Slavery In The Christian Metanarrative Is Defined As A Swath Of Privations Many Pains Therefore The Christian Metanarrative Cannot Have A Pro Slavery Verse Much Less A Pro Slavery Any Thing

Christianity and Slavery: Does It Mean Jesus Isn’t Good After All? https://www.thinkingchristian.net/posts/2020/08/christianity-and-slavery-does-it-mean-jesus-isnt-good-after-all/

How Good Was Jesus if He Didn’t Eliminate Slavery? http://gettingtothetruthofthings.blogspot.com/2020/10/how-good-was-jesus-if-he-didnt.html

Disappointing: Seidensticker’s Atheist Critique Not Even Semi-Serious After All https://www.thinkingchristian.net/posts/2020/09/disappointing-seidenstickers-atheist-critique-not-even-semi-serious-after-all/

Pastor Martin Luther King Jr. on Being, Non-Being, & The Summum Bonum Of Life https://randalrauser.com/2018/06/okay-so-laura-ingalls-wilder-was-a-racist-now-what/#comment-4300257193

Christianity’s Anti-Slavery Narrative Isn’t Exactly “New” News ((…including Philemon…)) https://randalrauser.com/2018/06/okay-so-laura-ingalls-wilder-was-a-racist-now-what/#comment-5031811299

Segues Amid Racism In America & Social Justice https://randalrauser.com/2018/06/okay-so-laura-ingalls-wilder-was-a-racist-now-what/#comment-4993890642

First-Century Anti-Racism vis-à-vis The Book of Acts https://disqus.com/home/discussion/standtoreason/force_is_required_to_override_belief_in_reality/#comment-3027550452

In The OT & NT Faith Outdistances Both Biology And Sin https://disqus.com/home/discussion/standtoreason/force_is_required_to_override_belief_in_reality/#comment-3017575605

Faith Is The Offense That Outreaches Both The Outsider & The Infidel https://disqus.com/home/discussion/standtoreason/do_christians_and_muslims_worship_the_same_god/#comment-3426344202

Ten Reasons the Bible Has It Right on Slavery https://www.thinkingchristian.net/posts/2014/08/ten-reasons-the-bible-has-it-right-on-slavery

On Christianity and Slavery: You Would Think… https://www.thinkingchristian.net/posts/2013/02/on-christianity-and-slavery/

Slavery’s Only Absolute – Ceaseless – Antithesis: Trinity ((…a bit esoteric but writing has to be fun sometimes…)) https://www.thinkingchristian.net/posts/2014/08/ten-reasons-the-bible-has-it-right-on-slavery/#comment-104642

The Christian Metanarrative Defines Slavery As A Swath Of Privation’s Many Pains Therefore The Christian Metanarrative Cannot Have A “Pro-Slavery” Verse Much Less A “Pro-Slavery” Any-Thing https://randalrauser.com/2018/06/okay-so-laura-ingalls-wilder-was-a-racist-now-what/#comment-5031847118

Saying “Some Say The Bible Condones Slavery/Racism” *vs* Saying “I Say The Bible Condones Slavery/Racism” https://randalrauser.com/2019/11/blame-the-victim-conservative-christianity-and-a-culture-of-shaming-women/#comment-4706516949  *NOTE that this specific link is copy/pasted a few paragraphs down from here. It is from a discussion about a common pattern of some who are forever first asserting “The Bible Condones Slavery” and then when pushed on details and consistency they pull back to “The Bible Says Such & Such” and when pushed on details and consistency they pull back to “Well but SOME SAY it say….” And so on.

ALSO NOTE: Some of the hyperlinks there and in a few other places in the content here will go to STR’s ((https://www.str.org/)) old format an read as “error” but they are being left in as “place-holders” because the threads are still in disqus format and perhaps when time permits they will be updated. Many of those specific links for that specific comment ((…Saying “Some Say The Bible Condones Slavery/Racism” *vs*…)) are from ((A)) https://disqus.com/home/discussion/standtoreason/believing_biblical_doctrines_requires_humility_not_arrogance/ and also ((B)) https://disqus.com/home/discussion/standtoreason/if_naturalistic_evolution_is_true_people_are_not_equal/ and also ((C)) https://disqus.com/home/discussion/standtoreason/force_is_required_to_override_belief_in_reality/#comment-3027550452

Primer 1 of 3:

From “GM” is the following for the larger context on the topic of “Slavery” and one of the ways “Sub-Narrative” vs. “Meta-Narrative” can never be conflated in any coherent sense:

Quote:

“This is part of the problem of this whole conversation. One half is to accurately describe what was going on in the Old Testament…. and one is the moral vision of the Old Testament as a whole. It’s absolutely vital to understand that the Mosaic law was not God’s ideal, it was God working with a certain people group in a certain cultural context to fulfill the Abrahamic covenant of bringing a certain kind of blessing to the world (a savior and kingdom of God). That the law was not God’s ideal is apparent in the narrative of the development of the law, God explicitly saying so through Jeremiah and Jesus himself saying that they were granted laws, not because they are good in of themselves, but were accommodations to the hardness of their hearts, and asking more of them would have been futile. And so on. The perfectly egalitarian human relationships of Genesis 2 is the ideal moral paradigm of the Old Testament….. ……the overarching argument involves the necessity to point out that none of this is representative of God’s ideal. You make a huge jump from tolerance to endorsement from God’s perspective that doesn’t take into account the moral vision of the biblical narrative……. the job of the critic is to demonstrate the premise of God’s future-oriented, creation repairing agenda as a falsehood, and that the Sinai covenant represents His ideal for all mankind, forever. Until the critic does that, trying to force “endorse” into the key hole of temporary, forward looking tolerance [of things we’re told He hates] is dialectical wishful thinking……” End quote (by GM).

Primer 2 of 3:

The Christian Metanarrative Defines Slavery As A Swath Of Privation’s Many Pains Therefore The Christian Metanarrative Cannot Have A “Pro-Slavery” Verse Much Less A “Pro-Slavery” Any-Thing. “Sub-Narratives” never can “become” “Meta-Narrative”. The key to the meaning of any verse comes from the paragraph, not just from the individual words, and then the key to the meaning of any paragraph comes from the chapter, not just from the individual paragraphs, and then the key to the meaning of any chapter comes from the specific book, not just from the individual chapters, and then the key to the meaning of any individual book in Scripture comes from the Whole Metanarrative that is [Scripture] and not just from the individual books, and then the key to the meaning of the Metanarrative comes from logical lucidity vis-à-vis ontological referents in a specific Metaphysic, not just from [The-Bible], and then the key to the meaning of the Map that is the Metaphysic comes from the Terrain that is the Trinitarian Life and not just from the Metaphysic, and that Terrain sums to Timeless Reciprocity & Ceaseless Self-Giving vis-a-vis Processions vis-a-vis the Trinitarian Life even as robust explanatory power on all fronts teaches us that just as it is incoherent to say “Physics” somehow “Comes-From” that physics book over there on the shelf, so too it is incoherent to say that Metaphysical Naturalism or that the Christian Metaphysic either does or “can in principle” somehow “Come-From” ANY-thing that reduces to a World-Contingent Explanatory Terminus.

