7 ms·

Many books are interesting and impressive. That doesn't make them divine. After reading this post, I do wonder if the author has read the entire Bible. I haven

by chroma 10y ago

Many books are interesting and impressive. That doesn't make them divine. After reading this post, I do wonder if the author has read the entire Bible. I haven't, but the parts that I have read ranged from mediocre to abysmal. The Pentateuch has some of the worst verses I have ever seen. Leviticus and Deuteronomy are rife with commands to kill people for trivial transgressions. And the Bible never speaks out against slavery. If this book is so holy and impressive, why is it wrong on the easiest moral issues? Imagine what an actual divine book would look like. It would put every human work to shame. It would contain proof of its divineness by explaining things that 1st-century scribes couldn't possibly know. It would be so densely packed with information on math, physics, biology, and morality that today's greatest minds would study it to create new technologies. It would explain the germ theory of disease, formulas for antibiotics, and treatments for cancer, Alzheimer's, and heart disease. The book would be so incontestably divine that deniers would hold the same social standing as flat-earthers. It would be so easy for a divine being to write such a book. Instead, we have a bunch of people squabbling over which millennia-old culture dump is authored by the creator of the universe. If that doesn't convince you of these books' human origins, I don't know what will.

fraytormenta 10y ago
Hey friend, I am the author. I ended up reading every verse, and learning Greek and Hebrew on my binge of curiosity, and the Bible continues to impress me. I would say that something that you ask had actually happened, just not in exactly the same ways as you imagine. There are also some factual errors in your post. For example, the Bible has a lot to say about slavery and is directly connected to its abolition. If you're looking for easy introduction on that try Stefan Molyneux's video cast on youtube on this subject (he is an atheist).
- brianobush 10y ago
  Slavery was present in the US until 1860 or so, and I think the bible was around a little before that time. The Bible does not specifically condemn the practice of slavery. It gives instructions on how slaves should be treated (Deuteronomy 15:12-15; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1), but does not outlaw slavery. I would not assert that the Bible has any connection to its abolition.
  - fraytormenta 10y ago
    Sure, but I got nothing to respond here to - a negative assertion cannot be proved or disproved. Do you have another causal historic explanation for the abolition of slavery? Do you mind providing an academic reference for your view?
    - brianobush 10y ago
      The fact that the bible has been around for thousands of years while slavery flourished and continued should be enough evidence. Asking for an academic reference is a bit off here.
      - fraytormenta 10y ago
        that's not enough evidence. i asked for academic reference, because i don't think engaging an uninformed minority view is fruitful if the person presenting the view didn't bother to learn what views there are out there to begin with. it is better to look to a professional historian - do you expect that I can present something better than they here in the comment section?
        dalke 10y ago
        In the US, the Bible was used by both the slavers and the abolitionists to justify their viewpoints. The abolitionist book "Uncle Tom's Cabin" was written in part to counter the pro-slavery argument that the Bible allowed slavery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery gives a overview, as does https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_slavery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_slavery . The latter gives this example of the acceptance of slavery by one Christian organization: > Since the Middle Ages, the Christian understanding of slavery has seen significant internal conflict and endured dramatic change. One notable example where church mission activities in the Caribbean were directly supported by the proceeds of slave ownership was under the terms of a charitable bequest in 1710 to the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts. The Codrington Plantations in Barbados, were granted to the Society to fund the establishment of Codrington College. In the first decade of ownership, several hundred slaves at the plantation estates were branded on their chests, using the traditional red hot iron, with the word Society, to signify their ownership by the Christian organisation. It also points out that "St. Thomas Aquinas taught that, although the subjection of one person to another (servitus) was not part of the primary intention of the natural law," and "Bede Jarrett, O.P. asserts that Aquinas considered slavery as a result of sin and was justifiable for that