise falls apart. That subsequently makes it easy to argue that God doesn't condone slavery, merely that is just one of many examples that a group of humans got it wrong in more primitive times. While that is the logical approach, many Christians try and "harmonize" passages that either contradict each other or are now considered reprehensible behavior by all citizens of good standing, e.g., slavery in order to maintain their belief that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, a position taken by many conservative Christians.
Therefore, I'm interested in how heddle responds, a) the authors/editors of the Bible got it wrong on slavery, b) God condones slavery, or c) well, I don't know of any other logical alternative, which is why this topic is so interesting given at least my respect for heddle's perspective on many other topics, maybe he knows of a good c, he certainly hasn't provided it yet in this thread.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 25, 2008 4:55 PM
ZacharySmith
That's a fair question. However, for the slavery question I think one has to look at it from this perspective. There are two groups with a vested interest in claiming the bible condones slavery.
One group consists of those who were dedicated to maintaining the institution. This group is, today, virtually non-existent. Of this group I think it is fair to question their integrity in interpreting scripture. I would allow that there were some who were sincere. I would also suggest that they were greatly influenced by those who co-opted the message of the bible to foster support for slavery.
The other group, which is alive and well and in evidence here, are atheists who insist that the bible condones slavery in the New Testament era. They too have a vested interest: embarrassing Christianity. They will not listen to counter arguments--that simply will not do. This same approach shows up in other ways. Atheists who think YECs are imbeciles will argue that, in spite of YEC stupidity, the YEC interpretation of Genesis is clearly the only correct one, because that makes Christianity and science incompatible--which is their goal. Likewise insisting that the NT condones slavery, which results in Christian appeals to NT morality being trivially refuted, is a very appealing approach.
Nothing. My opinion is no better. All you can do is to try to set aside presuppositions and read the bible. You'll either agree with me, or with Reverend Ross.
Abby Normal,
Whether or not devoutly religious people own slaves or claim slavery as biblical is irrelevant, for it is impossible to demonstrate, given that you only know what people claim, not what they actually believe. You make think of me as devoutly religious, because of what I write, but I could be a fraud. But, even granting the premise, it is still irrelevant. The question is never what devout Christians do--which will always be probelmatic, but what the bible teaches.
Posted by: heddle | August 25, 2008 5:06 PM
Spartan,
On the contrary. He worked on the Sabbath. He (based on OT law) mishandled lepers. He did not call, again in disregard of OT law, for the execution of blasphemers, though he encountered many, even those guilty of the unpardonable sin of "Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit." He completely rewrote moral law, arguing that adultery is not the mark of the sin, but merely thinking about adultery. It's true he didn't do away with the law, he revealed it more clearly. There is still law under Jesus, but it is quite different from Moses' law, hence all the "you have heard it said--but I tell you" messages in the Sermon on the Mount.
Michael Heath,
Contrary to what libarbarian wrote, Paul did not believe the end was near--at least he did not teach that. Everything he wrote is consistent with his understanding that something was about to end, but it wasn't the world. It was the Jewish nation, the Jewish way of life, and the Jewish age. The end of that was at hand, and in just a matter of a few years the Romans would crush the Jewish revolt, siege and then sack Jerusalem, kill a million Jews, enslave and expel hundreds of thousands, and destroy the temple after first desecrating it. This was a unthinkable catastrophe and danger to all Jews, Christian or not, and the meaning of the apocalyptic language that Paul used.
Posted by: heddle | August 25, 2008 5:25 PM
Posted by: Taz | August 25, 2008 5:27 PM
There is a third group. With at least one member, me.
I speak as a Christian interested in the question as to whether the Bible is a *clear* guide to *all* morality. If it is, then why don't the ladies in my church wear head coverings since it violates a clear command? And if slavery is so wrong, why is the Bible silent as to the morality of it - while still providing other moral precepts to those who practice it, i.e., masters: be good to your slaves? Why not just tell them to free them?
Posted by: KeithB | August 25, 2008 5:46 PM
I might point out that Christians who do not accept slavery, especially Christian apologists, also have a vested interest, but in the opposite direction.
Should we disregard their analyses as insincere as well?
Posted by: DaveL | August 25, 2008 6:00 PM
Contrary to what libarbarian wrote, Paul did not believe the end was near--at least he did not teach that.
Its true that Paul never claimed to know a specific time and date but his writings and teachings all carry the implicit assumption that it was to be soon - specifically, he consistently writes as if it will be in the lifetimes of the people he writes too.
Posted by: libarbarian | August 25, 2008 6:01 PM
People, it isn't worth arguing with Heddle. He doesn't argue in good faith. Look at his responses to me. First, he dodges my arguments by falsely accusing me of dodging. When that tactic implodes, he simply ignores me. In fact, Heddle's selective avoidance is a pattern. This is because evidence and reason are against him, and I suspect on some level he knows it. He must. He just can't acknowledge it.
