Christians who reject the old testament and slavery

[Subduction Zone]

Define Devout™ since the Devout™ like me:

* Recognize the capital punishment the Bible describes for kidnapping [acquiring slaves]
* Don't promote rape and subjugation
* Are all abolitionist-minded

Then we can define whether you are a Devout™ skeptic or just like attacking the Bible and Devout™ Christians on forums.

Of course, had you actually ever studied the Bible instead of taking generalized incorrect potshots at it, your biblical "justification" would be those slavery-mongers who said Ham was black despite the cursed race being CANAAN as in the CANAANITES, a Semitic people.

There are True Christians™ and then there are slavery-monger degenerates of prior centuries who don't know how to study the Bible or know the Lord Jesus Christ from a hole in the head. Great people to take your own Bible cues from! NOT.

A no true Scotsman fallacy? Is that all you have?

 

[MJFlores]

Great, you agree that slavery is wrong.

So why does the Bible endorse it and never explicitly condemns it?

Slavery was the order of things in the ancient world and abolished in:

Britain abolished slavery throughout the British Empire with the Slavery Abolition Act 1833, the French colonies re-abolished it in 1848 and the U.S. abolished slavery in 1865 with the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

In my part of the world, the Philippines:

Tyrannical enslavement also disappeared since the datus were forced to free their slaves and the exchange of slaves in the weddings was not allowed after most Filipinos were converted to Christians. ... Spanish slavery, on the other hand, declined in the Philippines with the decline of slavery in Spain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Spanish_Slavery_in_the_Philippines

Is there an ancient civilization that did not practice slavery? I could not think of any. If the ancient Israelites practiced slavery, they did not start it Slavery existed from time immemorial.

The history of slavery spans many cultures, nationalities, and religions from ancient times to the present day. However the social, economic, and legal positions of slaves were vastly different in different systems of slavery in different times and places.[1]

Slavery can be traced back to the earliest records, such as the Mesopotamian Code of Hammurabi (c. 1860 BC), which refers to it as an established institution, and it was common among ancient people.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery

The Bible promotes to be slaves of God, to be slaves of God's law and to be slaves of Christ:

Romans 6:22 New International Version (NIV)
But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life.

Ephesians 6:6 New International Version (NIV)
Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart.

Romans 7:25 New International Version (NIV)
Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!

So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

Slavery is a thing of the past - it was an accepted order of things even those who have founded the United States of America. It was practiced by every nation and every known civilization way back then [unless you could give me a civilization which is not guilty of it]. It wasn't banned during those times, slavery was even enforced and legal by those governments. Henceforth the Bible teaches obedience to authorities also:

Romans 13:1 New International Version (NIV)
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

 

[sojourner]

You are conflating the treatment of fellow Hebrews, who were the equivalent to indentured servants in colonial days, with non-Hebrew slaves. Those people were slaves for life and their children were slaves as well. Do you need them verses?

Yes, you’re correct.

 

[joe1776]

Excuse me, but screw your infantile “wounded debater” comment, sir! It IS about scholarship. Wherever biblical texts are concerned it’s always about scholarship. Why is it about scholarship? Because (if you’d bothered to actually read what I wrote) we’re dealing with texts that 1) come to us out of a different culture, 2) come to us from ancient times, 3) are heavily edited and redacted, 4) are written in ancient languages that no one uses anymore, 5) contain several different types of literature, 6) were intended for a completely different audience, other than us, 7) have several different theological perspectives, 8) etc. Those are some pretty heavy-hitting hindrances to casual reading and easy understanding, and demand ... scholarship, in order to be understood. The word “scholarship” refers to the process of sifting through these filters so that people like you can be able to even read the texts in the first place — unless, of course, you’re fluent in ancient Hebrew and Koine Greek. The word “scholarship” refers to responsible reading, as opposed to “picking up a bible and giving it a cursory glance.” The word “scholarship” refers to the tedious process of doing your work for you of actually exegeting the texts.

Furthermore, your perception of my opinion is YOUR problem; not mine. If my interpretation is perceived as “better” than yours, there are a couple of legitimate reasons for that. 1) I’ve spent a fair number of years, including years of graduate study in how to exegete biblical texts, so, yeah, when I can do that (with high honors, thank you very much), it’s going to be reflected in the quality of the interpretation. That’s my profession, so, of course I’m going to be good at it. If you don’t want a doctor’s opinion, go see a pharmacy clerk for your cancer; you won’t get much quality help. If you do go to a doctor, don’t whine about his medical opinion carrying more weight than your own.