Primer 3 of 3:

Divine Command Theory breaks down and collapses into a logical absurdity as we follow through with its premises and push through to their endpoints as we traverse 1/ Logical Impossibility and 2/ The Good and 3/ Reason’s Obligation and 4/ Reason’s final terminus and 5/ reality’s irreducible or concrete furniture vis-à-vis the Trinitarian Life. Such preliminary premises are required to expose the error of some of our Non-Theist friends in their treatment of “Moral Excellence” outside of our own perfection of being. Ontology obviously beats rhetoric and we find therefore that anyone who equates ((1)) the pains of Privation vis-a-vis all things Adamic ((…slavery for example and etc…)) to ((2)) The Good // The Moral Ideal of Timeless and Eternal Kingdom Metrics ((…the perfection of being…)) is theologically and metaphysically and emotionally uninformed. Evil is not a positive substance but is instead a deficiency of substance ((Being, Good, Etc.)) — Evil is therein a Hollow or Vacuum of said substance — and that is Evil in the sense of “The Privation of The Good”  — as “The Good Minus Something”. The Christian Metanarrative Defines Slavery as Privation’s Pain **therefore** The Christian Metanarrative Cannot Have a “Pro-Slavery-Verse”. Our Non-Theist friends too often go about their criticism of the Christian Metaphysic by selectively expunging both reality as it actually is and also expunging the Christian’s metaphysical landscape of Privation. Perhaps the assumption is that doing so is going to help their premise/premises do (real/ontic) work but of course one cannot invent Non-Christian landscapes and then claim one is exposing problems with Christian premises. Regarding Divine Command Theory ((DCT)), first, recall the “NOTE” earlier about the various Links which go to “error” and then see related context on DCT in Divine Command Theory Collapses Into A Metaphysical Absurdity — at https://metachristianity.com/divine-command-theory-collapses-into-a-metaphysical-absurdity/

Irreducible Consequences of Primers 1 & 2 & 3

We are Social Beings for an ontic reason – as it is the case that our own being begins and ends within the contours of a full-on metaphysical Full-Stop as per the Necessary Being – that is to say within the contours of Being Itself. The term “Normal” and the term “Moral Excellence cannot have a semantic intent which begins or ends outside of Reality as per Reality’s Concrete Furniture and in the Christian Metaphysic we find that we are to be the living Imago Dei created off of the Blueprint of Being Itself as Timeless Reciprocity & Ceaseless Self-Giving vis-à-vis the Trinitarian Life. The Christian Metaphysic is in the end a thoroughly Trinitarian metaphysic and, therein, we find that “Being” in fact “is” Being Itself in Timeless Self-Giving vis-à-vis Irreducible Diffusiveness of Being in totum. It is that Terminus at which we find The Always & The Already, that which is ceaselessly Beneath and Above – namely Timeless Reciprocity & Necessity as on Ontic Singularity – that is to say – Love & Necessity as an Ontic Singularity.

It is there that we find in the Christian metaphysic the intellectual and moral grounds for affirming the term, “Love Himself” vis-à-vis the A and the Z of the Trinitarian Life with respect to the Divine Decree of the Imago Dei and all that necessarily comes with “that”. That is to say, it is there that we find nothing less than the immutable love of the Necessary Being – and all that comes with “that”. That is to say, it is there in nothing less than Being that we find The Always and The Already constituting Being as Timeless Reciprocity and Ceaseless Self-Giving vis-à-vis Ontic Diffusiveness of the Ontic-Self in totum, and all that necessarily comes with “that”.

It is THAT explanatory terminus which is reality’s rock-bottom, reality’s irreducible substratum – the A and the Z of every Possible Ontic, of every Possible Sentence – of all Possible Syllogisms.

The Shocking ‘Slave Bible’ ~ Parts Were Deleted to Manipulate Slaves:

See ((A)) https://www.museumofthebible.org/newsroom/slave-bible-exhibit-examines-use-of-religion-in-colonial-period and also ((B)) https://www.museumofthebible.org/exhibits/slave-bible and also ((C)) https://archive.org/details/selectpartsholy00unkngoog/page/n5/mode/2up

F. Sanders commented on that: “I’ve spent some time with this terrible 1807 American “Slave Bible” in the last year or so. It’s a perverse document that sets itself a hard editorial task: If you hand the Bible to slaves, which parts do you need to omit in order to keep it “safe?

Our Non-Theist friends may not see the relevance of that (sinful) move by Christians expunging Scripture’s *actual* Metanarrative. Leviticus is removed entirely, which reveals the comical sloppiness of the Non-Theist’s exegeses who seem unable to read more than a few verses at a time. More informed Christians who knew the Wider/Actual “Meta-Narrative” of Scripture see “Leviticus” and REMOVE it with the goal of HIDING parts of Scripture which encourage thoughts of Fairness, Liberation, Justice, Freedom, Covenant Value vis-à-vis God transcending Tribe/Biology, and so on, and so on.

It’s a simple fact: Sub-Narratives never can “become” Meta-Narrative. “But Leviticus! But Sinai!” is fine to work off of, but again that is a common manifestation of a failure of basic reading comprehension:

“When I said “arbitrary,” I was referring to the idea that the interpretation of the verses is some kind of arbitrary choice—as if both options were equally valid. They’re not, for the reasons I explained. And my point from the beginning has been that only a person who did not understand the Bible as a whole, including all the background information of the Law, could use the verses that way. No honest English reader could read the Bible as a whole and come up with their interpretation. The verse says what it says as part of a specific narrative, not as some kind of stand-alone fortune cookie. It’s not my apologetic. I didn’t make up the rules of reading comprehension.” (by Amy Hall)

The following is a quote of “A fuller extract from Gregory of Nyssa on the evils of slavery” by Roger Pearse at  https://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/2019/01/24/a-fuller-extract-from-gregory-of-nyssa-on-the-evils-of-slavery/

Begin R. Pearse Quote:

A few years ago I found online an extract from Gregory of Nyssa against slavery which I wrote about here.  Today I came across the full text of the translation, and the passage is rather longer than I had thought, and well worth giving in full.

The passage appears in the Homilies on Ecclesiastes, homily 4.  Gregory is working his way through the text of Ecclesiastes, and the various ways in which Solomon attempted to fill his life with stuff, rather than with God.  In Ecclesiastes 2:7 he starts listing his possessions, which include slaves.

Note that the biblical Greek text on which Gregory commented is sensibly translated at the head of the passage, as it is not always the same as our modern texts which are based on the Hebrew.

Ecclesiastes 2:7 –

I got me slaves and slave-girls,

and homebred slaves were born for me,

and much property in cattle and sheep became mine,

above all who had been

before me in Jerusalem.

334.5. We still find the occasion for confession controlling the argument. The one who gives an account of his doings relates one after another almost all the things through which the futility of the activities of this life is recognized. But now he reaches as it were a more serious indictment of things he has done, as a result of which one is accused of the feeling of Pride. For what is such a gross example of arrogance in the matters enumerated above – an opulent house. and an abundance of vines, and ripeness in vegetable-plots, and collecting waters in pools and channelling them in gardens – as for a human being to think himself the master of his own kind? I got me slaves and slave-girls, he says, and homebred slaves were born for me.

Do you notice the enormity of the boast? This kind of language is raised up as a challenge to God. For we hear from prophecy that all things are the slaves of the power that transcends all (Ps 119/118,91). So, when someone [p335] turns the property of God into his own property and arrogates dominion to his own kind, so as to think himself the owner of men and women, what is he doing but overstepping his own nature through pride, regarding himself as something different from his subordinates?

335,5. I got me slaves and slave-girls. What do you mean? You condemn man to slavery, when his nature is free and possesses free will, and you legislate in competition with God, overturning his law for the human species. The one made on the specific terms that he should be the owner of the earth, and appointed to government by the Creator – him you bring under the yoke of slavery, as though defying and fighting against the divine decree.

335,11. You have forgotten the limits of your authority, and that your rule is confined to control over things without reason. For it says Let them rule over winged creatures and fishes and four-footed things and creeping things (Gen, 1,26). Why do you go beyond what is subject to you and raise yourself up against the very species which is free, counting your own kind on a level with four-footed things and even footless things? You have subjected all things to man, declares the word through the prophecy, and in the text it lists the things subject, cattle and oxen and sheep (Ps 8,7- 8). Surely [p336] human beings have not been produced from your cattle? Surely cows have not conceived human stock? Irrational beasts are the only slaves of mankind. But to you these things are of small account. Raising fodder for the cattle, and green plants for the slaves of men, it says (Ps 1041 103,14). But by dividing the human species in two with ‘slavery’ and ‘ownership’ you have caused it to be enslaved to itself, and to be the owner of itself.

336,6.  I got me slaves and slave-girls. For what price, tell me? What did you find in existence worth as much as this human nature? What price did you put on rationality? How many obols did you reckon the equivalent of the likeness of God? How many staters did you get for selling the being shaped by God? God said, Let us make man in our own image and likeness (Gen 1,26). If he is in the likeness of God, and rules the whole earth, and has been granted authority over everything on earth from God, who is his buyer, tell me? who is his seller? To God alone belongs this power; or rather, not even to God himself. For his gracious gifts, it says, are irrevocable (Rom 11,29). God would not therefore reduce the human race to slavery, since he himself, when we had been enslaved to sin, spontaneously recalled us to freedom. But if God does not enslave what is free, who is he that sets his own power above God’s?

