A friend of mine was raised Presbyterian in a small town. As a young boy delivering newspapers, he had a Baptist pastor on his route who said, "Do you know you're going to hell?" The pastor read scripture verses, and argued that my friend was indeed going to hell. My friend went back to his own Presbyterian pastor who used the same KJV bible, quoted the same passages, and came to a directly opposite conclusion -- that it was, in fact, the Baptist who was going to hell. Both pastors used the same bible, same KJV verson, and same scripture quotes, and came to opposite conlusions. So a giant YES!!, theology is based on what other people say, esp those with religious authority (degrees, ordination, etc). But this also tells us that the bible can be used to rationalize almost anything. Meaning is read into the bible, not the other way around. And that meaning is almost always personal prejudices, or something otherwise self-serving.
I just stumbled across your channel and have been bing watching for a couple days now. You do a fantastic job. One of my biggest issues has always been the gymnastic, gaslighting and lies that takes place when religious leaders try to explain away the inconsistencies in religious writings. Your approach makes far more sense, in that they are a compilation of stories authored, assembled and interpreted by different, flawed, humans at different times, under different circumstances and therefore inconsistencies can exist. If everyone could accept this and adopt this, I think it would be so beneficial to faith. Being told that applying reason demonstrates a lack of faith can only turn the reasonable away. I can sit peacefully in human inconsistencies, I can't sit in intentional deceit.
I agree with everything you just said, but didn’t Jesus teach that you should have a childlike faith? That it was shameful that Thomas would want to see the holes in Jesus’ hands? Obviously if the Bible is fallible then that passage may also be fallacious. It’s just unfortunate that the Bible itself promotes the idea that reason should be an afterthought and instead you should “just believe”. And it makes sense that it would promote this, since the Bible rarely tries to argue its points but rather declare things authoritatively.
Speaking as a Catholic, Catholic Theology gives a very high place to reason, as much as to say that "Reason is the Voice of God'. Catholic thought is a synthesis of Faith and Reason: it does not oppose the two, since in the end, we are the "rational animal' and what we have is the capacity to think. Religious Faith is not a separate compartment of life that is governed by odd rules not applicable when we think of anything else. In terms of the Bible, I heard this succinct summary of Biblical Inspiration. ' The Bible is the Word of God, in the words of men", so that we can be open to whatever scholarship is out there. The whole Faith and Reason thing, where Faith is some separable disposition is quite a dangerous way to think, because it can lead to a too simplistic idea of faith. Personally, I find Catholicism both intellectually stimulating, and replete with spiritual riches - and that is where I think someone should be with their faith. A physicist, poet , artist etc. should all be able to find in their faith that which answers their needs. It isn"t like a pre-bought package deal, or a subscription service. God speaks through concrete realities.
Our pastor made the mistake of telling us to really read our bibles and that led to me completely dismantling my belief structures as the inconsistencies piled up. My question was “if all this is contrived and manipulated, how can I believe any of it?” The answer was, not much, if anything.
Read Matthew's gospel. Jesus's criticisms of the religion of his day apply surprisingly well to some of today's religion. Yet Jesus didn't reject it all. He critiqued both the religion and its scriptures, acknowledged some as valid and added his own insights. In other words, you've been told it's all or nothing to keep you under religion's control, but Jesus offers a different approach.
@@MusicalRaichu I somewhat agree, but I think it's always important to point out that the historical veracity of those very words of Jesus that you're referring to is in doubt. They were written decades after Jesus's death by a person who could not possibly have been an eye witness. It's possible that some of those words reflect somewhat accurately the things Jesus actually said or did, but in view of other data it's more likely that whoever wrote it manipulated or invented many of these events and sayings to serve their goals in writing the document. (And the gospel of Matthew is historically attributed to Matthew but basic circumstantial evidence would indicate that it's not possible for any of Jesus's disciples to have written them.) Those words in the gospels are as much or more the words of the writers and of the people whose stories they are drawing from than they are the words of the actual historical Jesus. Maybe that's splitting hairs, but I think it's important that religious people today at least acknowledge that their religious efforts and teachings are 100% human-derived, and they use an ancient quasi-historical and questionable text as support (or some of it - other parts are completely disregarded, as they should be), rather than claiming that their efforts and teachings are divinely derived from said questionable text.
@@14Sciteach That's fair enough. We know that most Pharisees, for instance, were not as extreme the Matthew's gospel paints. Still, it doesn't change the points I made. A portion of the modern church, a minority from a historical viewpoint, but significant and influential in Dan's country today, takes a view of scripture that is at odds with Jesus as portrayed in scripture itself. And many of the criticisms of religion from Jesus's mouth in said scripture could be aimed directly at the modern church. That's why many rightly reject it. Among them are those who were indoctrinated that it's all or nothing, so they choose nothing. Others read their Bibles and recognize that they've been misled. The claims made about the Bible are at odds with the Bible itself. They don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. They find a better way to follow Jesus.
@@MusicalRaichu Yes. I accept this approach, even if I don't take it myself. My interpretation of that is that there are people, and you seem to be in that group, who desire to use the teachings of Jesus as rationale to be good humans, and I can't say anything negative about that. To me, that's what "following Jesus" means practically - being a good human. I admit there's more to it than that, but in a general sense, I think that's what a lot of Jesus's teachings seem to drive toward - or at least that's the most common overall interpretation of them (albeit not all of them - some are even hard if not impossible to understand or to derive altruistic meaning from, so even the words of Jesus must be negotiated with). I think I've found that there are many motivations to be good humans - I used to believe Christianity was the only source of goodness, but I no longer see that as a valid stance. In fact, I'm not even sure that claiming any religion is a "source" of goodness is valid. I think it's more likely that humans are the source of goodness and many different religions are vessels for that source in different ways. For whatever reason, whereas I used to be heavily religious, since I learned the truth of the Bible it's hard to be. For me. But thankfully there's goodness to be found elsewhere.
In around 1980 the Watchtower organization had issues with "apostates" at headquarters and drummed many people out. They addressed it in print in 1981 saying that they were reading the Bible on their own without Watchtower publications to guide them and they ended up 'returning to the incorrect beliefs of Christendom.' o think there's no better example of people using other people's ideas and priorities to understand the Bible than the Jehovah's Witnesses. And it's funny because the founder of Watchtower gave much credit to learning from different pastors and theologians and Watchtower to this day recognizes that Mr Russell borrowed his ideas from these people.
That is actually a good point. There is no actual way of getting past your cultural context, just like there's no way to invent something without building on prior inventions, or to discover something without knowing what has been discovered already.