Posted by: H.H. | August 25, 2008 6:03 PM
Heddle: "But he did: Love your neighbor as yourself implies don't own slaves."
"All men are created equal" also implies "don't own slaves". The problem arises when you interpret who is meant to be included as "man" or "neighbor".
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife" seems to imply a biblical definition of "neighbor" that is less than universal. Did Jesus ever explicitly expand the definition laid down in the OT?
Posted by: Tom Ames | August 25, 2008 6:04 PM
Michael Heath
librarian - You completely missed the point.....f one takes the position that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Paul has nothing to do with it, God either directed the words or not (on this topic, not arguing for an all or nothing in this case).
1. I've seen the "You don't condemn X and therefore must support X" logic selectively used far too much in the blogosphere so maybe I just imagined it here but I thought I saw a bit of it.
It is, of course, only legitimately used against the other side. My own failure to condemn, for example, prison-rape in no ways means that I support it. Your silence, however, shows you for the twisted prison-rape-lover that you are :). [/snark] (not that I should have to say).
2. I don't know heddle of is he believes the "Bible is the inerrant word of God". I didn't see any indication of this but I'm not a "regular" here and might not know historical facts that would be relevant. Anyways, I assumed he did not.
Posted by: libarbarian | August 25, 2008 6:10 PM
heddle - you continue to avoid the central question several of us are asking of you while also creating new provocative assertions contrary to the plain meaning of the text. By "end of the world", one can safely assume the dead rising from their graves and those that are alive ascending into heaven" is a far cry from your implying it might be a mere political upheaval and the subsequent tragedies that would occur from such. librarians understanding is certainly consistent with the plain meaning of the text and harmonizes nicely with statements attributed to Jesus; problem is it just didn't happen.
In 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17, Paul wrote: "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord." Couple that with the admonition from Paul not to get married (and therefore, no future Christian children within a generation or soon after if people actually followed his advice, which I was not a commandment) coupled with several times that Jesus talks about the same event given the exact same language in Mark and Matthew, such as "his generation shall not pass away, until all these things be accomplished....But of that day or that hour knoweth no one, not even the angels in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is."
This verse strongly suggests "all things would be accomplished", which was used multiple times to describe the dead and the living being raptured in that generation (40 years) and not some future generation, otherwise Jesus would have known when this would happen if he was truly part of the Godhead who was God prior to his birth and after his resurrection (leaving only his time on earth as an argument for him not knowing something as is claimed in Mark 13).
heddle - I am cognizant of how Christians dance around missing that end of the world prediction along with many other examples. I'm more interested how you argue that God did not condone slavery given all the text in both the OT, but also the NT, some of which have been presented to you here.
BTW - it's isn't just atheists that are frustrated about having so many millions of people believing in an inerrant Bible, millions of liberal Christians also share this frustration given the cost to all of this has helped cause.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 25, 2008 6:10 PM
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife" seems to imply a biblical definition of "neighbor" that is less than universal."
Or maybe it just means that Jesus, like most men, digs lesbians.
Posted by: libarbarian | August 25, 2008 6:12 PM
libarbarian said: "...specifically, he consistently writes as if it will be in the lifetimes of the people he writes too."
All the early Christians thought this, because that's what Jesus said to his apostles: "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these [end time events] be fulfilled."
But when the apocalypse was a no-show, suddenly Jesus' words had to be made to mean something other than what they say. "No big deal," to use Heddle's expression. As Jehovah Witnesses have repeatedly demonstrated, a failed end-time prophecy isn't anything that can't be swept away. Apologetics--the art of saving the cult from reality by any means necessary.
Posted by: H.H. | August 25, 2008 6:12 PM
DaveL,
Fair enough. So I invite anyone to review the complete moral teachings of Jesus and ask themself, when they are done, whether that teaching is compatible with slavery. If so, then we can agree to disagree. But when someone only argues that Jesus did not explicitly condemn it, and that constitutes a tacit approval, then I know they haven't done any homework.
libarbarian
No, he never writes that the end of the world will be in the lifetimes of his readers. Never.
H.H,
How did the tactic "Implode". I defy to you summarize a cogent argument that you have made that I have not addressed. You asked me whether I agreed that the push to abolish slavery was anti-biblical, I said I did not and gave my reasons. You commented about the incompatibility of the old and new, I agreed, and pointed out why they are incompatible--things changed when Jesus arrived. The system of human high preists is not compatible with the finished once-for-all work of Christ. You commented on the variability of interpretation--so did another commenter, to which I also agreed, stating that all you can do is read the bible and you might agree with me or you might not. There is nothing you asked that I avoided--your opinion of your arguments is unduly inflated. Either that, or you are simply a liar.
Posted by: heddle | August 25, 2008 6:18 PM
Heddle, please excuse my last post, I inadvertently clicked on "post" rather than preview button and therefore it was not proofed.