reason." "St Thomas' explanation continued to be expounded at least until the end of the 18th century." These two Wikipedia pages give many links to academic treatments, such as "Religion and the Antebellum Debate Over Slavery", of which the Amazon review says: "This anthology of original essays by historians explores the religious dimensions of the antebellum sectional conflict over slavery. Covering such familiar topics as the proslavery argument and denominational schisms, these essays emphasize the diversity that existed within regions, states, and denominations; the importance of local factors in shaping responses to the slavery controversy; and the powerful pulls toward moderation and unity that existed within the institutional church. Drawing on the recent flowering of scholarship on religion, the essays collected here provide a variety of new approaches, including quantitative methodologies and a heightened sensitivity to issues of race, class, and gender." I believe that for much of it 2000 years, yes, Christian religions supported slavery, based on Biblical interpretation. Enslaving Christians was prohibited well before enslaving non-Christians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_slavery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_slavery covers more details about the Catholic Church and slavery, and lists some observations by Cardinal Avery Dulles: "The popes themselves held slaves, including at times hundreds of Muslim captives to man their galleys." and "Throughout Christian antiquity and the Middle Ages, theologians generally followed St. Augustine in holding that although slavery was not written into the natural moral law it was not absolutely forbidden by that law."
- mikestew 10y ago
  For example, the Bible has a lot to say about slavery and is directly connected to its abolition. It also has a lot to say on the topic in that slaves are to continue to be subservient to their masters, thus supporting the point. If one reads it cover-to-cover and doesn't walk away with a stack of questions starting with "so which is it?" on just about any topic, you weren't paying attention.
  - fraytormenta 10y ago
    mike, you are confusing the impressions you got from the text with the impressions historical actors that banned the slavery received. those are different things.
    - mikestew 10y ago
      And this is how we go down the road of It Means Whatever You Want It to Mean: "well, when viewed in historical context..." I'm not some casual observer in this with an agenda. I've previously been a licensed pastor for a denomination you've heard of. Read the texts cover-to-cover more times than you have, studied Koine Greek and Hebrew with professors that have professionally translated texts. I'm not appealing to authority, nor trying to start a dick-waving contest, but a resume can sometimes lend some context of who you're dealing with. With that out of the way, I'll agree that historical context can be useful. But, man, I've seen that line abused more times than not. A section of text makes you feel a little uncomfortable? Hand-wave it away with, "oh, well, back then it was different..." For example, Jesus speaks of rich people and camels passing through the eyes of needles. I've heard that explained away with, "the wall of Jerusalem had a very short entrance, called the Eye of the Needle, through which a camel would have difficulty passing but it was not impossible." OMG, how many intellectual backflips do I need to do to feel comfortable with my lack of charity and emphasis on obtaining more stuff? How about we take Jesus at his word, and quit being so materialistic? So I personally come to an impasse: taking the Bible word-for-word literally isn't an option (I can explain why if needed, but I'll assume it's obvious), but one can go the other way with so much "context" that Jesus himself wouldn't recognize the religion you end up with. Hence my conclusion that the canon cannot have been divinely inspired. If there's a divine being who wishes a personal relationship with us as individuals, she needs to do a better job getting to the point. You and I can't even agree on whether or not this divine being thinks slavery is OK or not. That's some pretty crap writing if something so simple isn't made plain.
maxxxxx 10y ago
I grew up in a mildly christian environment and read almost the whole bible. I never could get a message out of it that was consistent over all chapters. The Leviticus stuff is really difficult to square with other chapters. It seems everybody picks their favorite chapters and ignores others.
crazy_geek 10y ago