336,20. How too shall the ruler of the whole earth and all earthly things be put up for sale? [p337] For the property of the person sold is bound to be sold with him, too. So how much do we think the whole earth is worth? And how much all the things on the earth (Gen 1,26)? If they are priceless, what price is the one above them worth, tell me? Though you were to say the whole world, even so you have not found the price he is worth (Mat 16,26; Mk 8,36). He who knew the nature of mankind rightly said that the whole world was not worth giving in exchange for a human soul. Whenever a human being is for sale, therefore, nothing less than the owner of the earth is led into the sale-room. Presumably, then, the property belonging to him is up for auction too.  That means the earth, the islands, the sea, and all that is in them. What will the buyer pay, and what will the vendor accept, considering how much property is entailed in the deal?

337,13. But has the scrap of paper, and the written contract, and the counting out of obols deceived you into thinking yourself the master of the image of God? What folly! If the contract were lost, if the writing were eaten away by worms, if a drop of water should somehow seep in and obliterate it, what guarantee have you of their slavery? what have you to sustain your title as owner? I see no superiority over the subordinate [p338] accruing to you from the title other than the mere title. What does this power contribute to you as a person? not longevity, nor beauty, nor good health, nor superiority in virtue. Your origin is from the same ancestors, your life is of the same kind, sufferings of soul and body prevail alike over you who own him and over the one who is subject to your ownership – pains and pleasures, merriment and distress, sorrows and delights, rages and terrors, sickness and death. Is there any difference in these things between the slave and his owner? Do they not draw in the same air as they breathe? Do they not see the sun in the same way? Do they not alike sustain their being by consuming food? Is not the arrangement of their guts the same? Are not the two one dust after death? Is there not one judgment for them? a common Kingdom, and a common Gehenna?

338,14. If you are equal in all these ways, therefore, in what respect have you something extra, tell me, that you who are human think yourself the master of a human being, and say, I got me slaves and slave-girls, like herds of goats or pigs. For when he said, I got me slaves and slave-girls, he added that abundance in flocks of sheep and cattle came to him. For he says, and much property in cattle and sheep became mine, as though both cattle and slaves were subject to his authority to an equal degree.

The Greek text translated is that in the modern Gregorii Nysseni Opera (GNO) series, (volume 5), and page and line numbers are indicated.

The translation itself is by the excellent Stuart G. Hall, and Rachel Moriarty.[1]  The latter contributes a preface indicating that unfortunately the translation has been tampered with in order to make it “gender neutral”.  The translation of the homilies is followed by a series of useful studies, and I could wish that others adopted such a format.

It’s obvious, in context, that Gregory is not preaching an abolitionist sermon, but an expository one.  He’s not calling for the institution of slavery to be abolished.  Indeed his hearers might not have been prepared for anything that radical.  But Gregory is worrying away at the idea.  The germ of the idea that led to abolition is present.

Useful to have this, and it is perhaps not as well-known as it might be.

—End R. Pearse Quote—

The following is a Copy/Paste of https://randalrauser.com/2019/11/blame-the-victim-conservative-christianity-and-a-culture-of-shaming-women/#comment-4706516949  It is from a discussion about a common pattern of some who are forever first asserting “The Bible Condones Slavery” and then when pushed on details and consistency they pull back to “The Bible Says Such & Such” and when pushed on details and consistency they pull back to “Well but SOME SAY it say….” And so on.  NOTE: Some of the hyperlinks there and in a few other places in the content here will go to STR’s ((https://www.str.org/)) old format an read as “error” but they are being left in as “place-holders” because the threads are still in disqus format and perhaps when time permits they will be updated. Many of those specific links for that specific comment are from ((A)) https://disqus.com/home/discussion/standtoreason/believing_biblical_doctrines_requires_humility_not_arrogance/ and also ((B)) https://disqus.com/home/discussion/standtoreason/if_naturalistic_evolution_is_true_people_are_not_equal/ and also ((C)) https://disqus.com/home/discussion/standtoreason/force_is_required_to_override_belief_in_reality/#comment-3027550452

 

—Begin Some-Say-Said Copy/Paste—

 

A.G.
SOME SAID vs. IT SAYS You never tell us. That is why your comments at http://disq.us/p/25qc3ut and at http://disq.us/p/1f368wg are worth taking a look at a tenth-ish time — for despite going to seminary you still don’t seem able to progress past fairly basic intellectual concepts when it comes to WHAT your actual claim IS with respect to A through G as per the following:

*A. Racism
*B. Scripture
*C. Pastor Martin Luther King Jr.’s exegetical conclusion on (a) vs. (b)
*D. Exegetical Error

*E. Your observation of “But Some Christians Have Used A-Verse To Condone Racism”
*F. Your possible/apparent claim that Scripture DOES in fact Condone Racism/Slavery/Etc.
*G. Your possible/apparent claim that you are NOT claiming “F” that but rather you are MERELY only trying to point out “E” ((…“But Some Christians Have Used A-Verse To Affirm Racism”…))

You never tell us if you mean “F” or if you mean “G”. Why not? Well — let’s be clear/precise:

For years now your pattern is the same as you come roaring in going on and on about how Scripture condones / likes / defines-as-good the stuff of Racism/Slavery/Etc. but then when pushed on the fact that Narrative / Meta-Narrative / Sub-Narrative actually matter you “sort-of” pull back from what WOULD sum to such a bold exegetical commitment on your part with things like “…I specifically made a point that they were verses that some other people understand mean that….and that’s all….”. That would work if it were not for what you then predictably do next and so another “but-then” cannot be avoided. So but then in the next breath you continue chastising Christians who affirm Pastor Martin Luther King Jr.’s exegetical conclusion as-if-they-are-getting-it-wrong and/or as-if-they-are-being-dishonest.

Well which of those many and varied and sloppy half-attempts of yours is it?

It’s been years and you still can’t stop that same Dancing-Hedge routine. So far in THIS thread you’ve not addressed [A] http://disq.us/p/25oj10q nor your earlier hints that Good Christians really ought to CONDONE folks waking into Gay Bars and mass-shooting Gays as per [B] http://disq.us/p/25ok6zs and as per its request for clarification on that point with “Feel free to correct any errors Etc.” in this thread’s http://disq.us/p/25phwro — and by the way you have not yet replied to the actual questions in that which is therefore our [C] http://disq.us/p/25phwro — nor have you replied to [D] http://disq.us/p/25qm045

You opine along the line of “…..but there are or have been different conclusions within Christendom….” and YET you’ve not replied to the content in [E] http://disq.us/p/25qm045 which asks specifically about that.

Instead you shout “Dishonest!” and, so, that brings us to the list under review – namely:

*A. Racism
*B. Scripture
*C. Pastor Martin Luther King Jr.’s exegetical conclusion on (a) vs. (b)
*D. Exegetical Error

*E. Your observation of “But Some Christians Have Used A-Verse To Condone Racism”
*F. Your possible/apparent claim that Scripture DOES in fact Condone Racism/Slavery/Etc.
*G. Your possible/apparent claim that you are NOT claiming “F” that but rather you are MERELY only trying to point out “E” ((…“But Some Christians Have Used A-Verse To Affirm Racism”…))

Before we get to what must be the tenth time addressing your Favorite-Dishonest-Christian-Racism-Link in that thread of 257-ish comments, two simple questions:

[1] Who got it right with respect to Scripture and Racism? Pastor Martin Luther King Jr. *OR* the various misuses and abuses housed within the sins of various Christians and Non-Christians? NO ONE disagrees with the fact of those abuses and misuses, but you seem to think we are being dishonest when we FAIL to find PRO-Racism verses in Scripture’s ANTI-Racist metanarrative. But HOW is that dishonesty on our part even possible and WHY did you choose that term (dishonest) to describe that FAILURE on our part? Can we SAY what a verse SAYS for you with some examples you may like to list? Give any example you would like. Think it through. PRO-Racist verses CANNOT be found in an ANTI-Racist metanarrative…. and as such as per the link http://disq.us/p/1f368wg you provided within that thread’s 257 comments, don’t count on me to just dance to evasive questions and thereby indirectly help anyone dial-up any other implicit or explicit conclusion about what ANY “verse” in fact SAYS.