Given I have yet to see a clear answer from you on whether God condones slavery if the Bible is inerrant, let me ask you this (which is a concession by me since it only answers part of my question): Do you believe the Bible as it was texts were originally written (the typical evangelical out), is the inerrant word of God?
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 25, 2008 6:32 PM
H.H.,
So you know what all the early Christians believed? You know that what you put in square brackets belongs there? That's all very impressive.
The Olivet discourse starts (Matt. 24) with the disciples asking the question:
As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us," they said, "when will this [the destruction of the temple] happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?
You will note that Jesus does not correct them, that is is he does not say, "whoa, you are asking about two different things, the destruction of the temple and the end times", but rather he answers as if their question was sensible and referred to temporally close events. He closes the Olivet discourse, thirty verses later, as you noted with "I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened."
The most straight forward interpretation is that both the destruction of the temple and the end of the age (and his coming but in wrath) refer to the same time period and mega-event which, as I stated earlier, is the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem. Everything Jesus discussed in between did indeed happen within a generation.
Posted by: heddle | August 25, 2008 6:37 PM
"People, it isn't worth arguing with Heddle. He doesn't argue in good faith."
Well, I think the problem is more that he occasionally argues in faith period, which admittedly is difficult for anyone not sharing that faith to comprehend. He certainly is extremely knowledgable and cannot be accused of not having thought his positions through thoroughly. That being said, I think Taz's response to the 'two groups', 'embarrassing Christianity', 'will not listen to counter arguments', bullshit is right on; heddle's been reading too much Pharyngula.
"On the contrary. He worked on the Sabbath. (etc)"
My point is why should we treat Jesus' specific actions any different than God's in the OT? I referenced what Jesus 'stated' on purpose, as I understand he personally did not follow all of the law. In a long-dead thread concerning the slaughters ordered by God and exemptions for 'bad things' that God specifically orders and suffering that he himself inflicted, you (I believe) had said that God cannot 'sin' no matter what he does; he drowns the earth/the middle east, but is not subject to 'thou shall not kill' for example. Why then is Jesus?
Things do change with the sermon, but as you said a lot of it is making existing laws more specific; the greatest difference I see is between 'eye for an eye' and 'love your enemy', and even that is somewhat of an extension. I ask because I don't know; did he ever instruct his followers to do anything, without him being present, that directly contradicts the old law? I doubt it, as it seems it would have led to an even earlier death for him, but I could see that being a reason for all the parables to begin with. Did Jesus make clear that the laws that he personally disregarded may be disregarded by all? ('jot and tittle' keeps popping into my head)
Posted by: Spartan | August 25, 2008 6:37 PM
No, he never writes that the end of the world will be in the lifetimes of his readers. Never.
Yes, he does.
"Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord"
"We who are alive and remain" plainly refers to the group composed of those whom he is writing who are still around at the end times. The "and remain" part CLEARLY shows he isn't using the he "Royal We" to cover the Christian community in the far future - he is speaking of those who he is writing to who will still be remaining on earth at the end.
But whatever, believe what you want.
Posted by: libarbarian | August 25, 2008 6:38 PM
Michael Heath,
I believe that the bible did condone slavery, and genocide, and ethnic cleansing for the Jews of the OT. And I believe the bible is inerrant, along the lines of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, which you can find via google.
Posted by: heddle | August 25, 2008 6:41 PM
Because remember, we aren't simply discussing the dissolution of an Old Testament religious hierarchy, some political "system," but of changed morals. That utterly destroys any appeal to god as the absolute font of moral authority.
If god, as manifested both in the Old Testament and again as Jesus, is capable of handing down mutually exclusive moral prescripts, then you have no biblical basis for your morality at all. This is a massive blow to a belief in a consistent, benevolent god who is "crystal clear" about how he wants us all to behave. What is moral becomes nothing more than a whim of god, subject to future change or revision. I hardly think most Christians would consider such radical ramifications "no big deal."
When you can actually answer my arguments you can call them unduly inflated, but not before. And I'm one of the most honest man you'll ever meet. It's the religious apologists who must resort to lies.Posted by: H.H. | August 25, 2008 7:07 PM
heddle has also not responded to my point concerning what he admits is the meaning of Paul's words: slaves should never rebel against their masters. The Bible being inerrant (in the sense laid out by the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy), this must be the lesson god intended. I find that lesson morally repugnant, but heddle must not. There have been numerous slave rebellions throughout history. Were all those attempting to throw off their master's yoke committing a sin?
Posted by: Taz | August 25, 2008 7:23 PM
Heddle, your comments are quite well-thought, and concise, well done. But I have a question for you:
Since you appear to hold that the NT is the guide we should live by, and Christianity is based on that premise, and you appear to hold that the OT is essentially kaput...