I’m sure that when Paul’s converts received his letters to them, they would talk about what he meant in pretty much the same way we do - maybe they even sent a messenger to him asking for greater clarity on, say, faith vs works.🙋♂️❔🤨 Sometimes I wonder if he knew himself!
So explain this one. How did everything I read about in the Bible concerning the new life in Christ, I experienced before I heard it from the Word. I never remember hearing the name Jesus yet when I fully surrendered to the Lord upon first time hearing everything was new. It was a feeling like I never had before, a peace that I cannot explain a joy that no matter what is going on in the world it is there . I’m not perfect but so many things changed in a moment, I stopped cussing and immediately felt bad to cuss, I wanted to be around other Christians but didn’t understand where this desire came from. I had an intense burning desire to study His word, would lay up most the nights listening to preachers, I could not get enough. Everything I read I was blown away it was a WOW moment, I’ve experienced that, yes that’s exactly how I felt. and I still have that today. Not just that but every true born again Christian even though situations may vary they had the same transformation and desires changed. Have you ever fully 100% surrendered to the Lord? A surrender that says God you can take everything I have, I only want you? If your heart is truly broke you can experience this wonderful relationship with Jesus.
@ everyone have you noticed something I never hear atheists talk about. One is the attitudes from each side. Christians are always polite, caring , while the other side comes back with smears, slander and why, because we have we have a view of love and understanding. Second have you ever noticed almost everyone that goes all in trying to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt there is no God ends up getting saved. Good example that someone could try and disprove his book is Lee Strobel; he was a journalist who set out to debunk Christianity but ultimately became a Christian himself, documenting his journey in the book "The Case for Christ." See as long as you stay on the surface and run across the top of the water with statements of say, science proved this or that wrong and that’s why I don’t believe , you can keep yourself deceived but when you drill down on each issue because you know eternity lays in the balance then that’s where the great divide is and you find the truth.
Back when I was a Christian I was a part of the Pentecostal Church. I would never have discerned that theology if I hadn’t started my Christian journey in that movement. I struggled with it from the moment I was born again and eventually left that movement and 2 years later the religion in general.
This really hits the nail on the head perfectly. The book is so seperated from the meaning people get from it. And the preacher will tell you his interpretation is pure godly gold.
Easy way of saying all this, coming from someone who majored in English, Creative Writing and Psychology: meaning comes from context. Context isn't just the context of the text surrounding a specific phrase or word, but historical, geographical, philisophical and original author's biographical context of who, what, when, where and how the text was written as well as, and ESPECIALLY, the context surrounding the person reading and interpreting the text. Words mean something, but only what we make them mean.
Hey, Dan! Would you consider doing a short on the claims that the Bible is “unique?” I would love to hear some bullet points that compare it other ancient, religious texts.
This is an excellent point - and true not only of scripture, but of all texts. For all those guys who like to quote Cicero or Plato or whoever, I suspect a lot of them think of those ancient thinkers as people enjoying a similar life to what those readers enjoy. Even reading the words of the 'founding fathers', people apply a modern interpretation on texts written two and a half centuries ago.
19 днів тому
nope. most texts are by a single writer who isn't intentionally trying to confuse you.
Most texts are by writers who weren't writing to you. They were writing to their contemporaries. That's not us. We do not have the cultural context the writers and their intended audience had, and we _cannot_ really have that context. So we necessarily will engage with these texts through our own cultural and ideological lenses.
I imagine at one point in time a bunch of pastors came together to try to create a video game based on the Bible and quickly scrapped it realizing it would rival grand theft auto on violence and mature themes.
No, there's video games, card games, board games, all based on the bible....it's a collection of lots of conflicting authors over centuries. Since it has no central theme, you can build what you what of it.
@@langreeves6419Those aren't based on the Bible. Those are based on dogmas claimed to be based on the Bible, almost always by people who use the Bible to uphold traditional hierarchies.
@langreeves6419 i think you missed the message behind his comment. If there was lets say an old testament video game. We would be shocked at how graphic it is, reminding us as Grand Theft Auto or even God Of War.
This is profound and also self evidently true. Slavery has gone from a question of biblical text interpretation to a question of apologetic minimisation.
This was precisely what I realized after studying the text as a Christian. Realizing just how much was taught in my church that wasn't in there or that just was not meant in the original context. The real "red pill" moment for me was realizing that the entire book of Esther was poetry. It wasn't a real event and it has never been interpreted that way by Jews when it was written or now. Esther is an analogy about God's relationship with Israel while they were under Babylonian rule. I was taught in Sunday school that this was a real thing that actually happened and no one from my church knew this wasn't the case when I asked them about it. Everything you learn from church is a massive game of broken telephone and when people teach at a church, they are repeating ideas they heard from other Christians or things they came up with on their own. When you actually read the Bible, it becomes abundantly clear that it isn't the divinely inspired word of God like I was taught, or at least, that you shouldn't just believe everything you're taught in church.
Your comment got me to thinking... I am a writer. I am also a Christian. I often try -- sometimes consciously and sometimes unconsciously -- to infuse my writing with Christian teaching or messages. Sometimes it feels like I am guided to use specific ideas and messages. On the other hand, I have worked in an industry where I truly believe some writers have been guided by the Devil (I've always been interested in from where that creative "zone" state comes?). With that said, are these "other writers" writing the words of the Devil? No. Am I writing the words of God? No. We are writing based on inspiration and going where that inspiration leads, but not writing as a direct and perfect channel for either God or "the other guy." So while I may have to think long-and-hard on the creation of the Ten Commandments, I'm pretty confident the writers of the books of the Bible were as flawed as any other writer inspired by God. My issue at this point -- as a Christian -- is how much do you negotiate and re-negotiate the text before it becomes moreso a philosophy than a religion? But as I was told by a church leader "That's faith... and personal." Anyway, sorry for the long reply. Your post just sent me thinking.
I was kicked out of a bible group chat for realizing that the “curse of Ham” isn’t real and that it was Canaan instead that was, debunking the idea that slavery of Africans was divinely ordered, and bringing up the fact that they’re Cushites and not Hamites or Canaanites by process of elimination. This was after an entire sermon about Christianity and racial politics in a video chat. The speaker wanted to know if we had questions and I was the only one who mentioned it. It didn’t help that I was one the only people of color in the chat at the time, so I made myself a target there. I then realized that was my moment, the one that opened my eyes. I chose to follow God my own way after that.
