I just wanted to weigh in on one particular paragraph from Z:

***
I understand that there are a variety of ways to interpret the Bible. From my point of view, it’s a lose-lose situation — either you believe what is in the Bible word for word, which means you believe God approves of genocide, slavery, infanticide, oppression, and all sorts of other nasty things, or there are some things in the Bible you believe to be definitely true and some things you don’t. If you see some passages as metaphorical, better suited for ancient times than our day, or clearly a relic of the culture that wrote them down, why those parts and not others? Ultimately it is a concession that your own intuition trumps the Bible, which seems a lot more like an atheist position than a Christian one.
***
To address this briefly, I would say that just because something is in the Bible, does not mean that it is endorsed by God. The Bible is not just a record of God’s dealings with Man and visa-versa, but also a record of Man’s dealings with Man.
As such, you will find all manner of atrocities detailed in the Bible, but that does not mean that God places his stamp of approval upon them. Indeed, how could He address these things without listing them?
And finally, for having to take every word as literal, there is really no conundrum here at all; context is everything. This may not appear so apparent at first when one simply plucks a verse or two out of a book, but when you place it back in and look at the overall context, it will typically become obvious whether it is intended to be literal, metaphoric, poetic, etc. Of course, sometimes it is obvious immediately, and sometimes it takes some more study. The funny thing is, no one thinks a thing of doing textual criticism of Shakespeare, yet it is not so common with the Bible, which as argument goes, would be infinitely more important and immediately pertinent.
Thank you for your time.

I think I am the person who has questioned most radically of anyone I know. I questioned God’s ethicalilty, however, more than God’s reality. I think anyone who thinks God does not exist just has not done empirical testing!

Open minded, non-a priori-answered empirical testing.

BTW, notice it is not Christians who are killing babies.

And it is not now nor was it ever Bible-beliving Christians who committed genocide. (Fairly hard to square with a Lord who gave himself for others’ benefit; remember that is the central doctrine, as all agree.)

Great chat, thanks!

isn’t this how it got started in the first place one wanting to be higher than the other, to feel more superior and I think we have forgotten that.

That is exactly how I think religious oppression got started. “My big, strong, invisible protector in the clouds told me I’m better than you! Now do what I say or else he’ll make you burn for an eternity!”

I’m not asking for women to be superior to men. I’m asking for equality. It’s pretty clear that the Bible says that men are superior to women, and you seem to understand that. There may be examples in the Bible of women teaching or speaking, but I don’t see how you get around clear directives such as “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” That’s not just inferior, that’s subservient, that’s invisible.

If you don’t want to exercise your right to have your opinions and ideas considered alongside men’s opinions, fine; if you prefer to live life from the perspective that men are to women as God is to men, fine. But when you go around telling other women that they are inherently worth less than other human beings just because they don’t have penises, we have a problem. You are complicit in the oppression.

Yes, your old book says that men are better than women. But why does it say that? Think about what you wrote — “isn’t this how it got started in the first place one wanting to be higher than the other, to feel more superior” — could it be that the men who wrote the books of your Bible lived in very patriarchal societies, thought of women as inferior, and wrote that into their moral codes as well?

One parting thought — is there anything your God could command you to do that you would find too monstrous, too morally objectionable? If treating women as less human than men is okay, where does it stop? If you heard a message from God but that message told you to commit genocide, or kill babies, or whatever, would you continue to obey because God said so? Is there any point at which you would start to question God’s correctness, or God’s reality?

By the way, I’m female. I don’t actually mind so much when I’m misgendered on the internet, but I figured it’s less awkward to say something sooner rather than later.

I understand that there are a variety of ways to interpret the Bible. From my point of view, it’s a lose-lose situation — either you believe what is in the Bible word for word, which means you believe God approves of genocide, slavery, infanticide, oppression, and all sorts of other nasty things, or there are some things in the Bible you believe to be definitely true and some things you don’t. If you see some passages as metaphorical, better suited for ancient times than our day, or clearly a relic of the culture that wrote them down, why those parts and not others? Ultimately it is a concession that your own intuition trumps the Bible, which seems a lot more like an atheist position than a Christian one.

You say that when you encounter something that “doesn’t seem to fit,” you “ask God, the Holy Spirit, how it should fit.” I interpret that to mean that you pray. I don’t see any real difference between this and reflecting on your own moral philosophy / conscience / intuition. You feel guided towards a certain interpretation of the Bible because that interpretation coincides with what you understand to be good on your own.

I certainly don’t approve of slavery. The reason I brought up slavery is because I wanted to understand why you don’t approve of slavery. If God provides your moral compass, I don’t see why you wouldn’t. Or, I don’t see why God would say one thing quite clearly in his holy scriptures but tell you the opposite, privately, when you pray about it.

If you want to play, however, here is an assignment: see if you can find the word “helpmate” in the Bible.

To answer you about my position on slavery. No, I do not agree that human chattel is acceptable. Scripture for my position? Well Gal3:28 will suffice for now. I understand that we are all equal at the foot of the cross.

To be sure, the NT does not suggest a natural overturning of the then current social order — which would have been the case had it exhorted slavery be abolished. I think you will note, however, that Abolition was preached by Bible believing Christians in American history.

How might I read passages about slaves submitting today — and note, slave holders being kind? I read this about how employers and employees relate. In this world order, unredeemed as it is, we will have hierarchical relationships. And in those, we should be honoring and fulfill our role with agape.

That is how I read it. How about you?

1. Pretty much all Christians adhere to these principles of Bible interpretation:
*Grammatical context
*Comparing Scripture with Scripture
*Can’t be fully or accurately understood with the carnal mind, but rather one must be spiritual/born again. So the text must be illuminated by Holy Spirit.
*Historical context

2. What does “inerrantist” mean? There are several levels of “scripture principle” or levels to which Christians think the Bible is inspired.
In order they would be breifly thus
a. The Bible contains the Word of God. This is the liberal position, that the Bible is very special because parts of it are particularly inspiring, the history of what the community understood about God
b. The Bible is inspired. While this is a quote from the Bible, often this means “let’s be vague about this” for whatever reason.
c. The Bible is the rule of faith and conduct. This means that we accept the moral teachings of the Bible, without getting into problems.
c. The Bible in infallible. Mostly, however, people think it is infallible as to intent. It was written to talk about spiritual matters and not be read like a newspaper or a science book.
c. Inerrancy – the most conservative view, saying there is not one single error, so even scientific facts stated in the Bible should be taken literally.
(There are very few inerrantists in the world. Z’s knees started to knock if he is theologically informed.)

The teacher from whom I learn most says that the Bible IS the Word and we should treat it (not the paper, ink and binding, you understand) like Jesus. I have also been taught, and agree with that the Bible points to Jesus, and not the other way around.