Why then are sooooo many Christians so adamant about placing OT rules in every courthouse, schoolhouse, farmhouse, henhouse, and outhouse? (Paraphrasing Tommy Lee Jones in "The Fugitive")
Personally I would not be nearly as offended if some church wanted to place the Sermon on the Mount, or simply the Golden Rule in a courthouse as I am when they insist on the 10 Commandments. After all, the 10 are overruled by Christ himself, when he said, "Love the Lord with all your heart with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind, and love your Neighbor as yourself"
Posted by: Blaidd Drwg | August 25, 2008 8:22 PM
H. H.,
I have adressed this "incompatible instructions" argument N times.
OK, the reason I believe that he won't "do it again" is that the OT pointed to the Messiah, and the NT points to the end of history. There is a logical progression. The NT was not a surprise--and so we do not anticipate a surprise change of direction in the future. If Christ had come out of the blue, unanticipated, and proclaimed: "God sent me because he decided to radically alter his redemptive plan" then you'd have a point. Biblical redemptive history is pre-Messiah, post-Messiah, end of history.
But in a way you have a point. The Old Testament law was a shadow of the new. The New Testament is a better revelation for a better covenant. Whether it is the ultimate revelation of the law is unknown--perhaps in the post-history stage the law will once again be upgraded.
As for "once for all" the clearest teaching on that is in the book of Hebrews. It even uses that phrase in Hebrews 7:27. The primary message is that Christ sat down--symbolizing that the work is finished.
But he obviously does just that, as I have pointed out several times. Sacrificing animals was commanded in the OT. To do the same thing in light of Christ's work would be, today, an abomination. What was once a moral command is today an abomination. You keep neglecting that Jesus didn't just visit, he changed everything.
Blaidd Drwg
Well, many believe that the ten Commandments as given to Moses still apply. I disagree. (Except in the sense that they are, at least nine of them, subsumed by the New Testament law.) But apart from that I would not say the OT is kaput, it is a vital part of redemptive history. It is very hard to understand the complete picture of Christ without understanding how he was foreshadowed by the OT. Even with the law, Jesus reveals the law of the new covenant by contrasting it, or rather upgrading, the law of the old covenant. Part of understanding how the new covenant is a better covenant, is understanding the impossibility of complying with the old covenant.
Taz,
That is because I feel no need to respond to your concern that something is morally repugnant. It is not what you consider repugnant that concerns me.
Posted by: heddle | August 25, 2008 8:56 PM
Posted by: Taz | August 25, 2008 9:15 PM
Heddle, just out of curiosity--if you did not believe the Bible to be inerrant, would you consider your arguments here to be valid? In other words, do they hinge on your belief that the Bible is not a work of fiction?
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | August 25, 2008 9:26 PM
Every time I read a thread that is filled with comments by Heddle (and I skim most of them) I am reminded of the movie, "Stand By Me". At one point in the film, two of the young actors are having an argument about whether Mighty Mouse or Superman is the stronger super hero. Finally, in exasperation, one of the lads says something like, "Boy, are you stupid. Superman is real guy and Mighty Mouse is just a cartoon."
The bible is a book; a book which many people have used to justify all sorts of really evil shit (and some "good works" as well) ever since the first anhology of folk tales (which is what it is) was published.
There are most certainly a lot of historical figures mentioned in the bible, as there are in many other works of fiction. For the record I'm betting that Superman could kick Might Mouse and Archangel Gabriel's ass.
Posted by: democommie | August 25, 2008 10:17 PM
Heddle stated:
Thanks for the reference to the Chicago Statement. I studied it. It makes it much easier to frame a question that I hope provides this forum with the question we've been asking but have yet to hear from you. Given the Chicago statement premises:
WE AFFIRM that the Holy Scriptures are to be received as the authoritative Word of God.
and,
WE AFFIRM that the written Word in its entirety is revelation given by God.
and,
WE DENY that later revelation, which may fulfill earlier revelation, ever corrects or contradicts it.
One final premises of my own I hope you agree on that you did bring up, but not in the context of the verses that specifically address slavery:
The writings of what it is claimed to have been the human verbal words of Jesus[God as Jesus] focuses much of Jesus' attention on how one treats others and how one acts towards others or with themselves given we live among others (e.g., the beatitudes).
Given all that. I'd appreciate, and I think others would as well, why God addressed slavery in the NT only in a manner that presumes slavery is an acceptable institution. As others have stated and which I noted you didn't respond to, God brought up slavery as a topic in his revelation in the NT, but didn't condemn it. In fact his instructions regarding slavery in the NT were explicit on how to act with this ongoing institution which a reasonable person can only conclude condones it.
Here are the verses Aethologian noted that went unresponded to in order:
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. - Ephesians 6:5 (New International Version)
Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven. Colossians 4:1 (New International Version)
Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive. Titus 2:9-10 (New International Version)
I still come to the same conclusion I had prior to this blog post; that if one reads the Bible as the inerrant word of God consistent with the Chicago Statement, the only logical conclusion using only the NT as a source is that God condoned slavery even after Jesus was claimed to have been resurrected. That is because we cannot ignore, as you did early in this post, what God said specifically about slavery in the NT, where God does not condemn this practice, but instead actually provides guidance on its administration.