@@kaipacifica1289 I’m in a similar boat. I’m not a professional writer by any means, but I write on the side as a hobby. I also create visual art as a hobby. In both of those I try to weave Christian themes into my work, and at some point the thought crossed my mind that “huh, I’m creating stuff inspired by God, but that doesn’t mean my work is without error”. I may convey a message wrong, I may draw something incorrectly, I may represent a scenario or setting in the wrong way, but that doesn’t make my work less inspired if that makes any sense. It made me really wonder, then, if works inspired by God that contain error are possible, rather than what I’d been taught growing up. I just started questioning biblical inerrancy recently, so it’s been an interesting journey I suppose. I know biblical inerrancy wasn’t necessarily the point of your comment, how we negotiate and present the text and theology was, but yeah, seeing your comment is really interesting (in a good way) because I’ve never heard someone put into words a similar thought process I’m going through. (Edit: sorry, I meant similar experience rather than similar thought process. I’m referring to the writing and art part) Also wishing all the best in your writing and faith journey, I love it when people incorporate Christian themes in the work, even if it’s as small as a storyline where someone’s taking care of someone who’s hurting.
@@kaipacifica1289 This feels like a pretty healthy way to view it. I think it's fine to derive a world view from a text as much as you want and even give it spiritual significance, but only when you're aware that that's what it is. Interpretation. I grew up in a very fundamentalist background so it was do-or-die when it came to inerrancy of the Bible. My grandma (who is still alive and a wonderful lady) is probably the only relative I have with a more open-minded view of the Bible as scripture. She still believes in God, but she sees the Bible as a guide for her religion rather than an inerrant basis for it and I've always really admired her for that.
@@iBleed_RoyLty4368 I'm happy for you that you were able to make your way out of that situation and stay religious. For a lot of people that would be the last straw, but I hope you're able to find another community of like-minded people to replace them.
I'm pretty sure a lot of US White Evangelical Christian Nationalists do constantly ask why we don't still have slavery... they certainly don't seem to have much of a problem with it as part of US history, and a lot say out loud that they think it did Africa a favour.
Ironically, they often mention the curse of ham to justify slavery of Africans. But, it never happened and therefore shouldn’t have been. The Cushites weren’t cursed to be slaves, it was the Canaanites proven by the exact scripture they preach, and the story didn’t mention a skin color. The existence of a “Slave Bible” is further proof that it’s all fabricated by them.
Ironically, they often mention the curse of ham to justify slavery of Africans. But, it never happened and therefore shouldn’t have been. The Cushites weren’t cursed to be slaves, it was the Canaanites proven by the exact scripture they preach, and the story didn’t mention a skin color. The existence of a “Slave Bible” is further proof that it’s all fabricated by them.
Ironically, they often mention the curse of ham to justify slavery of Africans. But, it never happened and therefore shouldn’t have been. The Cushites weren’t cursed to be slaves, it was the Canaanites proven by the exact scripture they preach, and the story didn’t mention a skin color. The existence of a “Slave Bible” is further proof that it’s all fabricated by them.
i would very much like to hear you analyze he Book of Mormon using the same post-modern approach that you use here. This is not snark, but a sincere request.
When people say we need the Bible in schools; what they actually mean and want is that the Bible is taught in their particular dogmatic way, because anyone who reads the Bible without someone telling them how to think about what they are reading, will find the God(s) of the Old Testament/Torah to be genocidal, misogynistic, racists brutes. People have always given meaning to the words and projected their own “morality” onto the texts. Stressing those things they themselves believed to be moral or immoral. The Bible(s) can literally be interpreted to say and mean whatever the person reading says the passages mean.
It would be interesting to havae module of study covering the nativity accounts in the four gospels and cconstrasting them, pointing out their differences.
@ I’m more of a mind to seek the truth about what the Bibles) do and do not say and how meaning changed beginning with the original culture to our current era. Clearly understanding these “books” requires a scholarly effort. I’m more concerned with the social implications regarding “truth” rather than some milquetoast contrasting of gospels and nativity scenes. I’d much rather see the impact, positive and negative of a work of literature that has so galvanized the world through the ages to this very day.
@ One need not go further than a few Christian denominations and their “Bible studies” to understand their disparate dogmas. There are some 4K recognized Christian denominations in the U.S. alone & another 38K+ Christian denominations worldwide. Put that in your “generalization” pipe and smoke it. 😂😂😂
@Mist3rdiggs I wasn"t talking about different denominations, but only the Bible. My suggestion was that you do a deeper dive into the texts, historically, culturally, and critically, to become aware of the huge multiplicity of voices, over maybe a thousand years of writing, that you find in the Bible, before you generalise. Read a few commentaries. That kind of thing. Leave the denominations to themselves.
Cogent argument. But I also think, and would add, that as with all rational discourse, Theology included, there is also an orientation toward the Truth. We want to be able to say also what is True about the world, - even though we do operate within interpretative frameworks, traditions, and so on - , in ways that are not completely bound up with our goals, or the rhetorics we inhabit. As a Catholic, I would say that membership of the Church involves being drawn to Truth, more than it is a question of me choosing. In other words not a personal predilection. Ultimately, the foundation of Christian faith is Testimony, the repeated witness to God's Revelation, renewed in each age, down through history.
While this is true, the Bible does itself no favors by being full of inconsistencies and contradictions, and being deliberately obtuse in parts. I'm reasonably confident my understanding of, oh I dunno, the Alchemist, is pretty close to what Paulo Coelho intended, even if my subjective experience shapes my interpretation.
19 днів тому
the bible is a sacred text and confusion is part of the genre
And by the same token, it is only through social circumstances and a set of rhetorical needs, goals and exigencies that we can assess the Dark Knight 🦇
You say a lot what I say to people. I'm not a scholar whatsoever, but I do love critical thinking, and to see light being shown on tons of stuff we've been told is in the Bible when clearly it isn't and just for us to take people's word instead of doing the research for ourselves.
Not only is how we interpret a text based on our social circumstances, the text itself is also based on those same social circumstances. This is why i dont believe in canon or copyright. We always make and interpret art in dialogue with our circumstances and the people around us. for all of human history, art and its interpretation has been a social, communal act
Thats so true and even further thought, I mean, the Bible is still just someone else's experiences with God so you're still only getting second hand theology even from the Bible. I mean, what's the point of theology if it's not your own experience?
I think even Lewis points out in one of his introductions (possibly to The Great Divorce) that he is imagining something that reflects his understanding of the theology but that, if it's not a useful metaphor for the reader, they should feel free to close the book and ignore it.
@wartgin that's a good point. I was thinking the other day i never want to study to "show myself approved" ever again lol that got me nothing but nonsense and an ego that reality couldn't cash lol
Right. This is the problem with saying that the work of a specific author -- say, Paul -- is divinely inspired. You're saying God intended whatever Paul says, but you're relying on the fact that Paul said it to determine that God influenced or told Paul to say it. But you'd never even have known God spoke to Paul unless Paul told you God spoke to him, so how do you determine that God actually did speak to Paul? Unless God speaks to you and tells you definitively that everything Paul said is what God intended Paul to say, you don't really know... and if God can just talk to you, what do you need Paul's experience for?