> And the Bible never speaks out against slavery. Most people, when speaking about slavery, are only aware of American slavery. Slavery in ancient times was generally a very different thing. But yes, it does speak about what was American style slavery, which involved effectively kidnapping and forced slavery: Leviticus 21:16 "Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper's possession." Reading just bits and pieces of the bible doesn't give you the proper context to interpret properly. As for what you think an actual divine would look like, what a divine book looks like depends heavily on what God's purpose was in writing it, which is evidently different than what you would have it be. But in many people's estimation, it does put every human work to shame. As for explaining things that a 1st-century scribe couldn't possibly know, ummm, the Hebrew scriptures originated somewhere around 1400 B.C. or earlier depending on how you wish to count.
- brianobush 10y ago
  > Reading just bits and pieces of the bible doesn't give you the proper context to interpret properly. Right, but if you read more you will be utterly confused and find conflicting views. Which is why most people only pick the parts that they agree with.
  - crazy_geek 10y ago
    I've run into what appear to be conflicting views, but after some study, I'm able to resolve them. Usually it's understanding things in their proper context. That is: it's by reading more and paying more attention.
    - bwoj 10y ago
      For most people that hew to the teachings of the book, understanding the proper context involves a religious authority telling them which parts of the book matter and which ones to ignore because they don't matter any more. I would like for a divinely inspired book of ageless wisdom to not be so subject to the whims of interpretation.
NovaX 10y ago
I found reading the Talmud and Pirkei Avot to be helpful in interpreting the (Jewish) Bible. I also read a lot of history books which made it easier to understand the meaning behind what the authors were trying to convey, the challenges, and the culture. (As a Jew, I found the NT to make absolutely no sense and frustratingly illogical / inconsistent).
emdd 10y ago
If you would take a slight stroll from your worldview to the "Biblical worldview" you learn about the theology of inspiration. See, Christians (most traditions) believe that God did not write the Bible. It is the common belief that God inspired (or, more literally, God-breathed) the words through the guidance of his spirit through his followers. So, if you can put on that perspective, it would make sense why it is so embedded and entangled into the dozens of authors' cultural norms and approaches. It also would explain why it doesn't put other books to shame; they are all written by people! Since the theology of the authorship of the Bible specifically posits that it was written by people, then that would also explain why it does not address things that the writers did not know. Lastly, many of the writings of the Christian Bible (somewhat similarly for the Jewish Bible) were written for a particular occasion (this is even more true in the New Testament epistles and gospels). Thus, the message of those writings needed to have a purpose and the implied audience (as opposed to the empirical audience [see implied/empirical authorship/audience theory]) is the intended audience for the author. All this to say, that is why it's challenging to find truths that we can agree on when reading an ancient text, for ancient cultures, by ancient authors, and find application in a 21st-century world. It's not impossible, but that is the challenge of exegesis.
theandrewbailey 10y ago
The Bible has much to say about how God sees all people equally, that people should treat each other as family (it even teaches that humanity is the same huge family), and about how people should be as close to God as possible. The Bible wants you to think and realize on your own that slavery is a bad thing. > It would put every human work to shame. Are you talking about literary pieces, or everything done by humans? Because it attacks the latter: Romans 3:9-10 "What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one." Isaiah 64:6 "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags." > It would contain proof of its divineness by explaining things that 1st-century scribes couldn't possibly know. That would be counter productive. The Bible is meant for everyone to read and understand. If it tried to explain things that even educated people couldn't possibly know, the Bible would be as popular to read as EULAs. > It would be so densely packed with information on math, physics, biology, and morality that today's greatest minds would study it to create new technologies. It would explain the germ theory of disease, formulas for antibiotics, and treatments for cancer, Alzheimer's, and heart disease. The Bible emphasizes the spiritual, not the physical, and it told humanity to figure the world out: Genesis 1:28 "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." Proverbs 6:6 "Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise"
anowell 10y ago
It would seem that your desire for a divine book is one that centers on human advancement and academic knowledge. If God's highest desire was for our self-advancement, perhaps the bible might look more like what you described.

