Entry 1707, on 2015-03-19 at 12:47:22 (Rating 4, Religion)
There is a web site called "evilbible.com" which lists a lot of the material from the Bible which the site's creators consider to be corrupt, violent, or immoral in some other way. It makes a lot of good points although I do have to say that it is rather one sided and ignores some contradictory material where the Bible is quite good. But that isn't the purpose of this particular site and there are plenty of others designed to just present the good stuff.
Generally there are excuses and rationalisations for the evil material in the Bible but how convincing is this stuff? Well it varies, but I think there is some material in the Bible, especially the Old Testament, which is inexcusable without using the most ridiculous convoluted logic (or lack of logic), so let's have a look at one particular verse (or two verses) I find quite interesting...
The Bible clearly accepts slavery and specifies rules which slave owners should follow. It doesn't say that slavery is fundamentally immoral in any way, yet most people (including Christians) would say it is now. So if slavery isn't inherently immoral what is? Do God's moral rules change with time? If they do are they real moral rules at all or just some temporary whim of the creator?
Have a look at this rather interesting rule from Exodus 21:20-21: "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money."
So this says several things. First, it is OK to use physical punishment on a slave. Second, you can kill a slave without punishment as long as the slave's death takes a day or two (instead of being immediate). And third, a slave is a possession ("for he is his money"). How can this be anything but evil?
Some sources try to justify this by saying it was part of the older tradition of societies at the time and that new standards have been introduced in the New Testament. But I have two issues with that. First, the NT doesn't exactly condemn slavery either, so it is barely much of an improvement on the OT. And second, does God change his mind? Was slavery OK at one point but then suddenly became more acceptable? Surely an immoral activity is always immoral not just good or bad depending on the standards of society? (at least morals are absolute for most religious people, I would claim that they are precisely based on societal standards although I would still have issues with supporting slavery).
For example, here is a justification of the verse I found on the web: "An entirely different culture. Slavery was an accepted practice and women could be treated as property. In Islamic countries, it's pretty much that way now." So God didn't try to fix this problem because it was an accepted practice? Isn't he supposed to tell us what is acceptable instead of just changing his rules to fit? And many Christians would claim that Islam has similar rules today because they are deluded. Does that mean that the followers of the OT were also deluded? Maybe they still are, and the followers of the NT too!
But slavery is a minor issue compared with a lot of the activities God approves of in the Old Testament. Mass murder, ethnic cleansing, rape, and other heinous crimes are actively ordered, encouraged, or at least tolerated by this "loving God". As I said above, I think the "Evil Bible" site does just consider one aspect of the message of the Bible (and that's fair enough because that is why the site exists) but it is an aspect which cannot be ignored, no matter how hard the Bible's followers try to make excuses.
Parts of the Bible are interesting, other parts are confusing, others are practically meaningless, and some present undoubtedly positive ideas. But there are also parts which are truly evil and if this represents the mind of the god that the Bible is about then I don't want to have anything to do with him!
Hello I am Trae and I just want to share something with you. I became more focused on the part where you said the the Bible accepts slavery. It is not the kind of slavery that you may think it is. It’s not the African American slavery. We are slaves of God. And by that I mean God is our Master. He’s the head of our lives. That’s what the word means and our society took that word “Slave” and put it to African Americans because they had a master and that master was the head of their lives they were in charge. So when you see the word slave in the Bible, it doesn’t necessarily means that is with A-Americans getting whipped and starving! God Bless.
Comment 2 by OJB on 2015-03-19 at 22:17:35:
If you read the verses from Exodus which I quoted I think it’s fairly clear they are talking about slavery in the conventional sense. Also, why would we want to be slaves of God anyway?
Comment 3 by richard on 2015-04-07 at 08:48:45:
Hi! Sorry for the long delay - have been way too busy these last few weeks. Well done for posting this separately so it can be properly dealt with. I understand how you and evilbible.com arrive at some of the conclusions you do regarding these verses in Ex21, and I agree with you that no aspect of the Bible should be 'ignored', and also agree that 'some parts are interesting, some parts are confusing, others present undoubtedly positive ideas.
I even agree that some parts (esp OT) have 'less practical meaning' to most of us now, than they did to earlier readers. Given the vast range of cultures and the time scales involved it is hardly surprising. However, this is NOT to say that 'some parts are practically meaningless' as you put it. All have context and meaning that was / is important and informative. Scholars say that close study of bits that us normal readers tend to 'skim over', can reveal informative 'gems' we'd not notice were there under our noses. Scholars of other large works like Shakespeare might say the same thing.
There are two important aspects to any and all written communication, in order to arrive at the meaning the author intended. 1 - The culture/time context, and 2 - the context / message of the surrounding text.
1 - It should be obvious that a critical part of interpreting specific passages properly involves understanding the time & culture it was written, and not interpreting it through todays use of the language wrt key words used.
2 - If a specific passage can have two different potential interpretations then we don't have a right to assume the one that is 'out of step' with the overall theme / message presented elsewhere. I gladly note however, the caveat to that on this occasion. When the charge is precisely one of moral change over time, we can't look to NT passages to claim that we are thus 'mis-interpreting' the OT ones.