@@Uryvichk I tell people that I consider the Bible inspired but also remember that it is filtered through the understanding and cultural context of the human authors. We don't know what God said only how the human authors understood it.
When I was still a Christian, I tried my absolute best to consistently follow the teachings of the Bible and that ultimately is the reason I left because no one around me was doing that. Not a single person. There were people who were closer to it than others, but nobody was truly consistent. I also wasn't able to rectify the contradictions and the infallibility and improbability that at least the god of the judeo-christian Bible was in fact real.
I think the case here is overstated. I think you can figure out what a text from way back when is trying to say. The issue is that sometimes it's just heinous; and so people cover for it by making these kinds of death of the author arguments.
the phrase "And of some have compassion, making a difference" just doesn't parse dramatically for me so I honestly have no idea what it's supposed to mean
"Uncritical and Disengenuous Rhetoric" is basically the job description for most modern apologists, at least the professional ones. If they thought too critically or communicated too honestly, they'd have to go get a real job.
I similarly commented years ago to and in a book I composed over a decade ago I WANT YOU TO HAVE for free. Finding out where to send it has been elusively difficult. Help me out here. Thank you.
But to further this, as you say, it’s based on what people have heard first- They still have the idea that the Bible is authentic and literal, and they put their faith or trust in the pastors and preachers who are interpreting it on their behalf. So I think this quote still rings quite true.
Our understanding of an author's message is also governed by the words the author uses. Surely an all-knowing and loving God's inspiration would have been less ambiguous. Torture the text and you can make the Bible say almost anything you want it to say. I think they call that hermeneutics. Putting aside my opinion regarding the Bible, Dan, I enjoy and appreciate your concise videos.
My family & pastors told me all my life that “the Bible is clear” & I should read it & take it seriously. So I did, and it made me into a filthy socialist. 😂
The problem is that most people use this as an excuse to ignore the majority of what the bible actually says. "The bible doesn't promote slavery" for example.
There's an old skeptical snark about theology being the study of something which nobody can show actually exists. The "-ology" is speaking and writing about what other people have said and written. There's no data apart from that. ;)
I would agree, it's very much in line with monkey see, monkey do. Then there are the outliers. My theology and spirituality come from a book that I did not hear anybody talk about growing up - the Urantia Book. I pretty much only hear people "talk" about it when we're reading the text out loud during study group.
Interestingly enough the Judeans had no requirement to put definitions of terms in their scripture. Why? They knew exactly what they were conveying. Then the "new" testament comes along and particular terms need to be clearly defined. So if we back up a word or two, to love we have this requirement being filled starting with Saul in 2 Corinthians I believe. Then in Saint Johns 1 epistle we have another definition of love. The entire principal that fuels the "new" testament.....
You’re largely correct here (especially when it comes to such a loose, contradictory collection of texts like the Bible) but I think it’s wrongheaded to (initially, at least) act like there is no original meaning at all, and that meaning is *only* found in people projecting themselves onto the text. Anti-intentionalism is just plain stupid. You even acknowledge (when quoting from your book) that these texts do have original intended meanings.
You hit on a crucial point here. There is the original intent of the authors. Independent of this is the ideology of those interpreting the text. Independent of both is the reality of the institution that arose. This can be seen being played out with parents and children. The adult plainly tells the child not to eat a cookie with the because it is being saved for someone else. This is the intended meaning. The child can misinterpret this as "don't eat *any* cookies," "don't eat *any* sweets," "don't eat that cookie (for some other reason." This is the resulting ideology, and it can be shared with others. It is also possible that the child can understand correctly, but then eat the cookie anyway. This is the practice in reality. The closest we ever get to the intended meaning, in my estimation, is to consider the text in a vacuum.
So, when Dan points out what he claims a biblical text really means, are we supposed to believe him because of what the text says or because that's just what we've heard Dan say?
Leviticus is part of the Hebrew bible, specifically the Torah, while Jude is a new testament letter. They were written hundreds of years apart, so not the same author.
0:22 Bro, essentially every religion is based on what people say about gods. That's literally how the synoptic Gospels that cover Jesus's life came to be, that's how the Torah came to be, and so many other religious texts, coming from oral tales and traditions. The tweet guy seems confused 😂
You mean theology based on text. In this case, different Christian theologies supposedly based on whatever is deemed to be inspired text. Philosophical theology is not based on what we hear people say or ancient text, or religious dogma and practices.
OTOH I see God on the bus almost daily and we occasionally talk theology. He thinks I'm naive and overly idealistic, but is too polite to say so. Dunno if he talks to the Pope, but he doesn't carry a cell phone.
There's nothing wrong about not critiquing the inherent value of the practice of slavery because slavery, if defined as the owning of other human beings isn't intrinsically immoral. If it was, we'd have to abolish all prisons.
_Are_ prisoners "slaves?" I have no idea because I've yet to be provided a metric for what _makes_ property, property. Without a clear metric that can be systematically tested, we are left with question-begging and prescriptivist semantic and etymological fallacies. Yet, every time I ask for such a metric, my interlocutor declines to provide one. And, as you pointed out, if we aren't careful, then _other_ institutions *become* "slavery" through the application of reductio ad absurdem.
@@JustifiedNonetheless We can do the same for any categorisation. If we inquire about what exactly is exhaustively constituted by any particular concept we will struggle to provide a comprehensive account which clearly incorporates all instances and is able to demarcate everything which falls under a particular category and everything which doesn't. This however shouldn't stop us from being able to identify clear examples. If you are stuck in a cage against your will and perform labour for little or no compensation this is clearly an instance of slavery.
@@peterchristeas5519 _Are_ prisoners compelled to do labor against their will without pay? As far as I am aware, that is not the case. I understand what you are saying about having a comprehensive account for what does and does not fit without a category, but I disagree with the notion that this is impossible. While I would agree that there are certainly different forms of servitude, what makes slavery, slavery is that the individual is *owned* as *property.* I would further argue that what matters is not the _words_ being used, but that the unambiguous metric for what constitutes ownership is exclusive rights and control. In the case of slaves, this would necessarily involve a complete loss of autonomy and capacity for self governance. The usage of this metric is aligned with slave codes of the Antebellum South that clearly and unambiguously state as much, with Federick Douglass' account of his own enslavement, and clearly separates slavery from other institutions and circumstances that involve compulsory labor (like children doing chores and those sentenced to community service), unpaid labor (like aforementioned chores and POWs under Section III of the Geneva Convention), and loss of some other degree of autonomy (wards of the state, inmates, military personnel--particularly those conscripted or in basic training).