You disagree. How is my conclusion wrong using the Chicago Statement as my basis point or, how does your differ within the context of the Chicago statement and the three Bible verses included here?
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 25, 2008 10:45 PM
As always, brilliant job, Ed. I don't feel that I can add much to the conversation here if only to add that, as someone who knows some things about evolution, someone who has been brought up to understand the fossil record, carbon dating and pangean oceanographic, I get really angry when Bible beaters act like idiots.
When they use it as grounds to claim that they have some form of authority in the free world, I get even angrier, because it's such irreverent bullshit, and so disrespectful of the men and women who have poured their lives into studying this.
Posted by: JStein | August 25, 2008 11:06 PM
I speak as a Christian interested in the question as to whether the Bible is a *clear* guide to *all* morality.
Morality? This is your Lord God Almighty speaking, ruler of all the entire Universe and it's hundreds of billions of galaxies. He is infinitely wise and morally perfect in every way:
2 Samuel 12:11-14 NAB: "Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.'"
Is this the God you get your morality from? God is vengeful and brings evil upon people and makes adultery happen. Isn't that supposed to be Satan's job?
Posted by: dave | August 26, 2008 12:52 AM
Michael Heath (and others)
I have composed an answer that addresses the passages in question, including those instructing masters, but it grew too large to post here. Or, more accurately, it became large enough to uses as a post on my blog. I am not a habitual blegger, but if you want to see the post it is here.
Sadie Morrison,
Yes, everything hinges on the bible not being a work of fiction.
Taz,
Read the referenced post if interested. The short answer is no.
Posted by: heddle | August 26, 2008 6:39 AM
'What Paul is hoping for is that Philemon frees Onesimus because he is convicted of the moral correctness of doing so, not because he has been commanded. If he doesn't, then the lesson shifts to Onesimus: obey Philemon and be a good witness."
So presumably if Paul saw a man raping a woman he wouldn't try to stop him he'd just appeal to his sense of "moral correctness".
Up until around 1500 AD essentially every Christian exegete thought slavery was perfectly acceptable and that usury was a mortal sin.
Now, the fashion has shifted.
There's every chance in another 500 years it'll shift again - and at every point the exegetes will be absolutely convinced they're providing the only true interpretation of the immutable, eternal word of God.
Posted by: Ian Gould | August 26, 2008 6:45 AM
Ian Gould
No. There is a reason why arguing by analogy is fraught with peril. Any fool can come up with an absurd analogy. Case in point.
Posted by: heddle | August 26, 2008 7:19 AM
and any fool can dismiss than argument he doesn't likw a throwaway line like "abusurd"?
why is it absurd? Why would Paul, presumably, have stood by while a slave was flogged but presumably, according to you, not while a free man was being flogged?
Posted by: Ian Gould | August 26, 2008 7:51 AM
I know that Heddle and mroberts are two different people (that much craziness couldn't live in just one skull) but they seem to be getting the messages from Xanthor through the same tinfoil hat.
Both of them seem to think that their word on the inerrant "Word-O-God" is inerrant, as well.
Studying the bible has it's uses I'm sure. It is a collection of folk tales, some that are cribbed from cultures other than the "Chosen People" and it does match up to SOME historical fact. That's all there is, folks. It's a book, like "Tale of Two Cities" or "War and Peace". The only difference is that those two are generally accepted as well written fictions.
Posted by: democommie | August 26, 2008 7:59 AM
Ian Gould,
Who said he would stand by while a slave was being flogged? The evidence is all to the contrary. The instruction to masters is for humane treatment.
You are right, any fool can dismiss an argument that he doesn't like as absurd. But I have a track record of attempting to address cogent and substantive arguments and questions. I generally ignore stupid arguments, which I should have done with you. You wrote:
If you think what I wrote implies that Jesus or Paul would have stood by and watched a rape occur, then you have missed the boat completely. Whether it is of willful ignorance or simply that you are hopelessly dim, I couldn't say.
Posted by: heddle | August 26, 2008 8:04 AM
Heddle, I should point out here that while i'm an atheist I'm far more moderate than most of the atheists here.
I have no problem acknowleding the role of Christians in the abolition movement in the 18th and 19th centurties. I have a great deal of respect for many Christians.
But I think you're arguing an insupoortable position when you try to claim that the Bible - old or new Testament - condemns slavery.
Slavery was so common and so engrained in the societies of the day in the Mediterranean that it woudl simply never have occurred to the Apostles that the inswtitution was innately as winful - anymore than modern Christians lie awake at night fretting over the sin of usury.