We first need to look at the 'surrounding message' available at that time to correctly interpret Ex21:20-21 and then see if it matches the overall message throughout the bible to adequately answer that charge.
Remember too, that we also must not confuse a moral change of God, with our own moral change over time as clearly recorded in the bible. That the morality of humanity and its various cultures has changed over time is certainly not in dispute.
Not surprisingly, taking the time to do all this produces a different conclusion than evilbible.coms view regarding this single verse, that is not 'excuse making' - just fairer.
Before I post again to provide the rationale for a fairer reading regarding this verse - do you agree that the above is the correct and reasonable approach? Otherwise any further discussion is rather pointless…
Comment 4 by OJB on 2015-04-07 at 11:07:09:
Well here's where we agree/disagree...
We agree every aspect is worth considering, assuming we are going to take the Bible seriously and not just put it in the pile of old books which we don't have the time to deal with.
We agree that some parts are interesting, some confusing, some positive. I would add that some are practically meaningless but you would disagree with that, I guess.
We disagree that some parts have no deeper meaning because I consider them just the random thoughts of some bronze age desert nomads where you consider them the (indirect) words of your god.
I agree that deeper meanings can come from any text if they are studied closely, but you would probably disagree where I think those meanings often come from the reader more than the writer.
I agree that context is important but we should be careful not to let an over-reliance on convoluted reasoning based on this to lead us to complex excuses for something which is fundamentally simple.
I think we agree that we should not make any assumptions about the meaning of anything. With Bible verses I use internet resources to get multiple translations, interpretations, etc.
Clearly moral standards of both gods and humans have changed over time. Well, of course, the gods' haven't really changed because they don't exist, but the people writing on their behalf have changed.
I agree evilbible looks at this from just one perspective. My reading of this passage is based on many sources, including pro-Christian, which I think we agree is a better approach.
Comment 5 by richard on 2015-04-07 at 14:19:38:
Yes yes, it's your blog. You are welcome to state these obvious fundamental differences in our opinion. However, as always it'd be nice for you to notice that I am not relying on the existence (or non-existence) of God in order to interpret these passages for morality changes. They can be independently assessed for general internal and historical consistency wrt morality whether He exists or not.
Ok, here are just some of the reasons I think there is more to understanding that verse than a cursory reading would suggest:
1 - Under the heading of Time and Culture context, it is clear that slavery of the downright evil kind that we associate the word with now did exist. Many of the current superpowers, Egypt, Rome etc, accepted slaves as completely disposable assets and treated them terribly. In Rome for example, "the master could treat the slave as he pleased, could sell him, punish him, and put him to death" (Dict. of Greek & Roman Antiq. p. 1036). And this was the ordinary state of the law, particularly in Oriental countries.
However, these rules in Exodus actually stand as pretty much the first evidence in history of any specific employee focussed legislation and yes even protection, in stark contrast to these other nations. Through situations of extreme poverty, 'selling yourself as a servant' was an option that provided lodging and food for your family and was an understood option in Israel. Leviticus: 25:39 "And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant". (KJV)
That passage in Lev' also makes obvious the distinction between 'servant' (the word used in your Exodus quote) and a 'bondservant' which equates more to 'slave'. The NIV version of Lev 25:39 makes this clearer: "If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do NOT make them work as slaves". The very next verse however makes it clear what a servant is. Lev 25:40: "He shall be with you as a hired man, as if he were a sojourner; he shall serve with you until the year of jubilee…" Clearly they understood a difference, and there were protections for servants in many of these legislative passages in Exodus.
It also makes clear that although terms like buy, sell, property etc are used and might sound like endorsing 'slavery', they are not conclusive wrt a moral issue at all. These terms are even still used today in scenarios we don't have any problem with. Pro sports players for example are bought, sold and traded by clubs all the time, and are considered that clubs 'property'. Of course the conditions aren't the same, but that these terms are used does not automatically bring a moral issue - again it depends on the work conditions involved.
Work conditions for Hebrew servants included food and lodging, and also provision not only for freedom after no more than 6 years (Lev25:40 again, and also Exodus 21:2, the same chapter as your verses) but also the ability to recover any ancestral property that was forfeited. Totally not 'slave' like. It also provided protection from physical mis-treatment - Exodus 21:26 & 27 give a couple of examples where the servant must actually be set free immediately if they are harmed due to physical abuse.
Exodus 21:20 makes it very clear that killing (murdering) your servant is absolutely wrong. What is meant by 'shall be punished' is pretty clearly 'put to death' after reading the rest of this chapter, so it is also a most serious crime. This is obvious surely and should be wholly indicative of the general morality of the day. After all, these verses also come straight after Ex 20, where the 10 commandments are recorded, that agree that 'You should not commit murder. (Ex 20:13)
So clearly, the 'difficulty' here lies with understanding v21. Firstly, that the intended meaning is that the servant dies after a few days is not actually certain. The verse in NIV and many others is: "but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property." Also consider the almost parallel verses just before in v18 and 19 of Ex 21: "If men have a quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist, and he does not die but remains in bed, if he gets up and walks around outside on his staff, then he who struck him shall go unpunished; he shall only pay for his loss of time, and shall take care of him until he is completely healed. It is reasonable to draw the parallel meaning with the next two verses, as some translations have done.