by chroma 10y ago

fraytormenta 10y ago

Hey friend, I am the author. I ended up reading every verse, and learning Greek and Hebrew on my binge of curiosity, and the Bible continues to impress me. I would say that something that you ask had actually happened, just not in exactly the same ways as you imagine. There are also some factual errors in your post. For example, the Bible has a lot to say about slavery and is directly connected to its abolition. If you're looking for easy introduction on that try Stefan Molyneux's video cast on youtube on this subject (he is an atheist).

brianobush 10y ago
Slavery was present in the US until 1860 or so, and I think the bible was around a little before that time. The Bible does not specifically condemn the practice of slavery. It gives instructions on how slaves should be treated (Deuteronomy 15:12-15; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1), but does not outlaw slavery. I would not assert that the Bible has any connection to its abolition.
- fraytormenta 10y ago
  Sure, but I got nothing to respond here to - a negative assertion cannot be proved or disproved. Do you have another causal historic explanation for the abolition of slavery? Do you mind providing an academic reference for your view?
  - brianobush 10y ago
    The fact that the bible has been around for thousands of years while slavery flourished and continued should be enough evidence. Asking for an academic reference is a bit off here.
    - fraytormenta 10y ago
      that's not enough evidence. i asked for academic reference, because i don't think engaging an uninformed minority view is fruitful if the person presenting the view didn't bother to learn what views there are out there to begin with. it is better to look to a professional historian - do you expect that I can present something better than they here in the comment section?
      - dalke 10y ago
        In the US, the Bible was used by both the slavers and the abolitionists to justify their viewpoints. The abolitionist book "Uncle Tom's Cabin" was written in part to counter the pro-slavery argument that the Bible allowed slavery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery gives a overview, as does https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_slavery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_slavery . The latter gives this example of the acceptance of slavery by one Christian organization: > Since the Middle Ages, the Christian understanding of slavery has seen significant internal conflict and endured dramatic change. One notable example where church mission activities in the Caribbean were directly supported by the proceeds of slave ownership was under the terms of a charitable bequest in 1710 to the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts. The Codrington Plantations in Barbados, were granted to the Society to fund the establishment of Codrington College. In the first decade of ownership, several hundred slaves at the plantation estates were branded on their chests, using the traditional red hot iron, with the word Society, to signify their ownership by the Christian organisation. It also points out that "St. Thomas Aquinas taught that, although the subjection of one person to another (servitus) was not part of the primary intention of the natural law," and "Bede Jarrett, O.P. asserts that Aquinas considered slavery as a result of sin and was justifiable for that reason." "St Thomas' explanation continued to be expounded at least until the end of the 18th century." These two Wikipedia pages give many links to academic treatments, such as "Religion and the Antebellum Debate Over Slavery", of which the Amazon review says: "This anthology of original essays by historians explores the religious dimensions of the antebellum sectional conflict over slavery. Covering such familiar topics as the proslavery argument and denominational schisms, these essays emphasize the diversity that existed within regions, states, and denominations; the importance of local factors in shaping responses to the slavery controversy; and the powerful pulls toward moderation and unity that existed within the institutional church. Drawing on the recent flowering of scholarship on religion, the essays collected here provide a variety of new approaches, including quantitative methodologies and a heightened sensitivity to issues of race, class, and gender." I believe that for much of it 2000 years, yes, Christian religions supported slavery, based on Biblical interpretation. Enslaving Christians was prohibited well before enslaving non-Christians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_slavery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_slavery covers more details about the Catholic Church and slavery, and lists some observations by Cardinal Avery Dulles: "The popes themselves held slaves, including at times hundreds of Muslim captives to man their galleys." and "Throughout Christian antiquity and the Middle Ages, theologians generally followed St. Augustine in holding that although slavery was not written into the natural moral law it was not absolutely forbidden by that law."
mikestew 10y ago
For example, the Bible has a lot to say about slavery and is directly connected to its abolition. It also has a lot to say on the topic in that slaves are to continue to be subservient to their masters, thus supporting the point. If one reads it cover-to-cover and doesn't walk away with a stack of questions starting with "so which is it?" on just about any topic, you weren't paying attention.
- fraytormenta 10y ago
  mike, you are confusing the impressions you got from the text with the impressions historical actors that banned the slavery received. those are different things.
  - mikestew 10y ago
    And this is how we go down the road of It Means Whatever You Want It to Mean: "well, when viewed in historical context..." I'm not some casual observer in this with an agenda. I've previously been a licensed pastor for a denomination you've heard of. Read the texts cover-to-cover more times than you have, studied Koine Greek and Hebrew with professors that have professionally translated texts. I'm not appealing to authority, nor trying to start a dick-waving contest, but a resume can sometimes lend some context of who you're dealing with. With that out of the way, I'll agree that historical context can be useful. But, man, I've seen that line abused more times than not. A section of text makes you feel a little uncomfortable? Hand-wave it away with, "oh, well, back then it was different..." For example, Jesus speaks of rich people and camels passing through the eyes of needles. I've heard that explained away with, "the wall of Jerusalem had a very short entrance, called the Eye of the Needle, through which a camel would have difficulty passing but it was not impossible." OMG, how many intellectual backflips do I need to do to feel comfortable with my lack of charity and emphasis on obtaining more stuff? How about we take Jesus at his word, and quit being so materialistic? So I personally come to an impasse: taking the Bible word-for-word literally isn't an option (I can explain why if needed, but I'll assume it's obvious), but one can go the other way with so much "context" that Jesus himself wouldn't recognize the religion you end up with. Hence my conclusion that the canon cannot have been divinely inspired. If there's a divine being who wishes a personal relationship with us as individuals, she needs to do a better job getting to the point. You and I can't even agree on whether or not this divine being thinks slavery is OK or not. That's some pretty crap writing if something so simple isn't made plain.