The text has no inherent meaning. Its all contingent on social circumstances and rhetorical goals. So what social circumstances and rhetorical goals allow you to get to the meaning of this passage from St. Jude that the King James translators meant to impart?
one theology seeks to answer the Evil Problem by claiming god doesn't interfere with free will even though the entire bible is about god intervening even salvation is only possible by god physically coming to earth to intervene so where do these christians even pull their theology from?
I think that's a good message but not the whole story. I ultimately rejected theology I heard people say because it disagreed with lived experience. Or I read the Bible in its original language and saw it disagreed with what people say. Or I discovered church fathers with a different view (what earlier people say). Theology is never based on scripture alone, but it's more complicated than "based on what we hear people say", and scripture can influence you and "make a difference" (in both senses).
In your example in Jude, you literally just proved the hermeneutic principle of allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture which implies that Scripture gives meaning to Scripture. There is inherent meaning which has to be found through the process of exegesis. So yes, it's based on what other people IN THE BIBLE have said!
People believe in the "rapture" because they have been told the rapture is true. They rely on their Pastors for the truth. It is too time consuming to read the Bible to find where it says about the "rapture". People have been told lies by their Pastors about the Catholic Church, so naturally, they are going to believe them. They could never accept that their Pastors are capable of telling lies to them.
I'll always have faith in Jesus and His practical teachings of loving God with all your heart mind and soul and doing unto others as you'd want done unto you. But I'll admit I'm suspecting Paul screwed that all up and turned Jesus into this weird blood sacrifice death cult not too different from Baal worship.
Do you agree with Jesus saying to obey the pharisees=law of Moses? To deal with children who disrespect their parents in a specific way? To keep even the smallest commandments of the law of Moses? What he does in Revelation 2? What he calls women and Gentiles ? What he says about parents and family?
Well that's maybe a problem then. Because all of the stories about Jesus come after Paul and are dependent on Paul's letters to invent their narrative. Christianity as we know it all stems from Paul's writings and the groups he founded and their offshoots. We have no access to the Jesus cult as understood by Peter et al. They left no writings which survived and all we have about them comes from Paul. But also, christianity didn't exist in Paul's time. It was a sect of judaism... which prominently featured blood sacrifice etc. etc. So which is more likely then? That the original Jesus cult, a fringe sect of jews in the 1st century in a time of political turmoil and messianism, didn't have blood sacrifice and death cult stuff in their theology? Or that it was all invented later by some other guy who was also jewish and had all the same cultural influences? It's a complicated question and one with no real answer. But before you go laying all the blame at Paul's feet, really think about what Jesus is. You like the nice, agreeable things. Of course you do. You're living in a post enlightenment era where we've largely rejected a lot of the barbarism of the past. Your moral intuitions are shaped more by Rousseau and Hume than Jesus. There's just no group of people running around venerating Rousseau and Hume to act as a constant reminder of that. You don't really have any way of linking those nice, agreeable things that you like to any historical figure of Jesus, supernatural or otherwise. All that you have are writings which are dependent on the guy you don't seem to like. Which, now we're at the subject of the video here. Your theology of Jesus is just a thing someone else said. You don't know why they said it. And you don't even know who said it. You're interpreting the things this person had Jesus say as good. But you don't actually have the cultural framework to understand why they had Jesus say those things. You're just assuming that the Jesus in the stories agrees with your modern moral intuitions. All that to say, Paul isn't really the problem here. Was he a good guy? Are fringe cult leaders typically good guys? But recall that Paul got the whole Jesus thing from another fringe cult about which we know next to nothing. So maybe the problem isn't stemming from any one person but rather the ideas themselves. Food for thought.
@@Grauenwolf both are unreliable. But Paul at least met apostles. The Gospel authors just wrote theology they supported. at the end of the day: the guy above is just cherry picking.
19 днів тому
@@Cr-pj8bz paul met Peter and James and didn't like or agree with them. that's what we know from Paul's letters.
Well said, ALL interpretation of scripture and spiritual experiences from others, are left up to individuals, whether they believe it, or not, and to what extent, and how that guides their life, mixed with how others interpret these same things. I believe the Bible to be true, but don't believe many of the things written in it, which is how I believe most people feel about it.
@@baonemogomotsi7138 Maybe we can say it's true that it was not written by AI? Unless the universe is a simulation based on rules of boolean logic and... uh oh.
We actually have no idea if there was even an oral tradition, outside of a few possible hints at one in Paul's letters. The Gospels may not be based on any oral tradition at all.
@@Grauenwolf define "most"....do we have any of the original letters? If not, what evidence are we relying on? I just heard a discussion about a paper describing how at least 6 of the letters are believed NOT to be written by Paul and further research is questioning some of the others.....
@@Uryvichk there is actually some speculation that the NT was either a fabrication by "Rome" as a tool to control the populous or possibly Greek literature. The lack of actual physical evidence is mine boggling....
The majority of Christians are against slavery? What is slavery? involuntary servitude with no pay and punishment for failing to succeed or to the work to satisfaction? Slavery? That sounds like childhood. Moreover, that's what many think of as a "good Christian upbringing".
Yeah, equating children with property is one of the disgusting things about Christianity. Do you consider dependent adults property or dependent individuals? Is it okay to strike a person as "punishment"? Might makes right?
John 16:13 “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come”
Same with the warlord tribes of the Muslim faith and the so called chosen people of the Jewish faith and the Hindus faith of India and the Taoists faith of China and the Norse beliefs and the Lotuko mythology in deepest Africa etc All of them based in what other people said, wrote or made up before they were born and all of them false and simply stories! If you think one of them is a story then you have to grant that all of them are just stories!
All human languages, written or spoken, are usually local and forever changing. It's a horrible way to transmit a supposedly universal and unchanging message. A god should know better.
That's never happened and so has no relevance to actual extant Christian theology, but it would depend on how they were taught to read and what other literature was involved, in which case, it would depend on what the individual heard from other people.
@maklelan "...has no relevance to extant Christian theology..." No, but it has everything to do with eisegesis and exegesis. So, it's worth the thought experiment. If one were taught to read through say, a dictionary, by individuals who then left before ever having encountered the text or having been told anything about the text, that would be as close to pure exegesis as one ever hope to get. What such a hypothetical person might glean from the text under such conditions is worth contemplating.
You're saying that I can't believe the words and cannot understand the words without hearing what other people say about it. So, you're saying only your opinion is correct? What if you're wrong? Making a difference can mean differentiation. I understand that without you're telling me ...