I'm not gonna rely totally on that though, because I agree that it isn't entirely clear to us today. It would have been clear to them however, and remember this is just a historical record of the laws of that day, which applied ONLY to OT Israel. What is clear though, is that either way a marked distinction is being made between murder (v20) and EITHER serious physical abuse OR at worst case manslaughter (v21). Clearly the intention was NOT to murder the servant, and the crime is labelled differently.
Suggesting that Ex 21:20 actually gives approval for abusing your servant, because the punishment is different for whatever crime actually occurs in v21 - well this is simply false. That is like suggesting that today's courts actually approves of abuse or manslaughter, simply because they too inflict a lesser punishment for that than we do for first degree murder.
The fair understanding of the words 'he shall not be punished' in v21 means he shall not be put to death, but this does not mean he does not pay severely for his crime. Because other verses in the same chapter suggest that the servant would have been set free for such abuse, then there is at very least a large loss of income for the owner (up to 6 years of works worth), at most a large monetary payment made to the servant. The laws simply recognized the large financial loss the owner will 'pay' for his crime.
None of this is obvious when taking one verse alone and using todays limited understanding. A more intellectual treatment than the one provided by evilbible.com is required. The morality of God both then, and as made clear in the NT, has not changed, simply because the morality of humanity has changed since then. And just for you - I'll add the words 'if He exists'. Cheers.
Comment 6 by OJB on 2015-04-07 at 17:30:57:
I stated those points of agreement and difference because you asked me to in comment 3.
In fact some ancient civilisations had extensive slavery and some didn't. Your portrayal of slavery by the Romans and Greeks is a bit unfair because their treatment was in some ways quite reasonable. For example many slaves were given their freedom and could then exist as citizens with few disadvantages. Also many slaves occupied fairly well regarded positions in society.
According to many commentaries on the passages the slave was the possession of the master and if the slave died after a few days following a beating then the loss of that possession was considered an adequate punishment for the act of murder.
This is what the Bible says, despite your multiple paragraphs of attempted excuses. Is this OK with you?
Comment 7 by OJB on 2015-04-07 at 19:59:57:
Also, just to make one thing clear: I never base my comments on sources which I know are already biased (like "evilbible"). One of the basic things I do as a skeptic is carefully check anything which I find and want to be true. In this case I used biblehub.com to get some commentary and view different interpretations of the material. I also checked with a few fundie sites who seemed to be offering the standard excuse: that's just the way it was back then. There's also Trae's comment (number 1) above which clearly shows total lack of understanding.
Comment 8 by richard on 2015-04-08 at 10:02:13:
LOL - Let's be honest about this. Your opinions on desert nomads etc etc are already very clear and were unnecessary in this context. It was fairly obvious I was asking only for clarification on whether the approach to a fair interpretation of written texts I had described was reasonable.
I am not meaning to pick on the Romans or Egyptians etc. It is not 'my' portrayal of Roman / Greek slavery - I cited the reference to support that. I am sure they had some fine examples of more servant like 'staff' as well. It does not change the fact that these passages were among the first that provided a measure of protection for servants, when considering the far tougher environment at the time than we enjoy today.
You can hardly fault me for multiple paragraphs in reply, when clearly they help (and in fact are required) to support a case that there is more to understanding the meaning of that single small snippet you chose than reading it alone provides. I think I already showed 'reasonably' (i.e. with adequate reason) why it is not 100% certain that 'this is (precisely) what the bible says'. It is very hard for us to comment with any credibility on these laws that have little relationship to todays laws and culture.
Re Comment 7: I appreciate and commend your research diligence Owen - I really do. I readily agree with you that 'just the way it was back then' is not an adequate answer. However, it does remain a factor in the equation. William Wilberforce, who was motivated to campaign against the slave culture of his day precisely because of the Christian message of 'neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free' (Gal 3:28) did so by encouraging change from within that perverse culture / political / even religious system that existed at the time. Godly men like WW have a huge amount to do with why we do enjoy the culture we have now, with schools, orphanages, aid organisations, hospitals, etc etc.
Comment 9 by OJB on 2015-04-08 at 15:47:42:
So it seems like you are saying that these laws are probably unacceptable by today's standards but were as good as, or better, than most others at the time they were written. Is that it? Is that not just the "just the way it was back then" answer which you agree is inadequate?
OK, I agree that some people used the Bible to oppose slavery but just as many used it to support it. So at the very least the Bible is neutral on this point. And that is pretty much the same for everything else. As time has passed people have become more accepting and fair, but not because of anything the Bible said. The Bible has just been twisted to support what people want to believe for other reasons.
Comment 10 by richard on 2015-04-08 at 16:43:25:
No, I thought I said that wrt to such detailed specifics it is very hard to comment with credibility on the merits of one vs the other, due to the changes in morality & environments involved. I was agreeing that using that as a pithy catch phrase on its own wasn't sufficient.