maxxxxx 10y ago

I grew up in a mildly christian environment and read almost the whole bible. I never could get a message out of it that was consistent over all chapters. The Leviticus stuff is really difficult to square with other chapters. It seems everybody picks their favorite chapters and ignores others.

crazy_geek 10y ago

> And the Bible never speaks out against slavery. Most people, when speaking about slavery, are only aware of American slavery. Slavery in ancient times was generally a very different thing. But yes, it does speak about what was American style slavery, which involved effectively kidnapping and forced slavery: Leviticus 21:16 "Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper's possession." Reading just bits and pieces of the bible doesn't give you the proper context to interpret properly. As for what you think an actual divine would look like, what a divine book looks like depends heavily on what God's purpose was in writing it, which is evidently different than what you would have it be. But in many people's estimation, it does put every human work to shame. As for explaining things that a 1st-century scribe couldn't possibly know, ummm, the Hebrew scriptures originated somewhere around 1400 B.C. or earlier depending on how you wish to count.

brianobush 10y ago
> Reading just bits and pieces of the bible doesn't give you the proper context to interpret properly. Right, but if you read more you will be utterly confused and find conflicting views. Which is why most people only pick the parts that they agree with.
- crazy_geek 10y ago
  I've run into what appear to be conflicting views, but after some study, I'm able to resolve them. Usually it's understanding things in their proper context. That is: it's by reading more and paying more attention.
  - bwoj 10y ago
    For most people that hew to the teachings of the book, understanding the proper context involves a religious authority telling them which parts of the book matter and which ones to ignore because they don't matter any more. I would like for a divinely inspired book of ageless wisdom to not be so subject to the whims of interpretation.

NovaX 10y ago

I found reading the Talmud and Pirkei Avot to be helpful in interpreting the (Jewish) Bible. I also read a lot of history books which made it easier to understand the meaning behind what the authors were trying to convey, the challenges, and the culture. (As a Jew, I found the NT to make absolutely no sense and frustratingly illogical / inconsistent).

emdd 10y ago

If you would take a slight stroll from your worldview to the "Biblical worldview" you learn about the theology of inspiration. See, Christians (most traditions) believe that God did not write the Bible. It is the common belief that God inspired (or, more literally, God-breathed) the words through the guidance of his spirit through his followers. So, if you can put on that perspective, it would make sense why it is so embedded and entangled into the dozens of authors' cultural norms and approaches. It also would explain why it doesn't put other books to shame; they are all written by people! Since the theology of the authorship of the Bible specifically posits that it was written by people, then that would also explain why it does not address things that the writers did not know. Lastly, many of the writings of the Christian Bible (somewhat similarly for the Jewish Bible) were written for a particular occasion (this is even more true in the New Testament epistles and gospels). Thus, the message of those writings needed to have a purpose and the implied audience (as opposed to the empirical audience [see implied/empirical authorship/audience theory]) is the intended audience for the author. All this to say, that is why it's challenging to find truths that we can agree on when reading an ancient text, for ancient cultures, by ancient authors, and find application in a 21st-century world. It's not impossible, but that is the challenge of exegesis.

theandrewbailey 10y ago

The Bible has much to say about how God sees all people equally, that people should treat each other as family (it even teaches that humanity is the same huge family), and about how people should be as close to God as possible. The Bible wants you to think and realize on your own that slavery is a bad thing. > It would put every human work to shame. Are you talking about literary pieces, or everything done by humans? Because it attacks the latter: Romans 3:9-10 "What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one." Isaiah 64:6 "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags." > It would contain proof of its divineness by explaining things that 1st-century scribes couldn't possibly know. That would be counter productive. The Bible is meant for everyone to read and understand. If it tried to explain things that even educated people couldn't possibly know, the Bible would be as popular to read as EULAs. > It would be so densely packed with information on math, physics, biology, and morality that today's greatest minds would study it to create new technologies. It would explain the germ theory of disease, formulas for antibiotics, and treatments for cancer, Alzheimer's, and heart disease. The Bible emphasizes the spiritual, not the physical, and it told humanity to figure the world out: Genesis 1:28 "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." Proverbs 6:6 "Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise"

anowell 10y ago

It would seem that your desire for a divine book is one that centers on human advancement and academic knowledge. If God's highest desire was for our self-advancement, perhaps the bible might look more like what you described.