[2] Who got it right with respect to defining what God Tolerates vs Condones: Those who define terms in and by the premise of, “Sinai is God’s Ideal for Mankind” (…such as in your constant appeals to Moses/Law…), or, instead, others who define those same terms by the premise of, “Sinai is not God’s Ideal for Mankind”? Thousands of years of both (a) Messianic Jews and (b) Christians both converge “there” with respect to Sinai/Tolerate/Condone ((…as per the necessary Means/Ends related to the Perfection of Being / of the Adamic…as alluded to in earlier comments in this thread…)).

That was half-ish from-ish http://disq.us/p/1hzzaho btw for reference. Of course again you never flat out tell us as one who has graduated seminary whether or not you mean to stop at “F” or else “G” from the earlier list.

Speaking of “general/basic” questions, the following excerpt asks a few more which have been long-standing with respect to your general pool of fallacious sound-bites:

Still beating the drums of Sinai Full Stop, eh? After all these years too. Why? Hair as Glory of Woman “vs” Woman as Glory of Man and all of that “as-if” Men are not allowed to wear real hats on their real heads? Why? I thought you went to seminary, yes? Didn’t they discuss basic metaphysics? Category errors? Contingent vs. Necessary?

Also — Did you ever imply that *Christians* ought *not* find a moral problem ((given Christianity)) with going into bars and mass shooting Gays?

If so then apparently nothing has changed wrt your exegetical elimitivism. Or was that someone else there at STR….? Feel free correct any error on that premise and/or person who floated it ((Etc.)).

Did you ever imply that “a verse” is enough to define Racism as The Good via your own exegetical argument beyond your usual [someone once said so]?

You went to seminary, yes? Surely then you must actually believe that one of several interpretations gets closer than the others to “X” — whatever you believe “X” on Christianity “is” vis-à-vis the Cruciform Lens ((…or vis-à-vis the body of Scripture and so on…)).

Or is this all merely still you continuing your yesteryear shouts about how / why Christians ought not mind mass-shooting / open-firing in Gay Bars? Or was that someone else & not you? Been awhile so perhaps the recall is imprecise. Feel free to correct any errors Etc.

While you’re at it perhaps you can explain why thousands of years of Messianic Jews & Christians converge with Scripture defining Sinai as lacking both the Means to Moral Excellence and also the Ends of Moral Excellence. Messianic Jews & Christians converge there – where did they all go off the proverbial rails?

Also — why do you float/suggest premises by which we are to literally believe that literal males cannot wear literal hats on their literal heads ((*on *Christianity))?

With respect to your trend of multiple years of avoiding giving us an answer as to whether you, as one who went to seminary, mean to land on “F” or else on “G” from the above list, we see that same dance of yours occurring both Before & After your favorite link/comment as that SAME question of “F” vs. “G” leads us into it and as that SAME question of “F” vs. “G” then follows it – each time left unanswered by you.

Recall the list of “A” through “G” as it will be referenced as we move forward:

*A. Racism
*B. Scripture
*C. Pastor Martin Luther King Jr.’s exegetical conclusion on (a) vs. (b)
*D. Exegetical Error

*E. Your observation of “But Some Christians Have Used A-Verse To Condone Racism”
*F. Your possible/apparent claim that Scripture DOES in fact Condone Racism/Slavery/Etc.
*G. Your possible/apparent claim that you are NOT claiming “F” that but rather you are MERELY only trying to point out “E” ((…“But Some Christians Have Used A-Verse To Affirm Racism”…))

Quick Example before looking at your Favorite-Dishonest-Christian-Racism-Link:

From here at RR’s Blog:

Me: http://disq.us/p/239voui
You: http://disq.us/p/239wf7h
Me: http://disq.us/p/23ah6n6

Me Two Years Ago: http://disq.us/p/1qhhc5t
Me again asking you a question and reminding you not to invent excuses: http://disq.us/p/23fvuxb ((…ried twice http://disq.us/p/23f72l1 …))

Again you never flat out tell us as one who has graduated seminary whether or not you mean to stop at “F” or else “G” from the earlier list.

Example:

Regarding Racism/Slavery vs. Pastor King’s Exegetical Conclusion vs. Your refusal to tell us if you mean “F” or “G” from the earlier list:

**Begin Excerpt/Copy-Paste:

Metanarrative is fundamental. Without Metanarrative you’ve / we’ve no rational “metrics”. Therein one cannot pretend that one’s wider metaphysic is superfluous. Where on lands with respect to Being & Reason & Mind & Contingency & The Perfection Of Being & Change/Becoming & A….Z ((…and so on…)) will necessarily stomp all over one’s semantic intent with respect to Perception & Knowledge & what counts as rational metrics and what counts as rational inquiry ((…and so on…)). YET you quote verses which you <say> condone Racism/Slavery ((…is it “F” or is it “G” from the earlier list??…)) and all while acting “As-If” the contingent abstractions of contingent minds of contingent beings are all one needs – Full Stop – and THEN you ask us to <say> what those verses <say>. And? What has our ((…the Christians in the following links / threads…)) reply always been? Well we grant you your wish and, so, we repeatedly *do* tell you want “that-verse” in fact “says”. We quote those SAME verses you demand that we “Be-Honest” about and then proceed to tell you how they DON’T affirm/condone Racism/Slavery ((Etc.)).

So? Where is the *dishonesty*? Do you WANT us to expunge the first 1000 words, the last 1000 words, and then “interpret” the remaining 54 words in the middle? Did you want us to <say> something <else> besides what we <said>? If so, why? How is it possible for there to be a Pro-Racist *verse* in an Anti-Racist *Metanarrative*?

**End Excerpt/Copy-Paste.

Since context is everything, we find “therein” on that same topic that we have an actual history of a Before/After “Comment History” vis-à-vis your favorite link/comment as follows. BTW one may have to (a) scroll a few clicks or (b) refresh or (c) scroll to the bottom of the page and click on “see next comment” in order to get the page to jump to the specific comment:

http://disq.us/p/1f6lb74
http://disq.us/p/1f6ogz7
http://disq.us/p/1f6zx1v
http://disq.us/p/1f7381h
http://disq.us/p/1f73pag
http://disq.us/p/1f772yw
http://disq.us/p/1f7bj2y
http://disq.us/p/1f7c0zn
http://disq.us/p/1f50wb1

[RECALL / NOTE: Some of the hyperlinks will go to STR’s old format an read as “error” but they are being left in as place holders because the threads are still in disqus format perhaps when time permits they will be updated. Many of those specific links are from both ((A)) https://disqus.com/home/discussion/standtoreason/believing_biblical_doctrines_requires_humility_not_arrogance/ and also ((B)) https://disqus.com/home/discussion/standtoreason/if_naturalistic_evolution_is_true_people_are_not_equal/ ….]

Again you never flat out tell us as one who has graduated seminary whether or not you mean to stop at “F” or else “G” from the earlier list. So for reference the first of those ((… http://disq.us/p/1f6lb74 …)) is copied here for context:

**Begin Excerpt/Copy-Paste:

Here’s my comment to you from there, and it’s actually relevant to “interpretation” as being discussed in this thread (…. P. Kirkpatrick’s say vs. mean is again in play etc….). So perhaps this is helpful after all. Here’s the quote (of me to you) from the other thread:

Begin quote:

It is your claim that Scripture, the Bible, has no (rational) support for racism, and that’s fine, but, once again, you also “chastise” with this,

“Again, you can try to explain what it “really meant” or that it “no longer applies to us,” but to deny what it literally says is dishonest.”

This statement by you claims that “what it really meant” (as claimed by Amy and others here etc.) and “what it literally says” are at odds / do not agree. And it claims so much that you even call the failure to acknowledge the difference (not same) as dishonest.