And no - I have said repeatedly in other posts that just because some used the Bible to support slavery, doesn't make the Bible neutral on the matter. WW was able to improve the moral culture by showing just how those that used the Bible to support slavery were wrong. Yes, it is remarkable that there are plenty of other topics (especially today) in which people use the Bible to support totally opposing sides of a moral issue, but see how very few arrive at the conclusion you did that the bible must therefore be 'neutral on it', because the two sides must somehow balance out. No they stick to the opposing viewpoints. This shows two things:
1 - The bible usually isn't 'neutral' on the issue. A full and fair reading will provide enough required clarification. Might not be as crystal clear as we'd prefer, but most definitely 'fit for purpose'.
2 - The very nature of morality is that people will always do what 'they want to do', and if what they want to do aligns with biblical morality then ain't that lucky for them. More often however it does not (and that is true for all of us btw, me included!), and so the real temptation is to do exactly as you said - twist the bible to support what people want to believe for other (self-serving) reasons. That's powerful motivation to 'ignore the pretty obvious'.
Comment 11 by OJB on 2015-04-08 at 19:39:15:
The problem is that this "full and fair" reading you refer to is entirely dependent on the person doing the reading. People with opinions entirely contrary to yours make exactly the same point .Why? Because there is no underlying meaning in a book written by ignorant bronze age desert nomads and it is dangerous to pretend there is.
The second problem is that there is no "Biblical morality" because the meaning of the Bible is so open to interpretation. Again, supposing that this primitive writing has any real deeper significance is dangerous because it gives people a platform to support their bigotry.
Comment 12 by OJB on 2015-04-08 at 19:44:05:
Here are a few translations of Exodus 21:21 from various versions of the (evil) Bible...
New International Version: but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.
NET Bible: However, if the injured servant survives one or two days, the owner will not be punished, for he has suffered the loss.
New Living Translation: But if the slave recovers within a day or two, then the owner shall not be punished, since the slave is his property.
Darby Bible Translation: Only, if he continue [to live] a day or two days, he shall not be avenged; for he is his money.
So please tell me: is this OK for a "loving god", whatever the norms of the day might be?
Comment 13 by richard on 2015-04-09 at 13:08:04:
RE Comment 11: Sorry Owen, but this is just plain nonsense. Do you understand the meaning of full and fair? You are actually suggesting that any and all discussion and analysis in order to resolve a possible interpretation problem with written text is ultimately fruitless. If that issue really exists as you claim, it must equally be applied to all writing everywhere, including historical texts like the bible, koran, shakespeare, waitangi tribunal etc, every scientific journal ever written, every post in your blog, (including my responses). All are with each passing day are becoming old historical texts written by... - does this make them somehow non understandable now? Of course not.
RE Comment 12: Nothing new here at all - This was your original post?! I specifically and completely answered this already. I don't need to again. Read the thread as many times as you feel the need to. You are of course free to not agree with nor like my response, but no point in just posting the same thing again because of it. :)
Comment 14 by OJB on 2015-04-09 at 15:40:31:
Yes, I understand what I interpret "full and fair" as meaning. It might differ slightly from your interpretation maybe? Sort of a meta-problem we have here!
No, I think there can be a consensus on what many texts mean but it very much depends on the nature of the text. There are some where a deeper, consistent meaning is impossible because it simply doesn't exist in the first place. A "full and fair" interpretation of the passages involved starting with the fact that the Bible is a collection of semi-independent myths written by various anonymous writers will be quite different from a "full and fair" interpretation from someone starting with the mistaken belief that the Bible has some divine meaning.
I just included those differing interpretations to show what the actual verse says using varying translations.
Your excuses were somewhat unconvincing, I'm afraid. Here's why...
You say slavery existed at the time and the Romans treated slaves badly. I found a reason to think this was an unfair conclusion and you agreed. But even if slavery was common does that make it right? Of course not.
And there were clear procedures operating regarding slavery in other cultures which were at least as fair as this horrible immorality in the Bible. Again the Bible is nothing special and even if it was, it sets a pretty low standard.
Look at the translations. We are clearly talking about slavery here. We are talking about ownership and the death of the slave being primarily an inconvenience to the owner. Evil stuff.
So you think these slaves were like sporting transfers? Trivialising it a bit, aren't you. Well I don't think it's quite the same because in the end the modern examples only sign up to that system voluntarily. That wasn't the case for slaves as a rule.
You are talking about Hebrew servants. I am talking about slaves. The Bible makes specific references to which nationalities can be slaves and which not. Evil.
It isn't clear at all but one thing is clear: if someone beats their slave and he dies after 2 days then there is no punishment because the slave belonged to him and the loss of the monetary value is sufficient punishment. Pretty evil, don't you think?
So it applied only to Israel at the time? Slavery and murder was OK there and then but not at other times and places? Where is this absolute morality we keep hearing about?
So you seem to be agreeing that if an owner kills a slave and it takes a few days for the slave to die then the loss of the value of the slave is sufficient punishment. I'm sure you would never believe this if your religion didn't insist on following such an evil book.
Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate
Comment 15 by 9942507 on 2015-04-09 at 17:41:31:
No - As far as most people are concerned what is important in a full and fair reading is determining what message the original author intended to convey, according to their philosophical position, not what you or I choose to get out of it, based on our personal philosophical bias. You simply don't have the right to apply your preferred bias to it in order to infer other meanings not intended. Your insistence that this is OK, shows clearly you do NOT understand what a 'full and fair' reading is. I wouldn't stoop to applying theistic principles to interpreting text from 'The God Delusion'.