Posted by: Ian Gould | August 26, 2008 8:06 AM
democommie,
You see, most people with whom I engage take this approach: OK, heddle believes the bible, lets take that, run with it, and show him how that gets him into deep problems related to self-consistency or intractable moral dilemmas. While they don't believe the bible, they understand that simply stating: "the bible is fiction and baloney" is an argument stopper. That's fine, there is no requirement for you to argue with me, but it is curious that you can't seem to take that step of one more layer of abstraction that others arguing, for example Michael Heath, do.
That is, I can understand ignoring me. I can understand arguing with me as many on here do. But I can't fathom the purpose of comments such as yours.
Posted by: heddle | August 26, 2008 8:14 AM
Ian Gould,
I never said the OT condemned slavery. On the contrary I have agreed with the observation that it was commanded for the Jews conquering the Holy Land.
As for the NT I have argued a nuanced position, and instead of rehashing it, yet again, I'll just tell the interested reader to reread my comments here or the most recent post on my own blog, which addresses the issue in more depth.
Posted by: heddle | August 26, 2008 8:20 AM
I'd like to see the statistics on how many people follow this foaming at the mouth rhetoric of hatred. Or whether that was as cringingley embarrassing to most christians as it was to me.
I'm sorry but i can only feel sorry for someone so abused by their religion that they have been reduced to an inhuman creature, wallowing in it's own bile.
Posted by: Richard eis | August 26, 2008 8:32 AM
"I'm sorry but i can only feel sorry for someone so abused by their religion that they have been reduced to an inhuman creature, wallowing in it's own bile."
I think the inhuman creature wallowing in its own bile comes first and then it goes looking for a justification for its existence.
Religion can serve that purpose but so cna just about anything - race, nationalism, and politics are three faves.
Posted by: Ian Gould | August 26, 2008 8:38 AM
Heddle,
Thanks so much for taking the time to explain your position. As someone who was raised fundie but never really got it even though I was considered an apt student, I happen to be one of those people that certainly didn't backslide, instead I studied my ass of in early Christianity over about 15 years to make sense of it. I subsequently and humbly believe the journey took me beyond faith and belief. I do continue to be amazed at the creativity and energy it takes to harmonize all the passages that I've concluded are either fictional, contradictory, or just plain logical fallacies. There is no doubt you are a very intelligent person who has some excellent reasoning skills even though my conclusions are the quite the opposite of yours (which is why both of us probably enjoy Ed's blog given he's a gold standard on the web for such approaches to dialogue).
Some thoughts come to mind after reading your excellent post defending your understanding of the Bible.
1) If you had to write software code to essentially program the Bible's values which harmonized all passages; this code would have to be incredibly elaborate given what most liberal and non-Christians find to be ahistorical, immoral, contradictory, or a logical fallacy, e.g., this slavery question, Paul and Jesus on the end of the world, ethnic cleansing, etc. and bring it back to a completely true, inerrant and complete explanation of a perfect god's will.
2) I've never experienced a religious dogma that requires this volume of such harmonizations, and I spent several years studying comparative religions. To me the sheer volume argues against its credibility, but that's just me. Each argument on its own merits maybe a defendable position, but if the number of such arguments becomes mind-boggling, well. . . it became way too much for me.
3) If scientists had to go through as many convolutions and elaborate harmonizations when it came to meeting a logical test to argue the theory of evolution, no one would believe them. Even though this theory is simple and immediately observable to most people when it comes to artificial selection, the majority of American Christians still resist, but when it comes to their religious dogma, they are more than willing to go way beyond what I believe any scientific discipline would do to defend falsification efforts against their collective position.
4) There is an old observation that fundie Christians are the clearest atheist thinkers when it comes to other religions. These Christians tend to keep their criticisms on clear, bright lines, and I typically agree with their approach and their logical conclusions in their critiques. Yet they seem incapable of applying this same test to their own religion. I can understand one or two elaborate constructions given the immensity of the Bible in terms of the span of time and number of contributors, but even on the simplest matters, incredible constructions - each maybe not elaborate, but as a total set - wow, the effort is truly immense.
I do thank you for your efforts and greatly appreciate it. I will use your blog post as the best effort I've ever seen bar none to argue why God changed his mind and now condemns slavery in the post-Jesus world though I do perceive one weakness in your argument, and that is the Chicago Statement,
"WE DENY that later revelation, which may fulfill earlier revelation, ever corrects or contradicts it."
It appears to me that your argument has God changing his mind on slavery. As you stated in an earlier comment on Ed's blog, "I believe that the bible did condone slavery, and genocide, and ethnic cleansing for the Jews of the OT." Your argument now appears to have God changing his mind on slavery for at least Jews from the OT to the NT, which would appear to contradict other passages regarding God's nature. That is a harmonization effort I will not request of you, I think I've probably exhausted my welcome and your good nature.