My Goodness most peoples theology is so flawed! I hate the English Bible! Love the Greek and Hebrew I will give one Hint its a mistranslated 3 letter word them dang Catholics
The universe is governed by laws. ...in hope that creation itself would be set free from slavery to corruption (Rom 8:20-21 NABO) YHWH and Christ, in becoming the Snake (Serpent) and the Worm, bore that corruption, in demonstration of the Spirit and of ability: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God (1Co 2:4-5) For the Spirit scrutinizes everything, even the depths of God. (1Co 2:10 NABO) That the just demands of the law might be fulfilled in us who live... according to the spirit (Rom 8:4 NABO) Where did that come from?
I opened my Bible, and the Holy Spirit lead me step by step to atheism.
Me too.
Same here.
Yup.
Halleluiah!
I was led step by step by spirits, but they were in a bottle and I thought I was in hell the next day. 🤢🤮👹
A friend of mine was raised Presbyterian in a small town. As a young boy delivering newspapers, he had a Baptist pastor on his route who said, "Do you know you're going to hell?" The pastor read scripture verses, and argued that my friend was indeed going to hell. My friend went back to his own Presbyterian pastor who used the same KJV bible, quoted the same passages, and came to a directly opposite conclusion -- that it was, in fact, the Baptist who was going to hell. Both pastors used the same bible, same KJV verson, and same scripture quotes, and came to opposite conlusions. So a giant YES!!, theology is based on what other people say, esp those with religious authority (degrees, ordination, etc).
But this also tells us that the bible can be used to rationalize almost anything. Meaning is read into the bible, not the other way around. And that meaning is almost always personal prejudices, or something otherwise self-serving.
I just stumbled across your channel and have been bing watching for a couple days now. You do a fantastic job. One of my biggest issues has always been the gymnastic, gaslighting and lies that takes place when religious leaders try to explain away the inconsistencies in religious writings. Your approach makes far more sense, in that they are a compilation of stories authored, assembled and interpreted by different, flawed, humans at different times, under different circumstances and therefore inconsistencies can exist. If everyone could accept this and adopt this, I think it would be so beneficial to faith. Being told that applying reason demonstrates a lack of faith can only turn the reasonable away. I can sit peacefully in human inconsistencies, I can't sit in intentional deceit.
It's the business of religion! I've attended a lot of churches in 62 years and I can tell you motive is everything.
@@curteaton “gymnastic gaslighting” 😂
I agree with everything you just said, but didn’t Jesus teach that you should have a childlike faith? That it was shameful that Thomas would want to see the holes in Jesus’ hands?
Obviously if the Bible is fallible then that passage may also be fallacious. It’s just unfortunate that the Bible itself promotes the idea that reason should be an afterthought and instead you should “just believe”. And it makes sense that it would promote this, since the Bible rarely tries to argue its points but rather declare things authoritatively.
Nobody is reasonable. Not even you.
Speaking as a Catholic, Catholic Theology gives a very high place to reason, as much as to say that "Reason is the Voice of God'. Catholic thought is a synthesis of Faith and Reason: it does not oppose the two, since in the end, we are the "rational animal' and what we have is the capacity to think. Religious Faith is not a separate compartment of life that is governed by odd rules not applicable when we think of anything else.
In terms of the Bible, I heard this succinct summary of Biblical Inspiration. ' The Bible is the Word of God, in the words of men", so that we can be open to whatever scholarship is out there.
The whole Faith and Reason thing, where Faith is some separable disposition is quite a dangerous way to think, because it can lead to a too simplistic idea of faith. Personally, I find Catholicism both intellectually stimulating, and replete with spiritual riches - and that is where I think someone should be with their faith. A physicist, poet , artist etc. should all be able to find in their faith that which answers their needs. It isn"t like a pre-bought package deal, or a subscription service. God speaks through concrete realities.
Our pastor made the mistake of telling us to really read our bibles and that led to me completely dismantling my belief structures as the inconsistencies piled up. My question was “if all this is contrived and manipulated, how can I believe any of it?” The answer was, not much, if anything.
Thomas Jefferson seemingly had an interesting answer to your question (or one similar).
Read Matthew's gospel. Jesus's criticisms of the religion of his day apply surprisingly well to some of today's religion. Yet Jesus didn't reject it all. He critiqued both the religion and its scriptures, acknowledged some as valid and added his own insights. In other words, you've been told it's all or nothing to keep you under religion's control, but Jesus offers a different approach.
@@MusicalRaichu I somewhat agree, but I think it's always important to point out that the historical veracity of those very words of Jesus that you're referring to is in doubt. They were written decades after Jesus's death by a person who could not possibly have been an eye witness. It's possible that some of those words reflect somewhat accurately the things Jesus actually said or did, but in view of other data it's more likely that whoever wrote it manipulated or invented many of these events and sayings to serve their goals in writing the document. (And the gospel of Matthew is historically attributed to Matthew but basic circumstantial evidence would indicate that it's not possible for any of Jesus's disciples to have written them.) Those words in the gospels are as much or more the words of the writers and of the people whose stories they are drawing from than they are the words of the actual historical Jesus. Maybe that's splitting hairs, but I think it's important that religious people today at least acknowledge that their religious efforts and teachings are 100% human-derived, and they use an ancient quasi-historical and questionable text as support (or some of it - other parts are completely disregarded, as they should be), rather than claiming that their efforts and teachings are divinely derived from said questionable text.
@@14Sciteach That's fair enough. We know that most Pharisees, for instance, were not as extreme the Matthew's gospel paints. Still, it doesn't change the points I made.
A portion of the modern church, a minority from a historical viewpoint, but significant and influential in Dan's country today, takes a view of scripture that is at odds with Jesus as portrayed in scripture itself. And many of the criticisms of religion from Jesus's mouth in said scripture could be aimed directly at the modern church.
That's why many rightly reject it. Among them are those who were indoctrinated that it's all or nothing, so they choose nothing. Others read their Bibles and recognize that they've been misled. The claims made about the Bible are at odds with the Bible itself. They don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. They find a better way to follow Jesus.
@@MusicalRaichu Yes. I accept this approach, even if I don't take it myself. My interpretation of that is that there are people, and you seem to be in that group, who desire to use the teachings of Jesus as rationale to be good humans, and I can't say anything negative about that. To me, that's what "following Jesus" means practically - being a good human. I admit there's more to it than that, but in a general sense, I think that's what a lot of Jesus's teachings seem to drive toward - or at least that's the most common overall interpretation of them (albeit not all of them - some are even hard if not impossible to understand or to derive altruistic meaning from, so even the words of Jesus must be negotiated with). I think I've found that there are many motivations to be good humans - I used to believe Christianity was the only source of goodness, but I no longer see that as a valid stance. In fact, I'm not even sure that claiming any religion is a "source" of goodness is valid. I think it's more likely that humans are the source of goodness and many different religions are vessels for that source in different ways. For whatever reason, whereas I used to be heavily religious, since I learned the truth of the Bible it's hard to be. For me. But thankfully there's goodness to be found elsewhere.