As for the rest - again nothing at all new here that I haven't already answered differently to your inconsistent and sometimes downright fictitous characterisations. On the one hand you claim 'no punishment', then the next 'sufficient punishment' in the same sentence? No where have I ever suggested it is saying slavery and/or murder is OK then or now?!
And you haven't offered any help for us at all on what the 'non-evil' way to deal with these crimes is?
Sad if you think that last comment by Weinberg actually makes any real sense. Rather like Hawking, another brilliant Nobel Laureate in Physics, they both starts to look pretty silly when attempting to do philosophy. Perhaps we should ask what a 'good person who does evil things' looks like?
Another fun one though - thanks.
Comment 16 by OJB on 2015-04-09 at 22:22:29:
Of course we should try to recover the original message, that's obvious, but my point was that how you do that will depend a lot on your worldview. You say we should interpret the text "according to their philosophical position" but what that position was will never be known since we don't even know who most of the authors were.
You don't find my arguments convincing? Well now you know how I feel about your attempted justifications. The difference is that mine are supported by the multiple literal translations I have quoted.
Non-evil ways to deal with the crimes? Yes. First, no slavery. Second, if someone causes someone else to die even after several days it's still murder. Pretty simple really and exactly what any reasonable person would think... until they read the evil Bible.
I think you are basically a decent person yet you defend the most obnoxious and immoral rules just because it is a particular old book. I can be almost certain that if this same text was in the Koran you would have a completely different attitude. So you must be able to see how a good person could be corrupted by the need to follow this stuff instead of thinking for themselves?
Comment 17 by richard on 2015-04-10 at 09:16:24:
Actually, I am not defending the rules that you claim exist at all, merely defending a fairer interpretation of the specific passages you cherry picked by using approved methods. Read the thread again - and again until that sinks in.
No 'slavery' - of course! If only you were around back then to bring the simple answer to their darkness. So you would rather see ancient families including children starve and die due to poverty than the only alternative available - be able to take a contracted position of servant with the security of food, shelter and more employee focussed legislation than had ever existed before, and knowing that the contract will end in six years.
Unfortunately for you, the law even today disagrees with your simplistic notion, when it too makes a distinction between murder and manslaughter, and it is not 'evil' to do so. Then as now, doing so in no way provides approval for either act.
And it is unfair (and unjustified) to assume that if texts in the Koran were cherry-picked and used to mis-represent its message (and I understood a different perspective based on the appropriate methods of interpreting the written text as already discussed) that I would not be equally 'fair' about it, and try to restore the balanced viewpoint.
Funny how the game posts change wrt the Weinberg quote - so now my attempt to present said balanced viewpoint on this small passage is the sort of 'evil thing' that he meant?
Comment 18 by OJB on 2015-04-10 at 10:25:09:
You are trying to defend the Bible by using a methodology which attempts to avoid the problem. Whether that is "fairer" is very much a matter of opinion. I "cherry picked" the passage because it is one I had problems with. I'm not saying that one passage proves everything in the Bible is bad and have already said there is a lot of good stuff too.
I didn't need to be around back then though, did I, because that was your god's job. On the other hand maybe it would have been better if I was because your god seems to have done a poor job of moral leadership.
Remember we're not talking about work, we're talking about slavery. Yet again you seem to be justifying it as OK. Why would you do that except to defend the indefensible? Another good person gone bad because of religion.
Let's put it in a modern context: if I had an employee (because we are now more moral than the Bible and don't allow slaves) who didn't work well for me and I beat him and he died two days later I should be just left with no punishment at all? The distinction between murder and manslaughter is basically irrelevant.
I'm not misrepresenting the message at all, you are. I have shown several translations which all say that slaves are property and that there is no punishment if you kill a slave and it takes more than two days for him to die. How much clearer can it be?
Clearly supporting evil behaviour encouraged by the Bible in the distant past is at the low end of the scale, but it demonstrates the principle that some people who might be less sensible or well balanced than you could (and do) take to greater extremes.
Comment 19 by richard on 2015-04-10 at 17:48:35:
Once again. There is no point in you continuing to regurgitate the same objections that I have dealt with already. I never suggested you were implying that one verse means all the bible is bad - I read your original post where you clarified that just fine! But it is not 'good science' to interpret one verse alone without context - clearly leads to errors.
I accept you don't agree with the assessments I have offered as to why those passages aren't a case of 'how much clearer can it be' as you suggest. But to suggest I am 'clearly supporting evil behaviour encouraged by the bible in the distant past is grossly unfair. You can't accuse me of supporting the scenarios that your interpretation of the text creates.
Actually, to be fair to you and your criticism of me, I have never actually stated that I am entirely comfortable with the scenario back then as I have interpreted it! Of course I'd prefer a scenario where no slavery exists or existed at all, just like I am sure we both prefer a scenario where no murder (or manslaughter) occurs or occurred at all. Yet these laws existed and still exist in our statutes today, because they have to. Heck, forget 'slavery', I'd much prefer a world where no 'work' is required either - maybe it is 'criminal' that I have to 'work' at all to earn money to feed my family. Then I grow up and return to reality.