Cheers.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 26, 2008 9:02 AM
I love these types of threads, you get to see cognitive dissidence in action.
heddle: "There are no parts of the NT 'quite accepting of and positive about slavery.' None. Zero. Nada. There are only parts that acknowledge the reality of its existence."
Atheologian: Here are three verses proving you wrong.
heddle: Continues to argue about other points despite the fact that his claims about the bible are demonstratively false.
And they always follow that formula, believer makes claim, non-believer offer proof to contradict claim, believer continues to argue with unchanged position ignoring evidence.
Posted by: random guy | August 26, 2008 9:42 AM
heddle -
That's not what you said earlier in this post.I have to say I don't understand this commitment to the dogma of innerancy. It certainly isn't necessary to appreciate the teachings of Jesus.Posted by: Taz | August 26, 2008 10:00 AM
random guy,
You do not understand the meaning of cognitive dissonance. It means to hold positions that one knows are in opposition. It does not mean to hold positions that others find to be opposition, otherwise virtually everyone would be guilty in the eyes of others. As an example, Kurt Wise is a scientist and a YEC. He says, paraphrasing, that he knows the science teaches an old earth, but he chooses to believe the YEC version of Genesis anyway. That is cognitive dissonance, because Kurt Wise readily admits he holds, simultaneously, two opposing views. It is not that you or I think his views are in opposition that makes it cognitive dissonance, it's that fact that he thinks so and still holds to both.
As for your verses, I have addressed them ad nauseam. They might mean, to some, that the NT condones slavery. But they do not state: Slavery is good and acceptable. They mean to me that the NT acknowledges the reality of slavery. The lack of an explicit condemnation is not the same thing as an endorsement, as I discuss on my blog. These verses pose legitimate questions that I have to address, but if you actually believe, as wrote, that they "prove me wrong" then you have no concept whatsoever as to what constitutes a proof.
Posted by: heddle | August 26, 2008 10:00 AM
Taz,
We are talking about the case of Onesimus. Given what we know, I think Paul commanded him to return and, if necessary, resume his life as a slave. From that you cannot generalize that in all circumstances, for all time, I believe it is sinful for a slave to rebel. Please see my post for more details.
Posted by: heddle | August 26, 2008 10:04 AM
heddle - And you see no problem at all with the dogma of inerrancy? The fact that different people can have vastly different interpretations of the same teaching becomes problematic when each one insists it's the inerrant word of god. I have no issue with people debating the meaning of biblical teachings to their own lives, but when you add "and this is the absolute, inerrant word of god", that's when people start deciding they have a duty to enforce the interpretation on others. Look at people's ideas about homosexuality in the NT, or the way the Koran is misused in Islam.
Posted by: Taz | August 26, 2008 10:19 AM
Taz,
I see the issue of the inerrancy of scripture (along the lines of the Chicago statement) as independent of the problem of opposing interpretations. The former does not exacerbate the latter. Virtually every Christian I associate with in real life affirms inerrancy, and yet we agree to disagree about many, many things. We simply recognize that a) we are imperfect interpreters and b) much Christian doctrine comes from problematic extrapolation. Agreeing to disagree without impugning the source (the bible) is a necessary way of life among Christians.
Furthermore, the majority of the Christians I know, virtually all of whom are conservative and affirm inerrancy, and many of whom you would probably label fundamentalist, have no desire whatsoever to enforce their views on others. They'll make their views known, they'll defend their views, but the idea of enforcing their views would be anathema.
That's not to say that doesn't happen--but I have found it to be the exception rather than the rule. Then again I would naturally avoid legalistic bodies of believers.
Posted by: heddle | August 26, 2008 10:32 AM
Heddle:
Because you're a pompous horse's ass who hasn't ONE fact to back up any of your "logic". You BELIEVE the bible to be the 'inerrant word of GOD." That's it, you BELIEVE. You don't KNOW anything about the inerrant word of GOD-zip, nada, bupkis, etc.,. I don't think arguing with people whose premise is based on a fictional account of anything is an enterprise worth getting into. On the other hand, if you're going to make idiotic claims about your "knowledge" of GOD's inerrant word, well, somebody's gotta make fun of your nonsense.
Posted by: democommie | August 26, 2008 12:48 PM
democommie,
When will that happen? I'm always up for a good laugh, even at my own expense.
Wait--surely you don't believe you have "made fun" of my nonsense--sorry, no, nothing you have written meets any reasonable standard of "making fun".
Posted by: heddle | August 26, 2008 12:56 PM
heddle - Most of the Christians I know do not support innerancy, and while I can't claim to know many fundamentalists personally, the ones who insert themselves in the news constantly do not fit your description. Perhaps it's not a problem among your circle of friends, people disagreeing about "many, many" things, all of time insisting their interpretation is ordained by god. But in the larger world, and throughout history, it certainly has been.
Posted by: Taz | August 26, 2008 1:59 PM
The ultimate irony is that Inerrancy is a form of Idolatry.