In around 1980 the Watchtower organization had issues with "apostates" at headquarters and drummed many people out. They addressed it in print in 1981 saying that they were reading the Bible on their own without Watchtower publications to guide them and they ended up 'returning to the incorrect beliefs of Christendom.' o think there's no better example of people using other people's ideas and priorities to understand the Bible than the Jehovah's Witnesses. And it's funny because the founder of Watchtower gave much credit to learning from different pastors and theologians and Watchtower to this day recognizes that Mr Russell borrowed his ideas from these people.
When anyone references "the Bible", a good question to ask is "which one?"
why?
Yes
That is actually a good point. There is no actual way of getting past your cultural context, just like there's no way to invent something without building on prior inventions, or to discover something without knowing what has been discovered already.
So does it mean God must already have existed before we have invented a new gods?
I’m sure that when Paul’s converts received his letters to them, they would talk about what he meant in pretty much the same way we do - maybe they even sent a messenger to him asking for greater clarity on, say, faith vs works.🙋♂️❔🤨
Sometimes I wonder if he knew himself!
So explain this one.
How did everything I read about in the Bible concerning the new life in Christ, I experienced before I heard it from the Word.
I never remember hearing the name Jesus yet when I fully surrendered to the Lord upon first time hearing everything was new. It was a feeling like I never had before, a peace that I cannot explain a joy that no matter what is going on in the world it is there .
I’m not perfect but so many things changed in a moment, I stopped cussing and immediately felt bad to cuss, I wanted to be around other Christians but didn’t understand where this desire came from. I had an intense burning desire to study His word, would lay up most the nights listening to preachers, I could not get enough. Everything I read I was blown away it was a WOW moment, I’ve experienced that, yes that’s exactly how I felt. and I still have that today.
Not just that but every true born again Christian even though situations may vary they had the same transformation and desires changed.
Have you ever fully 100% surrendered to the Lord? A surrender that says God you can take everything I have, I only want you? If your heart is truly broke you can experience this wonderful relationship with Jesus.
take that same conviction and ask god if she is a lie.
@ I did and He is alive and doing well. You will get to meet Him one day !
@ everyone have you noticed something I never hear atheists talk about. One is the attitudes from each side. Christians are always polite, caring , while the other side comes back with smears, slander and why, because we have we have a view of love and understanding.
Second have you ever noticed almost everyone that goes all in trying to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt there is no God ends up getting saved.
Good example that someone could try and disprove his book is Lee Strobel; he was a journalist who set out to debunk Christianity but ultimately became a Christian himself, documenting his journey in the book "The Case for Christ."
See as long as you stay on the surface and run across the top of the water with statements of say, science proved this or that wrong and that’s why I don’t believe , you can keep yourself deceived but when you drill down on each issue because you know eternity lays in the balance then that’s where the great divide is and you find the truth.
Back when I was a Christian I was a part of the Pentecostal Church. I would never have discerned that theology if I hadn’t started my Christian journey in that movement. I struggled with it from the moment I was born again and eventually left that movement and 2 years later the religion in general.
This really hits the nail on the head perfectly.
The book is so seperated from the meaning people get from it.
And the preacher will tell you his interpretation is pure godly gold.
Easy way of saying all this, coming from someone who majored in English, Creative Writing and Psychology: meaning comes from context. Context isn't just the context of the text surrounding a specific phrase or word, but historical, geographical, philisophical and original author's biographical context of who, what, when, where and how the text was written as well as, and ESPECIALLY, the context surrounding the person reading and interpreting the text. Words mean something, but only what we make them mean.
Hey, Dan! Would you consider doing a short on the claims that the Bible is “unique?” I would love to hear some bullet points that compare it other ancient, religious texts.
This is an excellent point - and true not only of scripture, but of all texts. For all those guys who like to quote Cicero or Plato or whoever, I suspect a lot of them think of those ancient thinkers as people enjoying a similar life to what those readers enjoy. Even reading the words of the 'founding fathers', people apply a modern interpretation on texts written two and a half centuries ago.
nope. most texts are by a single writer who isn't intentionally trying to confuse you.
Most texts are by writers who weren't writing to you. They were writing to their contemporaries. That's not us. We do not have the cultural context the writers and their intended audience had, and we _cannot_ really have that context. So we necessarily will engage with these texts through our own cultural and ideological lenses.
I love learning to think and still understand the importance of religious community
I imagine at one point in time a bunch of pastors came together to try to create a video game based on the Bible and quickly scrapped it realizing it would rival grand theft auto on violence and mature themes.
No, there's video games, card games, board games, all based on the bible....it's a collection of lots of conflicting authors over centuries.
Since it has no central theme, you can build what you what of it.
@@langreeves6419Those aren't based on the Bible. Those are based on dogmas claimed to be based on the Bible, almost always by people who use the Bible to uphold traditional hierarchies.
@langreeves6419 i think you missed the message behind his comment. If there was lets say an old testament video game. We would be shocked at how graphic it is, reminding us as Grand Theft Auto or even God Of War.
@@redpill2225 🙂
This is profound and also self evidently true.
Slavery has gone from a question of biblical text interpretation to a question of apologetic minimisation.
Thank you Dan. Perhaps we are evolving.
This was precisely what I realized after studying the text as a Christian. Realizing just how much was taught in my church that wasn't in there or that just was not meant in the original context.
The real "red pill" moment for me was realizing that the entire book of Esther was poetry. It wasn't a real event and it has never been interpreted that way by Jews when it was written or now. Esther is an analogy about God's relationship with Israel while they were under Babylonian rule. I was taught in Sunday school that this was a real thing that actually happened and no one from my church knew this wasn't the case when I asked them about it.
Everything you learn from church is a massive game of broken telephone and when people teach at a church, they are repeating ideas they heard from other Christians or things they came up with on their own.
When you actually read the Bible, it becomes abundantly clear that it isn't the divinely inspired word of God like I was taught, or at least, that you shouldn't just believe everything you're taught in church.