Comment 20 by OJB on 2015-04-11 at 00:14:29:
No, sorry, I can't let you get away with this deliberate obfuscation.
If you look at this verse just by itself two things are clear: 1. the writer has no problem with slavery and makes no comment about it being unacceptable; and 2. if someone beats a slave leading to his death at a later date then the punishment is zero or minimal depending on how you look at it.
Do you agree that looking at just this verse those two facts are clear, there's no room for any other interpretation as far as I can see.
So if you think there is a greater message we should look at please show me the verses in this context which counter either of these conclusions.
Comment 21 by richard on 2015-04-13 at 13:21:24:
Sigh - We agreed right at the start that 'looking at the verse by itself, with todays understanding and vocab can lead one to that type of conclusion', so why ask again?
My earlier responses firstly explained why looking at one verse by itself is a flawed and quite frankly a lazy approach, and you agreed - yet oddly you continue to insist on it?! The alternative interpretations I supplied (including multiple references to justify them) are clearly at odds with the interpretations 1 & 2 you have just listed (yet again) in comment 20 in multiple ways.
Hence there is little reason to think you are actually trying to treat this subject 'reasonably'. You are free to disagree and have done so repeatedly, but nothing is gained by simply repeating your same interpretations as if that somehow enhances your argument.
Look, how about bearing in mind that the entire book of Exodus is named that, because after suffering generations of captivity and slavery by the Egyptians, Moses was only able to lead the Hebrews on an exodus, after the Egyptian Pharaoh finally 'softened his heart' and accepted the multiple 'messages' that God 'sent'. All those plagues were completely avoidable btw had he done the 'right thing' straight away. So what was this right thing that he finally agreed to? Moses made that abundantly clear every time - 'let my people go' i.e. captivity (and slavery) against their will is wrong. If the whole point of the entire BOOK isn't a clear message against the notion of slavery I don't know what is.
Whether the story is even true or not is irrelevant (because I know how you will respond to this in advance), but you'd be committing a logical fallacy to simply reject the account as impossible and therefore untrue fables. That isn't the point. The only point under discussion in this thread is what messages are these pages saying overall, re slavery, whether fables or not, and I think the fact that the entire book is about escaping the evil of slavery and captivity gives a message that is un-mistakable.
Comment 22 by OJB on 2015-04-13 at 13:39:16:
Just checking. You agree with my interpretation of the verse then.
Yes, well we all know that the Exodus is fiction right? I mean, practically every archaeologist agrees it didn't happen. I'm just checking because I'm never really sure what you believe and don't believe.
So to sum up, you can't provide any related verses which contradict the ones we have been discussing. Do you know why? Because as far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong) the Bible doesn't specifically outlaw or even discourage slavery.
Is this really meant to be used as a moral guide? Why use a book which can be described with some justification as "evil" as a moral guide? Maybe that explains the apparently endless atrocities committed by Christians over the last 2 millennia.
Comment 23 by Derek Ramsey on 2016-11-15 at 17:19:52:
Have you ever trusted someone enough to do what they say without questioning them, knowing that they have your best interests at heart?
Comment 24 by OJB on 2016-11-15 at 17:20:27:
Call me a sad, cynical person if you wish, but I question everything. Even if I think a person has my best interests at heart they could still be making a mistake, so I examine everything before acting on it or taking it as fact.
Comment 25 by Derek Ramsey on 2016-11-15 at 17:21:27:
evilbible.com is so one-sided, shallow, and context unaware that it makes for a very poor refutation of the Bible. The site must be taken seriously only because so many people falsely think it is good argumentation. Here are some observations on the slavery issue:
Slaves were property, usually collateral for debt. This was an economic distinction, not a moral one. A slave was property, but still human. The owner was allowed to punish, but he was not authorized to kill. Lesser crimes should result in lighter punishments. Suggesting that the Bible says that beatings were encouraged or allowed for any reason is just silly. If a slave ran away from his master because he was abused and took asylum, he could not be returned to his master.
In general slavery of fellow countrymen was temporary and what we would call indentured servitude. If the slave chose permanent slavery, the owner was obligated to care for that slave for life. The option of permanent slavery was the slave’s to make. The contract was up to 6 years or life. There was no option to discard an old slave after their peak years had gone by or to rid them of their family. If the slave was a foreigner, the owner took on a lifetime duty to care for that slave, because that slave could never become a property owner. The duties of master and slave are not one-sided but had mutual obligations. Slavery was a form of social welfare in addition to its economic function.
If you want to make an argument that the alternatives to slavery (e.g. starvation, poverty, economic theft, etc.) were preferable, then by all means do so. Sure the Bible allowed slavery, but if you think it advocated the modern abusive sense you are deluding yourself.
Is slavery fundamentally immoral as described above? Are loans immoral? How about high interest rates? Is an extended employment contract immoral? Is welfare immoral? Should charity be mandated? It’s quite obvious that ‘slavery’ (a loaded word if I ever heard one) as a wide concept isn’t fundamentally immoral any more than we can make sweeping judgments about a whole host of social issues. Probably most historical implementations of slavery are absolutely fundamentally wrong, but we seem to have lost the ability for nuance.