So tell us, AG, why is Amy (and others here etc.) dishonest if she (we, etc.) is/are in fact saying what Scripture literally says?

We are saying that Scripture literally does not justify racism. Now, are we being dishonest by *not* acknowledging what Scripture actually says?

You also say “you can try to explain… BUT…..”, again forcing a wedge of disagreement / difference between the explanations of what Scripture literally says (per Amy and others etc.) as opposed to “what it literally says”.

Your own personal beliefs about racism are not part of this discussion. Rather, your claims about this supposed difference and this supposed dishonesty is what is in review. You’re the one making these claims.

If in fact we are being dishonest for failing to affirm this difference well then Pastor Martin Luther King Jr. in fact got it wrong with respect to his exegetical (scriptural) conclusions. If in fact this supposed difference is fallacious “at bottom“, well then it does not exist, and non-existence just is non-being.

End quote.

I could be mistaken but I don’t recall a response from you there.

That said, that discussion was another good example of this business of interpretation, and also of zooming in so close (“Holy Race”, etc.) that one fails to see the entire narrative.

Lastly notice the opening acknowledgement: “It is your claim that Scripture, the Bible, has no (rational) support for racism…

That wasn’t the contention. The issue was your stark contradiction of that by all the rest. Hence the following:

Your own personal beliefs about racism are not part of this discussion. Rather, your claims about this supposed difference and this supposed dishonesty is what is in review. You’re the one making these claims.

**End Excerpt/Copy-Paste.

Again you never flat out tell us as one who has graduated seminary whether or not you mean to stop at “F” or else “G” from the earlier list. Occasionally you get ((…at least for a few comments before hedging…)) quite specific and say that you do NOT disagree the accuracy of Pastor Martin Luther King’s exegetical conclusion. A basic item from that is the second link ((… http://disq.us/p/1f6ogz7 …)) from the list which is copied here:

**Begin Excerpt/Copy-Paste:

You Say:
But to deny that it literally says “X” when I quote it saying “X” is dishonest.

My Reply:
But there are no verses that literally support racism.

We agree, correct?

If we agree then you have no point to stand by.

How can a pro-racist *verse* exist within an anti-racist *narrative*?

You can’t have it both ways. Unless you refuse to interpret. You ask us to <say> what those verses <say> and we repeatedly *do* as we unpack the anti-racist narrative of Scripture. Where then is the *dishonesty*?

**End Excerpt/Copy-Paste.

Again you never flat out tell us as one who has graduated seminary whether or not you mean to stop at “F” or else “G” from the earlier list. So the third item ((… http://disq.us/p/1f6zx1v …)) continues the theme and is copied here:

**Begin Excerpt/Copy-Paste:

I never once claimed that there are verses which *you* understand to support racism.

You accused Amy (and the rest of us in that thread) of being *dishonest* when we say that there are *no* verses which literally support racism. You stated that the reason we were all *dishonest* when we make that claim about what Scripture literally SAYS is because we were NOT saying what Scripture literally SAYS.

You stated,

“Again, you can try to explain what it “really meant” or that it “no longer applies to us,” but to deny what it literally says is dishonest.”

You seem to believe there are verses which literally SAY that God and/or God’s agenda is racist, and that, therefore, when Christians disagree with that then they are *dishonest*.

But there are no verses that literally SAY / support racism.

How can a pro-racist *verse* exist within an anti-racist *narrative*?

You can’t have it both ways.

**End Excerpt/Copy-Paste.

More context then with the following:

Similar Problems In Your Analytic:

Again you never flat out tell us as one who has graduated seminary whether or not you mean to stop at “F” or else “G” from the earlier list. Instead you hint of accusing Christians with the crime of defamation/libel for seeking clarification/distinction of terms in the same context. So there is ((was)) http://disq.us/p/1f6hrd5 which is copied here:

**Begin Excerpt/Copy-Paste:

On interpreting OT verses:

I asked you then and will ask you again here: Was Pastor MLK Jr. correct about Scripture affirming our equality and not supporting racism?

You ask us to <say> what those verses <say> and we repeatedly *do*. So where is our *dishonesty*?

What did *you* mean when you said Christians (MLK?) are *dishonest* because on that issue (racism) Christians (MLK?) don’t say what Scripture REALLY SAYS? It seems you’ve got Pastor Martin Luther King Jr. pegged as *dishonest* or else misguided. Of course asking for clarification then didn’t lead to any forthcoming clarifications from you. Why?

Or, perhaps wording it differently:

Why do (did) *you* say (claim) that Christians are *dishonest* and why are Christians not saying what scripture REALLY SAYS when they affirm Pastor Martin Luther King Jr.’s conclusions? What is the interpretative disagreement you have with their (dishonest?) conclusions? You ask us to <say> what those verses <say> and we repeatedly *do*. So where is our dishonesty?

You’ve been asked for clarification multiple times then and now here. You like to call quoting you in that context and looking for distinction / clarification in that context a (legal) criminal offense. Interesting.

**End Excerpt/Copy-Paste.

More context then with the following:

Similar Problems In Your Analytic:

Again you never flat out tell us as one who has graduated seminary whether or not you mean to stop at “F” or else “G” from the earlier list. You take a verse, expunge Narrative & Metanarrative, insist that is what it “literally” means, and then “Stop” there at “F”. But do you stop there? When challenged you Flip-Flop and pull-back to “G” ((…again “F” and “G” from the earlier list…)). Therein there is http://disq.us/p/1f67yqk which is copied here:

**Begin Excerpt/Copy-Paste:

You Said:
Again, you can try to explain what it “really meant” or that it “no longer applies to us,” but to deny what it literally says is dishonest.

My Reply:
Why would I help you promote your claim that Pastor Martin Luther King Jr.’s intellectual assent to Scripture’s affirmation of equality was misguided? Your claim that what Scripture “REALLY SAYS” affirms God’s racist agenda was there (as here) void of interpretation. It’s demonstrable. Thank you for the reminder of yet another example of your flawed methodology in this arena. Or, do you disagree with those who have interpreted differently than MLK? Your use of “REALLY SAYS” didn’t seem to leave that option open.

Panning the lens out is the ticket. You ask us to <say> what those verses <say> and we repeatedly *do*. So where is our *dishonesty*?

**End Excerpt/Copy-Paste.

More context then with the following:

Similar Problems In Your Analytic:

Again you never flat out tell us as one who has graduated seminary whether or not you mean to stop at “F” or else “G” from the earlier list. Recall that when Scripture describes an ax head floating on water or Peter walking on water, you opine that such is absurd. But when it’s pointed out to you that we as causal agents suspend things on top of water all the time, you again opine that we cannot invoke God as Causal Agent when reading Scripture. But of course the writer’s intention/meaning DID “MEAN” / “Believe” in the God Who Is Above Nature and so all the semantic intent of Being Itself comes into play. Your response? You expunge Narrative / Metanarrative / Author’s intent / and the Genre/Goal of the Communique under review given that SAME “Being Itself” and so on. So a bit of that is alluded to in http://disq.us/p/1hz2nf3 which is copied here:

**Begin Excerpt/Copy-Paste:

Misdiagnosing Reality: That you believe it is impossible to keep objects on top of water (…causal continuum, being, intentionally manipulating nature’s fundamental particles…) is peculiar.

That and similar kinds of evidence-free beliefs of yours — and your emotional commitment to your a priori of No-God — all force you to so misread reality and all lead you into misguided modes of interpreting not only our experienced reality through time as human beings but of course also the unavoidable variations of descriptions of that experienced reality occurring across and beneath differing conceptual ceilings through time. All of that cumulatively stifles your analytical range.

Whereas, the Christian is forever open to new data points as they come streaming in. Temporal beginning? No problem. No temporal beginning? No problem. Molecules to Body? No problem. Immaterial else absurdity? No problem. Brutally repeatable moral experience? No problem. The irreducible self? No problem. Logic’s lucidity over forced absurdity? No problem. Intelligibility/reality? No problem.

Such intellectual liberty to follow all modes of all evidence wherever said evidence may lead is refreshing.

Fortunately technology has greatly increased our ability to rapidly cross-reference [1] large numbers of scientific observations and [2] large numbers of documents and texts which cumulatively span thousands of years. Such technologies have helped us to more accurately map necessary and unavoidable topographic features of the ontological history of becoming vis-à-vis both Cosmos and Conscious Observer.

Of course, your entire range begins and ends with something far less robust.

—End Some-Say-Said Copy-Paste—

 

For context the following is an excerpt from God Sending Lying And Evil Spirits? Abraham And Isaac? Cyrus And Isaiah 45:7? The Greater Good Fallacy? — at https://metachristianity.com/god-sending-lying-spirits-god-n-sending-evil-spirits-n-abraham-n-isaac/ and the specific part is at the bolded/labeled “Part 9 Genocide? Amalekites? Canaanites? Marry One’s Rapist? Etc.?”

Begin Part 9 Excerpt:

We’ll start with a brief look at some excerpts from the following three which cover a wider range of topics but have several segues here – [A] http://christianthinktank.com/rbutcher1.html and also [B] http://christianthinktank.com/qamorite.html and also [C] http://christianthinktank.com/midian.html

Begin Excerpt:

Even in the little section on the Amalekites, the description of the situation doesn’t even come close to what we consider ‘genocide’ today. Most (but not all) things considered genocide today involve groups internal to the country in question, and they were either killed outright by their own government (sometimes slowly through torture and abuse) or deported to a place of sure-to-kill-them environment. Academic definitions of genocide exclude combat deaths and noncombatants that die as a by-product of military action. It generally denotes the deliberate killing of someone solely because of their indelible group membership (indelible is the term used for race, ethnicity, nationality etc.–that characteristics that are ‘indelible’). [For one of the major authorities on this subject, see the work of R.J. Rummel at www2.hawaii.edu/~rummel.]

Consider some of the better-known cases:

  1. The government of the Ottoman Empire deported two-thirds or more of its estimated 1-1.8M Armenian citizens during WWI. They were forced into the deserts of present-day Syria, and most died due slowly to starvation and dehydration. This was an internal groupthat was forced out of the country into the desert to die.
  2. The Nazi genocidal actions against the Jews, the Roma, etc. were also initially targeted at internal people.
  3. During WW2, the government of Croatia killed an estimated 200-350K of its internal Serbian citizens.
  4. Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia killed 31% of its own population, apprx 2 million people (although some of this would be considered ‘democide’ and based on ‘delible’ characteristics such as political alignment, instead of ‘genocide’ proper).
  5. In Rwanda, between 500k-1M of the Tutsi ethnic group (all internal) were killed by the Hutu ethnic group (fighting had been going on between them for some time).

Notice how extremely different these are from the case of the Amalekites:

  1. They are NOT an internal group
  2. They are NOT a minority group
  3. Amalekites are NOT targeted because of their Amalekite-ness (since they were welcome as immigrants in Israel)
  4. They are never under the government control of Israel.
  5. They are not pursed and hunted in other countries for extermination.

…..What this means–although it would not bear on the main ethical sensitivity here–is that it is historically inaccurate to label this military action as ‘genocidal’. (This is still the case, EVEN IF one ONLY is talking about the killing of the families of the warriors. There are none of the defining elements of genocide–as the term is used by experts–present in the accounts of this initiative.) Let’s be clear on this–I am not exploring how to “justify a genocide”, because in the first place, it is NOT genocide. [Interestingly, the only case we have in the bible of something approaching genocide is in the book of Esther. Haman, a prominent official, develops a plot in which the internal people will be allowed to attack, kill, and plunder the internal Jews in the nation. This is very close to genocide, and it is quite ironic that Haman is called an Agagite, and said to be an Amalekite by Josephus in Ant. 11.209.]

End Part 9 Excerpt.

R. Rauser has “The Bible depicts God commanding moral atrocities. Should we believe it?” at https://randalrauser.com/2018/06/the-bible-depicts-god-commanding-moral-atrocities-should-we-believe-it/#comment-3958500420

With respect to what Scripture defines as evil he seems to agree with the OT and NT in defining all murder and all rape and so on as evil. That’s fine as far as it goes. However, one cannot read, say, Винни-Пух and apply the same premises when one is reading, say, Война и мир ~ After all, if “Winnie The Pooh” equates to “Tolstoy” well then…. But that’s silly. Instead, there’s the oh-so-obvious contours of real, actual humanity and real, actual evil and real, actual “necessary means” if we are going to talk either about love’s egalitarian form or about the necessary means v. the perfection of being and so on, as those just are the proverbial Christian Narrative.

Recall: “GM” offers context and it’s really not that complicated. The “range” or the “degrees of change” from what many term “The Edenic” to that of the “New Creation” is far, far wider than any one-verse or one-chapter “slice” of “Sinai” (or any other X). As mentioned already, all “definitions” begin and end in the egalitarian topography of the Trinitarian Life.

Quote:

“This is part of the problem of this whole conversation. One half is to accurately describe what was going on in the Old Testament…. and one is the moral vision of the Old Testament as a whole. It’s absolutely vital to understand that the Mosaic law was not God’s ideal, it was God working with a certain people group in a certain cultural context to fulfill the Abrahamic covenant of bringing a certain kind of blessing to the world (a savior and kingdom of God). That the law was not God’s ideal is apparent in the narrative of the development of the law, God explicitly saying so through Jeremiah and Jesus himself saying that they were granted laws, not because they are good in of themselves, but were accommodations to the hardness of their hearts, and asking more of them would have been futile. And so on. The perfectly egalitarian human relationships of Genesis 2 is the ideal moral paradigm of the Old Testament….. ……the overarching argument involves the necessity to point out that none of this is representative of God’s ideal. You make a huge jump from tolerance to endorsement from God’s perspective that doesn’t take into account the moral vision of the biblical narrative……. the job of the critic is to demonstrate the premise of God’s future-oriented, creation repairing agenda as a falsehood, and that the Sinai covenant represents His ideal for all mankind, forever. Until the critic does that, trying to force “endorse” into the key hole of temporary, forward looking tolerance [of things we’re told He hates] is dialectical wishful thinking……” (by GM)

End Quote.

R. Rauser has The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest: A Review at https://randalrauser.com/2018/06/the-lost-world-of-the-israelite-conquest-a-review and if we are careful we find that the book corrects one error and then commits the same error. It corrects the error of expunging all context from a boxlabeled [one phrase] which is [“kill all that breathes”] so that the [LITERAL FULL STOP] box is rightly shown to be ridiculous. Then the book unfortunately commits that SAME error as it expunges all context from its own [one word] box which is [“Heram”] so that then that [LITERAL FULL STOP] box is left as the New Ridiculous. Therein the book’s premises get a bit muddied.

Cultural mindsets certainly don’t define reality. At least on the Christian Metaphysic. Basic example: Sinai is X, but X isn’t the Beginning & End of The Good & The True. The inverse error is to claim that regardless of our particular cerebral and moral ceilings God simply never transposes anything regarding The Good & The True. The Trinitarian Life finds not only Being pressing in as we are created to be the living Imago Dei but more specifically the fact that The Adamic was/is created off of the Blueprint of Being as Timeless Reciprocity & Ceaseless Self-Giving.

That of course feeds definitions into all possible frames and, therefore, the key to the meaning of any verse comes from the paragraph, not just from the individual words, and then the key to the meaning of any paragraph comes from the chapter, not just from the individual paragraphs, and then the key to the meaning of any chapter comes from the specific book, not just from the individual chapters, and then the key to the meaning of any individual book in Scripture comes from the Whole Metanarrative that is [Scripture] and not just from the individual books, and then the key to the meaning of the Metanarrative comes from logical lucidity vis-à-vis ontological referents in a specific Metaphysic, not just from [The-Bible], and then the key to the meaning of the Map that is the Metaphysic comes from the Terrain that is the Trinitarian Life and not just from the Metaphysic, and that Terrain sums to Timeless Reciprocity & Ceaseless Self-Giving vis-à-vis Processions vis-a-vis the Trinitarian Life even as robust explanatory power on all fronts teaches us that just as it is incoherent to say “Physics” somehow “Comes-From” that physics book over there on the shelf, so too it is incoherent to say that Metaphysical Naturalism or that the Christian Metaphysic either does or “can in principle” somehow “Come-From” ANY-thing that reduces to a World-Contingent Explanatory Terminus.

As we navigate “linguistics” a brief observation ~ the notion that [burning kids alive] and various other sins — and so on — were A. ignored by God for several hundred years and were B. in fact NOT a part of the causal architecture behind the forced regime changes in Caanan are both false. And in fact it is one “category” within the narrative which demonstrates that with respect to both – as follows:

First, God did intervene and then tore down that landscape (…Israel displaces Canaanites Etc…) and, also, sins/evil were not the Whole Reason behind the forced change, but that they were a key part of the causal architecture behind the forced regime change is obvious and it is the following category of scriptures, which houses many examples like the following, which demonstrates both:

“….It is because of the wickedness of these nations that the Lord your God is driving them out before you…..” (Deut. 9:5)

And so on. Then to the topic of linguistics and literary construction, the following is from https://www.str.org/w/the-canaanites-genocide-or-judgment-#.XOCBPhYpDDs

Begin STR Excerpt:

“…God gave the directives, to be sure (the Jews hadn’t thought this up on their own), but one must accurately understand God’s intention before he can accurately assess God’s commands.

First, the wording should be understood in the context of ancient Near Eastern military narrative, the argument goes. Ancient writings commonly traded in hyperbole—exaggeration for the sake of emphasis—especially when it came to military conquest. The practice is evident throughout battle reports of the time. “Joshua’s conventional warfare rhetoric,” Copan writes, “was common in many other ancient Near Eastern military accounts in the second and first millennia B.C.”

Therefore, phrases like “utterly destroy” (haram), or “put to death men and women, children, and infants”—as well as other “obliteration language”—were stock “stereotypical” idioms used even when women or children were not present. It decreed total victory (much like your favorite sports team “wiping out” the opposition), not complete annihilation.

Second, Copan argues, women and children probably weren’t targets since the attacks were directed at smaller military outposts characteristically holding soldiers, not noncombatants (who generally lived in outlying rural areas). “All the archaeological evidence indicates that no civilian populations existed at Jericho, Ai, and other cities mentioned in Joshua.”

Third, on Copan’s view the main purpose of the conquest was not annihilation, but expulsion—driving the inhabitants out—and cleansing the land of idolatry by destroying every vestige of the evil Canaanite religion[8] (e.g., “You shall tear down their altars, and smash their sacred pillars, and hew down their Asherim, and burn their graven images with fire.” Deut. 7:1–5).

Further, this process would be gradual, taking place over time:

“…The Lord your God will clear away these nations before you little by little. You will not be able to put an end to them quickly, for the wild beasts would grow too numerous for you…” (Deut. 7:22).

Finally, the record shows that Joshua fully obeyed the Lord’s command:

“….Thus Joshua struck all the land, the hill country and the Negev and the lowland and the slopes and all their kings. He left no survivor, but he utterly destroyed all who breathed, just as the Lord, the God of Israel, had commanded…. He left nothing undone of all that the Lord had commanded Moses….” (Josh. 10:40, 11:15)

Still, at the end of Joshua’s life it was clear that many Canaanites continued to live in the land, left to be driven out gradually by the next generation (Josh. 23:12–13, Judges 1:21, 27–28). According to Copan, if Joshua did all that was expected of him, yet multitudes of Canaanites remained alive, then clearly the command to destroy all who breathed was not to be taken literally, but hyperbolically.

If these arguments go through—if God did not command the utter and indiscriminate destruction of men, women, and children by Joshua’s armies, but simply authorized an appropriate cleansing military action to drive out Israel’s (and God’s) enemies—then the critic’s challenge is largely resolved, it seems….”

End STR Excerpt.

Additionally the following from M. Flannagan:

“….A similar phenomenon occurs with the case of the Amalekites, the Babylonian invasions, and the sacking of the Jebusite city of Jerusalem. In each case a battle is narrated in totalistic terms of complete destruction of all the people, yet later narration goes on to assume matter-of-factly that it did not literally occur. The fact that this happens on multiple occasions in different books rapidly diminishes the probability that these features are coincidental or careless errors. Why is it that almost every time a narration of “genocide” occurs, it is followed by an account that presupposes it did not happen? These facts significantly raise the probability that this is a deliberate literary construction by the authors….” (Matthew Flannagan)

And so on. As alluded to earlier, in the book “The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest” there are various references to syntax of something akin to “…like a cancer…” but they do not make sense if left standing in mid-air given the following fact, quoted from another source:

“….Israel’s own occupation of the land was conditional; Israel too would be “..utterly destroyed..” if it engaged in the defiling practices of the Canaanites (Lev. 18: 25– 28 ). Indeed, later the Israelites would be judged— removed from the land through exile— because they violated the terms of the covenant….”

And yet notice that Israel is not “the-proverbial cancer” and, also, still again Israel is not “In-Genocide-Like-Fashion-Utterly-Destroyed-By-God” in that “exile”. But what about “Utterly Destroyed?” Israel? Well yes. “THAT” did happen and that Promise WAS kept in that God DID “utterly destroy” Israel and such was vis-à-vis that proverbial Exile. Israel is absorbed into other nations, alive and well, overcome, conquered, retaining their identity in many senses, losing it in many senses. Neither the facts of history, nor the actual metanarrative, nor ancient biblical and extra-biblical “linguistics” support any sort of “Full-Stop” appeal to “….like a cancer…

Covenant Theology finds Canaanites and proverbial outsiders in Shechem within Joshua chap. 8 vis-à-vis the covenant renewal ceremony, which mirror’s Israel’s own future experience in Israel’s exile. No identity is ever “Utterly Destroyed” nor can we find any supposed Outsider/Insider missing from that seamless Stream of Ancestry within Christ. We find there that the two notions of a. “Sin was all up in the whole show as the reason for all of Israel taking over Canaan….” and of b. “Sin had nothing to do with any of it” are both leaving out definitive chunks of Narrative, as, all over again:

“….The point here is this: God doesn’t play favorites. God said that he raised up Israel in part to judge the Canaanites for their sins. (Deuteronomy 9:5) But then God turned around and judged Judah when they did the same thing by letting other nations conquer them. (2 Kings 21:10-16)

That is from the essay “Killing the Canaanites: Why can’t atheists like Richard Dawkins tell the difference between genocide and justified capital punishment?”

Similarly, Actual War was not All-Or-None with respect to our own “Modernity’s Old English Literalism” as the deliberate literary constructions used (…and which Modernity’s Old English Literalism muddies up…) are neither “spooky” nor “just-da-bible” but are historically defined in both Biblical and Extra-Biblical manuscripts.

Question: “…don’t you believe in literal interpretation…”

Answer: I think you mean to affirm a non-literal interpretation, yes? If you believe that “All That Breathes” is a bit of syntax that is mysteriously immune to the facts of history then you believe that we are to read about a fiction (…God commanded the killing of all that breathes…). But we know better. So it’s not clear what you mean by “literal”. That word isn’t supposed to mean “historically-uninformed”.

Slavery? Violence? Discussion Hall #1? Discussion Hall #2? https://randalrauser.com/2019/08/four-pitfalls-for-apologists-defending-biblical-violence/#comment-4578894509

In Closing:

Recall that “Sub-Narratives” never can “become” “Meta-Narrative”. The key to the meaning of any verse comes from the paragraph, not just from the individual words, and then the key to the meaning of any paragraph comes from the chapter, not just from the individual paragraphs, and then the key to the meaning of any chapter comes from the specific book, not just from the individual chapters, and then the key to the meaning of any individual book in Scripture comes from the Whole Metanarrative that is [Scripture] and not just from the individual books, and then the key to the meaning of the Metanarrative comes from logical lucidity vis-à-vis ontological referents in a specific Metaphysic, not just from [The-Bible], and then the key to the meaning of the Map that is the Metaphysic comes from the Terrain that is the Trinitarian Life and not just from the Metaphysic, and that Terrain sums to Timeless Reciprocity & Ceaseless Self-Giving vis-a-vis Processions vis-a-vis the Trinitarian Life even as robust explanatory power on all fronts teaches us that just as it is incoherent to say “Physics” somehow “Comes-From” that physics book over there on the shelf, so too it is incoherent to say that Metaphysical Naturalism or that the Christian Metaphysic either does or “can in principle” somehow “Come-From” ANY-thing that reduces to a World-Contingent Explanatory Terminus.