Intentionally provocative hyperbole. No one (except for you, that is) claims that I’m “the final authority on the text.” You’re just pi$$ed because I’m making sense and you can’t just dismiss the Bible as a total failure, based on some archaic ideas about human slavery that happen to be recorded therein, even though I’ve gone blue in the fingers typing out — not apologetics, but explanations for why it’s there, why it doesn’t apply to us, how it can be dismissed for our context, what it meant for the writers/intended audience as opposed to us, etc. ad nauseum. In response, rather than saying, “Gee, I wasn’t aware of that; thanks for the info!” You simply resort to a load of cheap ad hominem attacks on my education and level of awareness of the subject at hand.

It’s not about persuasion, it’s about lending some sort of factual information to an “argument” that is woefully devoid of such information. Atheists generally applaud themselves for their handle on “the facts,” (which is usually the reason they give for eschewing religious belief in the first place). I’m giving you facts about the texts, themselves, about the cultures out of which they come, about the social habits of the intended audience, and now you’re whining about the presentation of those facts as “intellectual elitism?” Give me a break! This is as bad as the Trumplings who grumble about “fake news.”


Oh, you conclude. You mean, the “you” who hasn’t bothered to actually exegete the texts to find out why the texts don’t condemn it? You’re happy to just “give it a glance” and spout a condemnation? And you expect us to regard that uninformed opinion with any sort of factual authority?


Pius (and others) were wrong, as you say. However: according to scripture, he was only “right” where bond-servants living in ancient Israel are concerned. According to scripture, he was wrong where 19th century American slavery was concerned, because the Bible doesn’t address 19th century American slavery issues. It does, however, address issues of oppression and dehumanization, which were hallmarks of that slavery. Plus, it presents a contradiction, which I readily admit. It pits the approval of bond-slavery against the condemnation of oppression and dehumanization. The only slack that can be cut is when Jesus taught that love for God and love for one’s neighbor (this would include the bond-slave) informs all the other laws (including the laws of bond-slavery, itself). These sorts of contradictions are problematic (as I’ve admitted previously).

Therefore, a slack-jawed, generalized statement that “the Bible condones slavery” is irresponsible, a terrible argument, and sets up a straw man argument intended to knock the Bible down as “authoritative.” Even though I’ve argued that the Bible isn’t authoritative in that regard, for the factual reasons I’ve mentioned.

Depending on which version of the Bible you studied, you had between 600,000 and 800,000 words, packed into sentences written long ago, with many of those sentences open to different interpretations.

Had a Christian said to me "I'm going to study the Bible, I think I can prove that... [fill in the blank], I would have said, "Well, of course you can."

I don't regard your work as "scholarship" because the word to me implies the diligent effort of an intelligent and unbiased mind examining evidence in the search for truth.

As a Christian, you aren't an unbiased mind. I don't doubt that you tried to be; but if you think you succeeded, then you're naive. You don't understand the sneaky and beguiling nature of bias.

You'd like to portray my opinion as the atheist position but the Roman Catholic pope Pius IX didn't find anything in divine law against the buying, selling and trading of slaves and neither do I. Only my conscience tells me it's wrong.

 

[sojourner]

Depending on which version of the Bible you studied, you had between 600,000 and 800,000 words, packed into sentences written long ago, with many of those sentences open to different interpretations

Correct. And the really difficult part for many to grasp is that the Bible is a multivalent thing, and will legitimately support any number of legitimate interpretations.

Had a Christian said to me "I'm going to study the Bible, I think I can prove that... [fill in the blank], I would have said, "Well, of course you can."

I’m not sure I would say that... Because “proving” isn’t the goal. “Understanding” is the goal.

I don't regard your work as "scholarship" because the word to me implies the diligent effort of an intelligent and unbiased mind examining evidence in the search for truth

Well, ok. You’re right, of course. There are levels of scholarship. I acknowledge that. Here’s the thing: Even though I don’t work specifically in the area of biblical scholarship, that is, I’m not a translator, or a professor, nor do I write books and articles, I have done the same process as part of my education — and I still do so on a weekly basis, as I deal with texts that need to be interpreted. So, yes, I understand the whole bias thing. Additionally, I (as well as any other scholar) recognize that bias is a problem for everyone, and that bias has to be dealt with proactively and diligently. And I’m not looking for apologist stuff. I try to recognize that the texts are what they are. And, I’ve admitted many times that some of the texts are highly problematic. But then, I don’t base my faith completely on “what the Bible says,” and in any way on some mystical “infallibility.”

As a Christian, you aren't an unbiased mind. I don't doubt that you tried to be; but if you think you succeeded, then you're naive. You don't understand the sneaky and beguiling nature of bias.

No one is unbiased, as I said above.

You'd like to portray my opinion as the atheist position but the Roman Catholic pope Pius IX didn't find anything in divine law against the buying, selling and trading of slaves and neither do I. Only my conscience tells me it's wrong

Well, Heii, anyone’s conscience should tell them that, and Pope Pius was WRONG. I hope you don’t misunderstand me to be trying to defend the biblical position for the morality of slavery. I’m not doing that. At all.
However, that said, if you read closely enough, you will find that, throughout the texts, slavery is dealt with, and, furthermore, the writers and commentators do take steps to move away from slavery, even if they never quite get there. I find that encouraging, and noteworthy. It does (at least for me) serve to make the texts more reliable with regard to their moral compass. They’re not perfect, but then, no human endeavor ever is.

Except for my wife.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I’m sure it’s still talking about debt-slavery.

Again, no. The Bible explicitly says that the Hebrews can own captured or conquered people as slaves, as well as own their slave's families and children. So the Bible is not exclusively referring to debt slaves or indentured servants.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Right. I never claimed it to be a reliable and inerrant guide for morality.

I never said you did - I was referring to the original posters I was responding to. Sorry for the confusion.

I understand what you’re getting at. Yes, I take issue with that, too. There are some problematic areas of the Bible that we just can’t explain away or defend equitably. MY point is that the slavery the Bible deals with is not the same kind of slavery that we normally think of when we hear “slavery.” No, that doesn’t make debt-slavery “moral.” But it does make it a better choice than the American alternative. AND, it doesn’t mean that the Bible would condone the American version, had it been in place at the time the Bible was written. That’s an irresponsible, blanket statement that’s indefensible.

But you don't have to compare the kind of slavery talked about in the Bible (which isn't exclusively debt slavery) to modern slavery or the slave trade in order to see it as abominable. I have referred to slavery, generally, as "one human owning another human as personal property to be bought, sold and inherited", which is something the Bible does specifically enable and I specifically condemn. Slavery doesn't become wrong at the point that slave ships, whipping posts and mass de-humanization enters into it - it becomes wrong at the point that a human being can be considered someone else's property. The type of slavery endorsed and outlined in the Bible isn't morally acceptable just because it's "not as bad as what happened in America later on", it's still morally repugnant.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Slavery was the order of things in the ancient world and abolished in:

Britain abolished slavery throughout the British Empire with the Slavery Abolition Act 1833, the French colonies re-abolished it in 1848 and the U.S. abolished slavery in 1865 with the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

In my part of the world, the Philippines:

View attachment 23289

Tyrannical enslavement also disappeared since the datus were forced to free their slaves and the exchange of slaves in the weddings was not allowed after most Filipinos were converted to Christians. ... Spanish slavery, on the other hand, declined in the Philippines with the decline of slavery in Spain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Spanish_Slavery_in_the_Philippines

Is there an ancient civilization that did not practice slavery? I could not think of any. If the ancient Israelites practiced slavery, they did not start it Slavery existed from time immemorial.

The history of slavery spans many cultures, nationalities, and religions from ancient times to the present day. However the social, economic, and legal positions of slaves were vastly different in different systems of slavery in different times and places.[1]

Slavery can be traced back to the earliest records, such as the Mesopotamian Code of Hammurabi (c. 1860 BC), which refers to it as an established institution, and it was common among ancient people.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery

The Bible promotes to be slaves of God, to be slaves of God's law and to be slaves of Christ:

Romans 6:22 New International Version (NIV)
But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life.

Ephesians 6:6 New International Version (NIV)
Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart.

Romans 7:25 New International Version (NIV)
Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!

So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

Slavery is a thing of the past - it was an accepted order of things even those who have founded the United States of America. It was practiced by every nation and every known civilization way back then [unless you could give me a civilization which is not guilty of it]. It wasn't banned during those times, slavery was even enforced and legal by those governments. Henceforth the Bible teaches obedience to authorities also:

Romans 13:1 New International Version (NIV)
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

You haven't answered my question. If slavery is wrong, why does the Bible not explicitly condemn it, and why does it repeatedly endorse it?

And I am specifically referring to one human being owning another human being as property which is something the Bible explicitly addresses and lays out laws regarding when you can buy, sell, trade, marry-off, rape and beat your slaves.

 

[serp777]

To us, yes. Apparently, some types were not immoral to some of the biblical writers.


No, Jesus didn’t. Those quotes come from the writers (not Paul) of Ephesians (6:5) and Colossians (3:22).


Not quite. The morality that the Bible specifies is dependent upon time and culture. This doesn’t mean that the Bible is “worthless.” It means that it is what it is: a repository of written information about the theological understanding of Hebrews and early Christians. Some is applicable, some is not. That’s the way it’s always been. This has NEVER been an “all-or-nothing” approach (until, of course, we come to the heresy of sola scriptura). I invite you to not impose that upon us.

No, Jesus didn’t. Those quotes come from the writers (not Paul) of Ephesians (6:5) and Colossians (3:22).

Then Jesus didn't say anything because his content comes from biblical writers. He never wrote his own content. You're not making a sensible point here. I didn't mean Jesus literally said it himself, just that it was purported that he said those things.

Not quite. The morality that the Bible specifies is dependent upon time and culture. This doesn’t mean that the Bible is “worthless.” It means that it is what it is: a repository of written information about the theological understanding of Hebrews and early Christians.

Then why should I listen or care about anything they have to say since i'm not apart of their culture. Its therefore a worthless moral guide. We should not base morality on the bible because we aren't hebrews.

Some is applicable, some is not. That’s the way it’s always been. This has NEVER been an “all-or-nothing” approach (until, of course, we come to the heresy of sola scriptura). I invite you to not impose that upon us.

Cherry picking. How did you determine what is applicable and what is not.

 

[sojourner]

Again, no. The Bible explicitly says that the Hebrews can own captured or conquered people as slaves, as well as own their slave's families and children. So the Bible is not exclusively referring to debt slaves or indentured servants.

You are correct. However, the bible is also clear that the Hebrews are taking steps to ameliorate that situation, so, while, yes, the bible does ostensibly "condone slavery," it also at least implicitly -- if not explicitly -- condemns the practice in their amelioration of it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You are correct. However, the bible is also clear that the Hebrews are taking steps to ameliorate that situation, so, while, yes, the bible does ostensibly "condone slavery," it also at least implicitly -- if not explicitly -- condemns the practice in their amelioration of it.

Amelioration (which is debateable) is not the same as condemnation. You can't honestly equate the two. Slavery is morally wrong, period, and if the Bible does not specifically condemn it and, in fact, lays out rules, regulations and instructions on how to do it (including instructions on a legal loophole whereby you can own your fellow Hebrews as property for life) then it can hardly be said to condemn the practice in any meaningful way.

 

[sojourner]

But you don't have to compare the kind of slavery talked about in the Bible (which isn't exclusively debt slavery) to modern slavery or the slave trade in order to see it as abominable.

Correct. But you also have to consider that much of the slavery (especially the kind to which Jesus referred) was debt slavery, which is a completely different animal.

I have referred to slavery, generally, as "one human owning another human as personal property to be bought, sold and inherited", which is something the Bible does specifically enable and I specifically condemn.

Apparently, that culture was also beginning to see the light, since it is recorded to be taking steps to ameliorate it. And remember, the laws concerning slavery aren't universal. They apply to those people at that time, in that place. So, for us, the bible does not "enable" slavery.

Slavery doesn't become wrong at the point that slave ships, whipping posts and mass de-humanization enters into it - it becomes wrong at the point that a human being can be considered someone else's property.

Correct.

The type of slavery endorsed and outlined in the Bible isn't morally acceptable just because it's "not as bad as what happened in America later on", it's still morally repugnant.

But morality is a malleable thing that changes from culture to culture and time to time. All the bible does is record the theological perspective of the time in which it was written. While we may believe slavery to be immoral, it was a very real practice at that time, and the bible records the people taking steps to lessen its impact.

 

[sojourner]

Amelioration (which is debateable) is not the same as condemnation. You can't honestly equate the two. Slavery is morally wrong, period, and if the Bible does not specifically condemn it and, in fact, lays out rules, regulations and instructions on how to do it (including instructions on a legal loophole whereby you can own your fellow Hebrews as property for life) then it can hardly be said to condemn the practice in any meaningful way.

You're right. However, none of that applies to us. So I don't see what the beef is. The bible culture did the best they could with what they had at that time. Can we condemn them for not being perfect in our eyes, when we have the KKK in our own history? Humanity in that time was barbaric. I believe the Hebrews were less so than many of their neighbors. Doesn't that count for something? The real issue is, for me, twofold. First, we have to look at the overarching theological tenor of the texts, which, obviously, is one of mercy, compassion, forbearance, hospitality. Second, we can't misuse the texts by insisting that every single detail in it apply to every single person in every single situation.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Correct. But you also have to consider that much of the slavery (especially the kind to which Jesus referred) was debt slavery, which is a completely different animal.

Not really. It's still a form of slavery, which is immoral. Do you not agree that owning people as property is immoral?

Apparently, that culture was also beginning to see the light, since it is recorded to be taking steps to ameliorate it. And remember, the laws concerning slavery aren't universal. They apply to those people at that time, in that place. So, for us, the bible does not "enable" slavery.

Again, whether or not they were taking steps to "ameliorate" slavery is debateable. For a book which declares itself an absolute moral authority, and which appears extremely progressive in many ways in its declarations of absolute right or wrong on the basis of authority, simply "ameliorating" slavery as a-posed to outright condemning it seems extremely problematic. We now accept that slavery is immoral, yet we have a book which many use as a basis for their morality that not only doesn't condemn slavery, but specifically instructs its adherents in the process of procuring, owning and selling slaves.

I think that to pretend that the Bible's stance on slavery isn't immoral is absurd, and trying to qualify or downplay its immorality is insane.

But morality is a malleable thing that changes from culture to culture and time to time. All the bible does is record the theological perspective of the time in which it was written. While we may believe slavery to be immoral, it was a very real practice at that time, and the bible records the people taking steps to lessen its impact.

I would happily accept that as an explanation for the Bible's content (and happen to believe its true myself), the argument is with the position of the Bible as a basis for morality in spite of its obviously immoral content. To you and I, these passages may be defensible (or, at least, understandable) as a record of the beliefs and cultural attitudes of the time, they are less defensible when you wish to assert the Bible as any form of basis for morality - much less a divinely-inspired book of unalterable authority. The issue isn't that the Bible documents slavery, its that the Bible's tacit approval (and it is approval if it is instruction without condemnation) is often glossed over or forgotten by many of its adherents or defenders, and downplayed with appeals to history.

 

[sojourner]

Then Jesus didn't say anything because his content comes from biblical writers. He never wrote his own content. You're not making a sensible point here. I didn't mean Jesus literally said it himself, just that it was purported that he said those things.

No, it wasn't "purported that Jesus said..." The writer was writing a letter to a church and made his own point about slavery. The writer said -- not Jesus.

Then why should I listen or care about anything they have to say since i'm not apart of their culture. Its therefore a worthless moral guide. We should not base morality on the bible because we aren't hebrews.

You don't. No one's asking you to. However, we who are members of the Church are tied historically to the Hebrews. Our theology is based, in part, upon what we find written in the bible, and our theology informs our morality. So, for us, the bible is a moral guide, albeit not the only moral guide. We also have continuing revelation from the church community, reason, experience, etc. All of it is used to consider moral questions.

Cherry picking. How did you determine what is applicable and what is not.

You can call it what you want to, but this is tantamount to deciding to not use the library, just because some of the books found there are distasteful for you, or refusing to go to the cafeteria, because you don't like some of the food they serve. Hey! I know! Don't ever buy a Chevy, just because you dislike the Malibu. Your "all-or-nothing" approach is infantile and unrealistic. We determine what's applicable by what serves the highest good of humanity. Yes, mistakes in that regard are made. But I bet YOU never made a mistake, did you?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You're right. However, none of that applies to us. So I don't see what the beef is. The bible culture did the best they could with what they had at that time. Can we condemn them for not being perfect in our eyes, when we have the KKK in our own history? Humanity in that time was barbaric. I believe the Hebrews were less so than many of their neighbors. Doesn't that count for something? The real issue is, for me, twofold. First, we have to look at the overarching theological tenor of the texts, which, obviously, is one of mercy, compassion, forbearance, hospitality. Second, we can't misuse the texts by insisting that every single detail in it apply to every single person in every single situation.

I refer you to my comments made above. What you're saying here is fine in terms of regarding the Bible as a simple cultural/historical document, but when you hold the book up to the standard of an unalterable, unfaltering moral doctrine, it needs to be held to an equally high standard of scrutiny. Your assertion that the "theological tenor of the texts" is positive is also debatable, since such views seem to only hold true if you ignore the negative aspects of the book itself (of which slavery is only one patently immoral thing it supports).

 

[BilliardsBall]

I’m not buying this argument. It’s very sloppy. “True Christians” and “degenerates” are not clearly-definable terms; they’re opinion. However, your assertion about bible study is spot-on. A legitimate interpretation only comes from a proper exegesis of the texts, and the development of a reasonable theological framework.

Respectfully, they are simply defined terms in the scriptures.

 

[sojourner]

Not really. It's still a form of slavery, which is immoral. Do you not agree that owning people as property is immoral?

Of course. But it's also a matter of degree within a particular cultural milieu. The companies we work for often "own us." And we will readily sell our souls to them in exchange for the carrots of health insurance and pension plans they dangle before us, because those things are necessary for us.

Again, whether or not they were taking steps to "ameliorate" slavery is debateable. For a book which declares itself an absolute moral authority, and which appears extremely progressive in many ways in its declarations of absolute right or wrong on the basis of authority, simply "ameliorating" slavery as a-posed to outright condemning it seems extremely problematic.

No, it's really not debatable. They wrestle with that issue, just as we wrestle with equally reprehensible moral issues. the lesson is in the wrestling.

I think that to pretend that the Bible's stance on slavery isn't immoral is absurd, and trying to qualify or downplay its immorality is insane.

Of course it is. But, again,l we're comparing apples with oranges, from a cultural standpoint.

To you and I, these passages may be defensible (or, at least, understandable) as a record of the beliefs and cultural attitudes of the time, they are less defensible when you wish to assert the Bible as any form of basis for morality - much less a divinely-inspired book of unalterable authority.

I disagree, and here's why. First of all, I don't believe for one second that its authority is "unalterable." Second, if we look at the overarching theological scheme of the texts (which is where their value lies) we find mercy, compassion, forbearance, hospitality, love. That is its basis as a moral foundation.

The issue isn't that the Bible documents slavery, its that the Bible's tacit approval (and it is approval if it is instruction without condemnation) is often glossed over or forgotten by many of its adherents or defenders, and downplayed with appeals to history.

Well... I think the time frame is very important to consider when trying to make sense of the texts. And, "glossing over" parts that simply don't serve our highest good is precisely what we do with many other sections, such as the wearing of 50/50 cotton/poly shirts. As I've mentioned to others, this isn't an "all-or-nothing" prospect. We don't throw the baby out with the bath water. There is nastiness in the bible, because there is nastiness in humanity, and the bible is a human product. I think that we can look at the distasteful parts and learn from them, precisely because they are distasteful, and we don't want to repeat those behaviors.

 

[sojourner]

I refer you to my comments made above. What you're saying here is fine in terms of regarding the Bible as a simple cultural/historical document, but when you hold the book up to the standard of an unalterable, unfaltering moral doctrine, it needs to be held to an equally high standard of scrutiny. Your assertion that the "theological tenor of the texts" is positive is also debatable, since such views seem to only hold true if you ignore the negative aspects of the book itself (of which slavery is only one patently immoral thing it supports).

I don't hold the bible up to that standard. I don't think it ought to be held up to that standard. And I don't think the theological tenor of the texts as positive is debatable. Get out of your own head and out from behind your own lens, and look at it through the eyes of the ancient Hebrews and Judeans for whom and by whom it was written. Do you not see how God cares for them, has compassion for them, has mercy on them, forgives them for indiscretions, provides pathways to reconciliation for them? Remember, they wrote it from their perspective, so, when God "smote their enemies utterly," they saw that as a good thing, because God was taking care of them. They didn't have the more universal view of humanity that we enjoy, and their writings reflect that. Therefore, we need to take that difference into consideration when applying its principles to our perspective and our time.

 

[sojourner]

Respectfully, they are simply defined terms in the scriptures.

No, they're really not. Plus, this is a "No True Scotsman" fallacy.