If there are more compelling arguments regarding slavery and the Bible, they are not presented on evilbible.com.
Comment 26 by OJB on 2016-11-15 at 17:21:53:
I think I made it fairly clear that I understand the problems with the evil bible web site when I said “…I do have to say that it is rather one sided and ignores some contradictory material…”. In that way it is very much the same as the apologist sites which are full of obvious errors and oversimplifications, but from an opposite perspective.
I can’t believe that you are trying to justify slavery as OK. This is exactly the type of rationalisation that slave owners in the US used. I’m pretty confident in saying that there is no way you would make this kind of argument if this material was sourced form anywhere else apart form the Bible.
And that is the danger of religion, because people have to believe stuff – even when it is untrue or immoral – just because it is in an old book, and their thought processes then become confused and illogical.
As Steven Weinberg said: “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
Comment 27 by Derek Ramsey on 2016-11-15 at 17:22:46:
I’m not trying to justify slavery. Why would I do that? Slavery is not something that society wants or needs. That wasn’t really the issue, was it? The original notion was that slavery was a fundamental evil. That’s about the most extreme moral judgment you can make. It’s not justified. That doesn’t mean slavery is a great thing. Nuance. Any society that can eliminate slavery and replace it with a lesser evil is an improved society.
I decided to address the issue because leaving such a one-sided view is dangerous. I’m not saying that people are going to flood your site to look for a counter-argument to evilbible, but it’s still an interesting discussion, as seen by your response.
“I’m pretty confident in saying that there is no way you would make this kind of argument if this material was sourced form anywhere else apart form the Bible.”
Why not? Selling one’s work to pay debts has been a foundation of economics for all time. Are you suggesting that the Bible should have forgiven people who racked up debt? Besides labor, how exactly would such a person pay off that debt? Should they have been beaten or killed instead? Perhaps left to starve? Or perhaps you believe in a society that bans credit?
“This is exactly the type of rationalisation that slave owners in the US used.”
Complete nonsense. Slaves were stolen. Slaves were treated as non-human. Slaves were abused. Runaways were returned. Slave owners were not living under Jewish law. You should be ashamed for uttering such a statement.
Comment 28 by OJB on 2016-11-15 at 17:23:10:
I think we all understand the difference between being an employee, being a servant, and being a slave. And I think we all know which of these the Bible was really describing.
And I agree that within the context of the society at the time in some cases it probably wasn’t a totally bad thing. But that means that the Bible was just a result of societal norms when it was written, and isn’t an absolute source of morals, just like any other book of philosophy, theology, or myth.
American slave owners used the Bible as a justification for owning slaves and treating them the way they did. Was that not the situation? Maybe, according to your interpretation of the Bible, that was an incorrect, and the Bible was also used as a justification to stop slavery. Any conclusion could be justified, and that’s the problem when people look for facts in a book of mythology.
Comment 29 by Derek Ramsey on 2016-11-15 at 17:25:06:
“And I think we all know which of these the Bible was really describing.”
No, apparently we don’t.
“But that means that the Bible was just a result of societal norms when it was written, and isn’t an absolute source of morals”
Of course these rules under discussion were for the intended society. But the Bible doesn’t just describe a specific economic and civil government system. It has moral guidelines, ceremonial religious guidelines, history, poetry, morality tales, and many other types of topics.
Can you draw broader conclusions from the specifics? Yes. The treatment of runaway slaves tells us, not that slavery is awesome, but that we should provide refuge to the abused. Separating underlying moral principles from specific civil codes is perfectly legitimate.
Your conclusion about absolute morals doesn’t follow for both reasons.
American slave owners used the Bible as a justification for owning slaves and treating them the way they did.
This is one of the great tragedies of American history, if not for Christianity as a whole. Any time the Bible or the name of Jesus is used to commit atrocities is a time of great sorrow. But you can’t tell me that slave owners were particularly interested in the historically accurate view of the Bible. You are absolutely correct that the Bible was used to stop American slavery. As it rightly was.
But this is a general issue with religion that should be addressed. Does terrorism in the name of Jesus indicate a problem with Christianity? Jesus was charged with terrorism and he was cleared of the charge. Do you know what to call terrorism in the name of Jesus? Disobedience. American slavery was also gross disobedience.
Comment 30 by OJB on 2016-11-15 at 17:25:37:
Well the problem is that you make all of these judgements based on your interpretation, and while I agree your interpretation is quite moral according to your and my moral codes, that doesn’t make it any more correct. The thing about these holy books is that everyone thinks they have the correct interpretation.
The Islamic terrorists think they are doing what the Koran tells them, and we could possibly make a good case to say that they are right. The same applies to the Bible. It is a book of “moral guidelines, ceremonial religious guidelines, history, poetry, morality tales, and many other types of topics” as you said. But all of these are confused and contradictory.
That should be no surprise since it is sourced from so many different authors (most completely unknown) over a long period of time and with quite different agendas.
I have no problem with that, as long as people recognise the Bible for what it is, and don’t think it is the word of God and has some absolute value and meaning.