With some of that in mind, a few vectors I put together in 2014 which are a bit esoteric but, well, it’s okay to have fun-ish sometimes ~

Begin Esoteric-ish Copy/Paste:

Slavery’s Only Absolute – Ceaseless – Antithesis: Trinity

Absurdity:

Deep in the mire of unrecallable eons metaphysical naturalism finds her faceless god named Blind Indifference relentlessly falling forward, nurturing, rearing any potpourri of molecular happenstance worthy of yet one more step of genomic multiplication. The hodgepodge arrays of irrationally conditioned reflexes summing into the psychedelic inclinations we call “slavery” across various insect speciations is found ever worthy, highly favored and therein declared part of god’s fitted kingdom. Kaleidoscopic cascades falling forward ever outward, ever wider across fitted eras carried the kingdom’s self-serving heartlessness into yet other, even more successful species – effervescing into the ever irrationally conditioned psychic phosphorescence within the skulls of a more recent biped arrival. The bipeds immersed in their many and varied conditional – arbitrary – delusions each declare with fists raised that their own particular conditioned – arbitrary – delusion is the fact of the matter an all others are the “real” delusion. In a world of neurons awash in an ocean of blind molecular reflex antirealism’s ontological pluralism sits at god’s right hand – his expressionless name being Absurdity and god is his A and his Z. The bipeds are unaware that these too – these varied notions of trueness – are yet other crafty bits of stealth which god has laced deep into his array of reflexive feedback loops ever lurking beneath the surface compelling her mechanistic genomic duplications to spit out yet again. She always wins, eventually, across the eons as her beloved psychotics adrift in their ocean of conditioned – arbitrary – delusions ever shuffle this way and that way feverishly sprinting towards inevitable extinction there in what is the moral landscape of god’s kingdom.

Sanity:

Our brutally repeatable moral experiences intellectually and existentially coincides with Scripture’s Meta-Narrative – each affirming that Slavery is in all possible worlds – at every conceivable juncture – that which is – in existence’s full and final essence – the Ought-Not, the Outside, the Dark, the Ugly, such that once the universe’s fateful reorganization within its quantum change-of-states (energy’s absurd infinite regress) fluxes yet again and evolutionary morality is non-entity, there will yet be – still left standing – that immutable Objective Moral Object inside of love’s volitional grain amid personhood – still left standing – in all that is love’s I-You / Self-Other there as the final mediator, Actuality’s ceaseless envoi. The inescapable – unending – value of, beauty of, worthiness of Person, of Other there – we will see how – ends all regression – ad infinitum. This meta-narrative is the fact of the matter, is the state of affairs on the issue at hand – slavery – and that in all possible worlds, therefore – it is self-evident – we must look beyond both methodological and metaphysical naturalism’s inseparable identities with the kaleidoscopic fluidity of the arbitrary, the phantasmagoric, the amoral, the indifferent for in that hopelessly indifferent paradigm ontological pluralism wrapped up inside of antirealism’s variegated oscillations awaits all lines and while in such absurdity all may be the stuff of psychosis adrift in an ocean of irrationally conditioned delusion, all assertions just are an impossible case in such a world of delusion-laden psychosis. Naturalism as a metaphysics – not as a methodology of the study of the created order – accumulates here ever more hemorrhaging in what ends in fatality, and, in this issue now at hand, leaves SLAVERY ever intact as just one more bit of The-Real in that endless chain of bits within quantum indeterminism’s absurd infinite regress that just is energy’s change-of-state – that just is atheism’s god.

Spying Freedom:

Once out of metaphysical naturalism’s nihilism we find that Mind’s I-exist is declared actually intact – free of enslavement’s absurdity – where logic’s A in fact is not logic’s B as logic’s finger outreaches the edges of the natural universe and man’s own mind, his own living-i-am there awakes within an ocean of ontological contours which all begin to fuse as we move into the arena of our brutally repeatable experiences, into all that is logic, into all that is the beloved, into all that is love. We find at the end of these many lines all that is personhood’s necessarily triune real estate of the I’s motions amid all that just is the milieu of Self-Other-Us and there mind’s living-i-am’s perceive yet farther. In all these junctures that same triune real estate of personhood, of the I’s motions, is found seamlessly fluid in His Image, that ontological – moral – landscape that is the ceaseless reciprocity within the immutable love of the Necessary Being, there – in God – in Trinity.

Emancipation:

God – Immutable Love – Trinity – articulates, “Let Us make man in Our Image” and Genesis’ Actuality is the OT’s Actuality, is the NT’s Actuality, as Actuality finds Man in the lap of Personhood’s inescapably triune milieu of Self-Other-Us within the ceaseless reciprocity of the immutable love of the Necessary Being. Therein – in Trinity – love’s timeless Sacrifice, pouring out, of all which we call Self – amid and among the timeless Filling of all which we call the Beloved/Other forever begets within such living waters all which just is the singular Us – and this ad infinitum void of what we call First, void of what we call Last, void of what we call Thirst. Such triune contours within the immutable love of the Necessary Being bring us to the ends of what Man can call sight as he peers into He Who first precedes, then endures, and finally outreaches, outdistances, all possible worlds. The exegesis of filiation, of the eternally begotten as a proper and orthodox semantic paradigm is there forever housed within the Triune, that is to say, within those motions which both the intellectual and existential affirm as comprising love, Who Scripture affirms is Himself God. A key that unlocks: Man is by necessity the Contingent Self, fashioned in His Image – in God’s, the Triune’s, Image – and therein Man’s Means and Man’s Ends just are those motions found within Trinity by which all his (man’s) hope – all his (man’s) means and ends – are reduced to one word: Other.

Slavery’s End:

The geography amid Contingency and Necessity never changes as all that is the state of affairs of the contingent self’s volition amid self/other finds him in motion and such unpacks the affairs of volition’s delight, of volition’s trust within love’s many embraces and we find that should such motion be into the contingent’s own self he will there find – necessarily – insufficiency, lack, want, and this ad infinitum in the un-free permanence of the un-whole. Whereas, that same business of volition – of motion – into what just is Immutable Love finds the non-free of the non-whole fading into non-entity as – ad infinitum – He fills us full with our true and final felicity. All the OT’s assessment of means and ends across all those millennia just always were those same means and ends assessed in the NT which all these millennia just always have been all these affairs of His Love enunciating across all that just is the history of man that it is the case that in fact – actually, finally – no person shall need to be taught of love by man ever again – as it will be Immutable Love Himself Who fills us, Who we spy face to face. The Necessary Means here becomes the Necessary Being Himself as – it is self-evident – nothing less houses the reach required to tie up all such metaphysical ends in Actuality’s Paradigm. All-Sufficiency emerges as what must be the contingent’s hope: God Himself pouring Himself out for – pouring Himself into – we the contingent in all that just is the affairs of Amalgamation, all that just is Timelessness/Time, Immaterial/Material, Incorporeal/Corporeal, Word/Flesh, in all that just is the affairs of God-In-Man, of Man-In-God – of incarnation. By such All-Sufficient Means an unspeakable liberty will emerge in our Ends as wherever we shall there freely motion within Actuality’s Triune, whether into what lay beneath our feet, or into what sails above our heads, or into those possible worlds within our chests, we will find that beautiful freedom called Permanence.

End Esoteric-ish Copy/Paste  ((…from https://www.thinkingchristian.net/posts/2014/08/ten-reasons-the-bible-has-it-right-on-slavery/#comment-104642 …))

Slavery: The Christian Metanarrative Defines Slavery As A Swath Of Privation’s Many Pains Therefore The Christian Metanarrative Cannot Have A “Pro-Slavery” Verse Much Less A “Pro-Slavery” Any-Thing. That’s the bottom line. As per the following:

http://www.Slavery.Bible

END

Spread the love
Recent Posts

Leave a Comment