Untitled topic

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.

>It is true that a person's interpretation of the Bible may be disproved

And given that that's all we really have, it's a sufficient analogue.

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.

> Why exactly do people need the bible?

Because people can be mistaken, misguided or plain wrong. We need an objective standard from God Himself, to know what is right and true. (Though, He does also provide some basic understanding of truth and beauty through nature, too.)

> Why is it that Christians are so skeptical of actual communication via prayer, that anyone who strongly professes to hear the divine might be suspiciously regarded as mentally ill?

May I suggest the word "Christians" be replaced with "people"? I for one am a Christian and know that people can interact with the supernatural. No need to consider someone mentally ill just because they are more attuned to the spiritual than others (even if not a Christian). One of the longstanding core of the Christian life is to spend time in prayer with God. The Bible acts as a point of reference to know whether our experience is of God or not. There are spiritual beings out there that seek to turn us away from the truth. These are the fallen angels, demons.

> Why are there no more prophets, judges, or anointed kings? Why are there no more miracles?

I for one know of several prophets. I have personally experienced or witnessed miracles. Just because one may not recognize something as a miracle or someone as a prophet does not mean there are none. The unseen world is ever present, both the good and the evil. Our modern society has in the recent past ignored (and some continue to ignore) that it is real just because we have not figured out a way to empirically prove it. The supernatural has the prefix of "super-" because it goes beyond the natural. This does not invalidate science, just as science does not invalidate the supernatural.

> Why do people need a book translated into English to reach the divine?

The Bible has been translated into many more languages than just English. Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic are the original languages used, not English.

> If one were to look at the severe intimacy that Jews and the first Christians experienced with the sacred, a natural thought is to think that Christians have been excommunicated from all spiritual reality.

I'm not sure I disagree with you. There are many examples that would seem to back you up. There are many examples that also refute this. The relationship comes from committing oneself wholly (fully) to follow Jesus Christ. How God chooses to work through and in that person may look different for each person. Just as each person has a unique combination of personality, talents, experiences and opportunities. We can say, though, the trend of a follower of Jesus Christ will be to look more like Him.

> How can this be a spiritual relationship with the Father to all things? How can that be a profession of a connection to spiritual reality?

Perhaps not all who say they have a relationship really know what that even means? This is one more reason we need the Bible - to help us know what God's standard is. If it were left up to me, my standard would not be good enough. My mercy would not be strong enough. My justice would not be complete enough. My ability to see things as they really are and still choose to love would not be pure enough.

Edit: corrected spelling and grammar.

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 gives a overview, as does 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 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."