Comment 31 by Derek Ramsey on 2016-11-16 at 10:16:45:
“The thing about these holy books is that everyone thinks they have the correct interpretation..while I agree your interpretation is quite moral according to your and my moral codes, that doesn’t make it any more correct”
The answer to this isn’t to get rid of God. It’s to get the correct answer. You throw up your hands as if to say that we can’t judge the difference between a Christianity that supports abusive slavery and one that abolishes it. Nonsense!
Your belief that there are no moral absolutes intrudes on your ability to call things what they are. You criticized me for being forced into defending an untenable position, but that is exactly what you are guilty of doing. Not everyone’s moral positions are equally valid. The one thing I can do under absolute morality is call a spade a spade.
Can we make the wrong moral judgment? Yes. So we try to learn from our mistakes and be humble and loving when making moral judgments. We should consider our own moral failings before worrying about someone else.
Most of the disagreements within Christianity (and between world religions) are not disagreements on morality. Most are differences on theological, doctrinal, and procedural points. When there are moral disagreements, they usually pertain to applied morality rather than essential morality.
“confused and contradictory”
When you see an apparent contradiction, do you assume that it is a contradiction or do you try to find out if there is another more sensible conclusion? Perhaps you are confused because you are unable to separate good from bad. Application of reason goes a long way. Evilbible.com takes the intellectually dishonest approach to contradiction and is almost completely worthless as biblical criticism. It is nearly impossible to distinguish the few good points amidst the overwhelming bad.
Comment 32 by OJB on 2016-11-16 at 10:17:17:
Yes, we should get the correct answer if there is one, but there isn’t. We are looking for meaning where none (or very little) exists. Religious texts are like the theological equivalent of a Rorschach inkblot test (without getting into a debate on the scientific accuracy of that test). People see what they want to see, in what is basically just noise.
You say not everyone’s moral positions are equally valid. I would mainly agree with that. Moral standards are the outcome of social norms and these change over time, but at any one time they do exist and different people’s values match them to lesser or greater extent.
When I see what looks like a contradiction I usually consult a source which supports the religion concerned to see how valid the explanation is. Sometimes there is a reasonable explanation, but usually there is just a ridiculous rationalisation.
We can argue all day about what is contradictory and what isn’t though. Here’s a fact which I think proves my point: Most Christians say they are following the same source (mainly the Bible) yet there reach wildly different conclusions. Clearly people’s interpretations of the Bible are full of contradictions. That doesn’t necessarily mean the Bible itself is but the end result is the same.
Comment 33 by Derek Ramsey on 2016-12-03 at 10:48:40:
we should get the correct answer if there is one, but there isn’t
There is the meaning as intended by the authors and the ‘deeper meaning’ or truth/correctness/applicability of that meaning. It is most certainly possible to determine the original author’s intentions (‘exegesis’) by a wide variety of critical literary techniques. Any ‘deeper meaning’ truths (‘theology’) that do not conform to the original author’s intentions are ‘eisegesis’ and should be tossed. So yes, we can easily judge some positions as more objectively valid than others. It just takes time and effort.
The problem with evilbible is that it horribly fails at proper exegesis and jumps straight to (anti-)theological statements. You do the same by assuming that no answer exists without demonstrating it.
It doesn’t matter what people think is the correct interpretation, but what is the correct interpretation. Your presupposition biases your judgment against anything that might contradict the assumption.
More formally:
(1) There is no such thing as absolute truth.
(2) Therefore, biblical interpretation is arbitrary (i.e. there is no correct answer)
(3) Therefore, there is no such thing as absolute truth in the Bible.
The third conclusion is circular with the first. Sometimes you make the argument assuming arbitrary interpretation to prove the lack of absolutes, rather than assuming lack of absolutes to prove arbitrary interpretation. If it isn’t circular, then I’m not sure which of the two you feel is the assumption and which is the conclusion. If you let me know, I can target my responses more accurately.
..reach wildly different conclusions..
I’ve already addressed this in my last comment. There is a high level of core homogeneity among the various branches of Christianity. Also, you fail to consider a host of other valid reasons for difference in interpretation other than the validity of the text itself.
full of contradictions
Hardly. There are precious few passages of the Bible that can even be considered critically contradictory when taken in proper context.
Comment 34 by OJB on 2016-12-03 at 10:49:17:
It is possible to guess at (to be fair, an expert’s opinion is probably a bit better than a guess) what the author’s original meaning might have been, but never to be sure. As far as deeper meaning is concerned, I think that often gets back to the inkblot test again.
I have heard many contemporary authors asked about meaning in their works say that there just isn’t any. It’s up to the reader to create meaning. Nothing wrong with that, if you are interested in fiction and mythology, but it’s not a path to the truth.
I’m not quite sure what you are getting at int the middle part of your comment. What I will say is that there is an absolute truth, but we can never be sure we know what it is. That’s more my philosophical perspective than a scientific one.
Contradictions exist in many forms in the Bible. There’s the big thematic ones like the OT teaches kill your enemy and the NT teaches love your enemy. Then there’s the errors in detail (which are everywhere) like the genealogy of Jesus.
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE