I’m not trying to convert you or make you feel alienated, but … simply trying to convey a point that not all people who believe in God are anti-feminist, anti-racial equality, anti-homosexuality or generally exclusive assholes.

Sorry to have majorly threadjacked. If you want to talk more/privately, you can e-mail me at blindirishpirate at gmail.com

Relative to the bible: if the bible were written in an unambiguous and internally consistent way by one author making it clear that women were the equal of men and that slavery is a horror and that homosexuality is a fully normal and honorable mode for sexuality and that we cannot trash our planet and that we cannot have holy wars or any wars and with no specific requirements for worship etc etc then I might look at the bible with new eyes.

Others have suggested that if the bible had science far beyond its times that might be godlike.

But both of those approaches have flaws where you could reasonably say: that is no evidence for god.

I’m curious to know what IS god-like, to you?

…

Yeah, I have my biases. I had the opposite biases not too long ago. But I read the NT, and heard exactly the analysis you give, and other explanations. And then I chose. I’m open to listen to other interpretations, if new ones come to light. But I no longer believe that the NT is about love, even though I once did.

Not really. Textual analysis applies to the Bible the same as with any other written source. What you call the “standard interpretation” is looking at the words in historical context, with an eye to who the author and his audience were, and and what his message was. This is standard practice for any text, whether it’s the OT, the NT, Chaucer, Shakespeare, or the speeches of Abraham Lincoln. Whether you believe Jesus is God or not—and I, personally, do not—you can analyze his parables the same way you’d analyze any other text.

Everyone brings their own biases to Scriptural interpretation. You’ve told me many times that you think religion is invalid, negative, and that people who believe it are in error. If you’re reading a religious text, you’re going to seek out the parts of the text that supports that belief, even if you have to disregard other parts that don’t support it.

But let me bring my idea back around to the post, b/c I think this is a really good one, aside from me threadjacking.

As I said, I admit that your interpretation is the majority’s. It’s also the majority position when you said upthread You can always find textual inconsistencies if you look for them, especially in the New Testament, which was written by multiple authors at different times, none of whom were eyewitnesses. And they all focus on different, separate aspects of Jesus’s life. But the message Jesus… I think what you meant by that point in answer to me was that textual inconsistencies don’t outweigh other msgs.

We can take those techniques together: (1) let the stuff you prefer outweigh the stuff you don’t and (2) apply the “parable” logic to stuff that no longer flies and/or (3) look at the historical context and apply that as an out to stuff that no longer flies, so that we can discount it now.

If you add those up, you get an extremely flexible system that can apply whatever layer of pleasant rationalization to just about anything in either of the OT and the NT.

And so that’s why Exodus Intl. is doing something good and admirable, albeit small. The “goodness” of the NT is a gloss, IMO, as I said at the start. The goodness of Exodus’s action does not come from the NT. It comes from them! They have picked through the NT and the OT and come out with the right answer, even though there are just as many justifications not to. They have an insanely powerful and flexible system for convincing people of whatever they want to convince them of. They chose how to apply it.

By speaking in those metaphors, he was able to be an activist–”we’re oppressed!”–a messianist–”-We’ll be saved!”–and still make sure he didn’t cross a line that would allow the Romans to arrest him for sedition–”hey, I was saying everyone has to submit, not telling people to rebel!”

Slavery was an everyday reality in Jesus’s world, so it’s a metaphor his audience would have readily understood. I don’t think he’s endorsing slavery with that parable.

I am not certain that Jesus condones beating slaves here, but he is certainly indifferent to their suffering, right here. He is definitely condoning slavery, right here, IMO.

The standard response is to say that this is a parable. Nevertheless I still think the NT is not about love, and I think this is a clear example. Here’s why.

Jesus is speaking in parable about readiness. But, his example shows how slaves are treated in his day and age. He’s making a point about being prepared, and says “slave, do as your master wishes.” That’s verse 47. It’s pretty clear, he condones slavery.

Just before, in verse 46, it’s pretty gory and direct: Jesus describes a master violently attacking his slave.

Through this analogy, Jesus is making a point about being prepared. THAT’S your point, Jesus? You talk about masters beating and cutting their slaves and your point is be prepared, so you can avoid a beating? Do as your master wishes, so you can avoid bodily harm?

Also @ Rodriguez. If you were stating that Jesus is condoning the beating of slaves as well as owning slaves, I encourage you to not take the passage out of context. By focusing on one or two verses, you miss the whole picture. Jesus shared examples about slavery, not because he thought it was permissible, but because he was making analogies of slaves and masters to the people and God. When taken without the history, yeah, it’s a pretty tough one to swallow.

If that’s not what you meant, then disregard. So, how’s that for off-topic? Sorry.