Posted by: libarbarian | August 26, 2008 2:12 PM
As a Christian I find this an embarrasingly bad false premise. I think the atheists will listen to any and all GOOD arguments. The ones I know don't seek to embarass anything. As a Christian, and an honest man, it seems clear the bible condones slavery and the NT doesn't say much about it either way. But there clearly is no rebuke.
Again not to always take their side but YEC are imbeciles, however from an honest perspective it appears they have the most legit reading of Genesis. It's simply the bullshitting of apologists that make it all unbelievable.
From what I have seen in my church and elsewhere my fellow believers will go to great lengths to defend their faith up to and including ridiculous arguments that allow(primarily themselves) to justify their faith.
The athiests seem to be looking for legit answers while the vast majority of faith followers arrived their by birth or emotional reasons(primarily the former). Thats why apologist arguments are simply so poor.
Posted by: Uber | August 26, 2008 4:49 PM
This is of course a cop out in the largest sense. If millions of people have read and studied it and no agreement can be reached on the majority of topics or the take changes throughout history using the same source it's not the interpreters that are the problem.
You may not think you have cognitive dissonance but you have an entire host of other faulty ideas and I think they are emotionally rooted and it bleeds into the intellect side.
Posted by: Uber | August 26, 2008 4:55 PM
Virtually every Christian I associate with in real life affirms inerrancy, and yet we agree to disagree about many, many things. We simply recognize that a) we are imperfect interpreters and b) much Christian doctrine comes from problematic extrapolation. Agreeing to disagree without impugning the source (the bible) is a necessary way of life among Christians.
Heddle, that you seem to be a somewhat intelligent individual yet can live with such a pathological level of inconsistency, cognitive dissonance and vapid apologetics is absolutely petrifying.
You might want to drop this thread, by the way. The amount of dodging you've already done here is wearing your tenuous pretense of engaging in actual conversation very thin.
Posted by: StuV | August 26, 2008 5:56 PM
Again not to always take their side but YEC are imbeciles, however from an honest perspective it appears they have the most legit reading of Genesis. It's simply the bullshitting of apologists that make it all unbelievable.
I'm seriously skeptical that the authors meant for Genesis to be taken simply literally and that the fundie reading is more legitimate.
1. Genesis is FILLED with literary devices that, I believe, seriously undermine the claim that it's authors were even attempting to write a literal historical account.
Much of Genesis has a Chiastic structure which is a literary device that is used to focus attention on an important part of a story (often to stress a particular message). Since it would be a rather incredible coincidence for the literal recounting of the life of Abraham to embody such a structure, the most rational interpretation of the presence of such a structure is that the authors real concern was the meaning/message behind the story and NOT with a literal recounting of events in the life of Abraham.
The center of the Abraham chiasm is the covenant between God and Abraham. This is consistent with the emphasis, throughout much of the rest of Genesis, of stressing the special relationship between God and the ancestors of David (and, therefore, also of the Davidic line of kings).
2. The apparent "number puzzles" in Genesis also make me doubt that the authors were writing a simple literal history.
Take just one example - the three patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and their ages at death.
Abraham = 175 = 7 x 5^2
Isaac = 180 = 5 x 6^2
Jacob = 147 = 3 x 7^2
I suppose it could be a coincidence but I find it much more plausible that the authors were not even attempting to write the real ages of the patriarchs but were trying to show that God had chosen the "Davidic line" and that this special connection with God is shown even in the "auspicious" ages of David's ancestors.
Posted by: libarbarian | August 26, 2008 6:28 PM
StuV,
No, I'd rather continue. Please tell me where I have dodged, so that I can make a correction. I don't mind giving answers you don't agree with, that's expected, but I certainly do not want to dodge. So please point out those cases where I have dodged--or at least a few, since you have indicated they are legion--and please be explicit.
Posted by: heddle | August 26, 2008 6:56 PM
Heddle:
I'm sorry, you're right, I wasn't "making fun" of you; I was ridiculing your agressive stupidity. The bible is historic fiction, moron--prove otherwise.
Posted by: democommie | August 26, 2008 8:09 PM
Just to beat this into the ground a little bit more.
Heddle keeps pointing to "Love your neighbor as yourself" as a *New Testament* concept, however, Jesus is quoting from Leviticus:
"18 " 'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.
19 " 'Keep my decrees.
" 'Do not mate different kinds of animals.
" 'Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.
" 'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.
20 " 'If a man sleeps with a woman who is a slave girl promised to another man but who has not been ransomed or given her freedom, there must be due punishment. Yet they are not to be put to death, because she had not been freed. 21 The man, however, must bring a ram to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting for a guilt offering to the LORD. 22 With the ram of the guilt offering the priest is to make atonement for him before the LORD for the sin he has committed, and his sin will be forgiven. "
Note that exactly *two verses later*, we are shown that slaves have status as less than a free person.
Posted by: KeithB | August 27, 2008 12:28 PM