Your comment got me to thinking... I am a writer. I am also a Christian. I often try -- sometimes consciously and sometimes unconsciously -- to infuse my writing with Christian teaching or messages. Sometimes it feels like I am guided to use specific ideas and messages. On the other hand, I have worked in an industry where I truly believe some writers have been guided by the Devil (I've always been interested in from where that creative "zone" state comes?). With that said, are these "other writers" writing the words of the Devil? No. Am I writing the words of God? No. We are writing based on inspiration and going where that inspiration leads, but not writing as a direct and perfect channel for either God or "the other guy." So while I may have to think long-and-hard on the creation of the Ten Commandments, I'm pretty confident the writers of the books of the Bible were as flawed as any other writer inspired by God. My issue at this point -- as a Christian -- is how much do you negotiate and re-negotiate the text before it becomes moreso a philosophy than a religion? But as I was told by a church leader "That's faith... and personal." Anyway, sorry for the long reply. Your post just sent me thinking.
I was kicked out of a bible group chat for realizing that the “curse of Ham” isn’t real and that it was Canaan instead that was, debunking the idea that slavery of Africans was divinely ordered, and bringing up the fact that they’re Cushites and not Hamites or Canaanites by process of elimination. This was after an entire sermon about Christianity and racial politics in a video chat. The speaker wanted to know if we had questions and I was the only one who mentioned it. It didn’t help that I was one the only people of color in the chat at the time, so I made myself a target there. I then realized that was my moment, the one that opened my eyes. I chose to follow God my own way after that.
@@kaipacifica1289
I’m in a similar boat. I’m not a professional writer by any means, but I write on the side as a hobby. I also create visual art as a hobby. In both of those I try to weave Christian themes into my work, and at some point the thought crossed my mind that “huh, I’m creating stuff inspired by God, but that doesn’t mean my work is without error”. I may convey a message wrong, I may draw something incorrectly, I may represent a scenario or setting in the wrong way, but that doesn’t make my work less inspired if that makes any sense.
It made me really wonder, then, if works inspired by God that contain error are possible, rather than what I’d been taught growing up. I just started questioning biblical inerrancy recently, so it’s been an interesting journey I suppose. I know biblical inerrancy wasn’t necessarily the point of your comment, how we negotiate and present the text and theology was, but yeah, seeing your comment is really interesting (in a good way) because I’ve never heard someone put into words a similar thought process I’m going through.
(Edit: sorry, I meant similar experience rather than similar thought process. I’m referring to the writing and art part)
Also wishing all the best in your writing and faith journey, I love it when people incorporate Christian themes in the work, even if it’s as small as a storyline where someone’s taking care of someone who’s hurting.
@@kaipacifica1289 This feels like a pretty healthy way to view it. I think it's fine to derive a world view from a text as much as you want and even give it spiritual significance, but only when you're aware that that's what it is. Interpretation.
I grew up in a very fundamentalist background so it was do-or-die when it came to inerrancy of the Bible. My grandma (who is still alive and a wonderful lady) is probably the only relative I have with a more open-minded view of the Bible as scripture. She still believes in God, but she sees the Bible as a guide for her religion rather than an inerrant basis for it and I've always really admired her for that.
@@iBleed_RoyLty4368 I'm happy for you that you were able to make your way out of that situation and stay religious. For a lot of people that would be the last straw, but I hope you're able to find another community of like-minded people to replace them.
"There is only one true reading of the bible. But it's not yours. Or yours" = 2000 years of the god of not confusion.
God is never to have said that. Pastors however...
Catholics and Orthodox would say they got it
@@SolracCAP well, its all make believe so it doesnt matter who said it. the point stands.
I'm pretty sure a lot of US White Evangelical Christian Nationalists do constantly ask why we don't still have slavery... they certainly don't seem to have much of a problem with it as part of US history, and a lot say out loud that they think it did Africa a favour.
Ironically, they often mention the curse of ham to justify slavery of Africans. But, it never happened and therefore shouldn’t have been. The Cushites weren’t cursed to be slaves, it was the Canaanites proven by the exact scripture they preach, and the story didn’t mention a skin color. The existence of a “Slave Bible” is further proof that it’s all fabricated by them.
Ironically, they often mention the curse of ham to justify slavery of Africans. But, it never happened and therefore shouldn’t have been. The Cushites weren’t cursed to be slaves, it was the Canaanites proven by the exact scripture they preach, and the story didn’t mention a skin color. The existence of a “Slave Bible” is further proof that it’s all fabricated by them.
Ironically, they often mention the curse of ham to justify slavery of Africans. But, it never happened and therefore shouldn’t have been. The Cushites weren’t cursed to be slaves, it was the Canaanites proven by the exact scripture they preach, and the story didn’t mention a skin color. The existence of a “Slave Bible” is further proof that it’s all fabricated by them.
i would very much like to hear you analyze he Book of Mormon using the same post-modern approach that you use here. This is not snark, but a sincere request.
I will have to get you audio book. Because you are fun to listen too.
❤❤❤❤❤❤thanks Dan!!
When people say we need the Bible in schools; what they actually mean and want is that the Bible is taught in their particular dogmatic way, because anyone who reads the Bible without someone telling them how to think about what they are reading, will find the God(s) of the Old Testament/Torah to be genocidal, misogynistic, racists brutes. People have always given meaning to the words and projected their own “morality” onto the texts. Stressing those things they themselves believed to be moral or immoral. The Bible(s) can literally be interpreted to say and mean whatever the person reading says the passages mean.
It would be interesting to havae module of study covering the nativity accounts in the four gospels and cconstrasting them, pointing out their differences.
@ I’m more of a mind to seek the truth about what the Bibles) do and do not say and how meaning changed beginning with the original culture to our current era. Clearly understanding these “books” requires a scholarly effort. I’m more concerned with the social implications regarding “truth” rather than some milquetoast contrasting of gospels and nativity scenes. I’d much rather see the impact, positive and negative of a work of literature that has so galvanized the world through the ages to this very day.
You ought to look a bit deeper into Biblical Studies before you generalise like this.
@ One need not go further than a few Christian denominations and their “Bible studies” to understand their disparate dogmas. There are some 4K recognized Christian denominations in the U.S. alone & another 38K+ Christian denominations worldwide. Put that in your “generalization” pipe and smoke it. 😂😂😂
@Mist3rdiggs I wasn"t talking about different denominations, but only the Bible. My suggestion was that you do a deeper dive into the texts, historically, culturally, and critically, to become aware of the huge multiplicity of voices, over maybe a thousand years of writing, that you find in the Bible, before you generalise. Read a few commentaries. That kind of thing. Leave the denominations to themselves.
I have ordered my copy of the book.
Put me down for one copy of the audiobook 😊
I'm staring to think you may have a book coming out.
Texts are interesting but they shouldn't determine whether or not you should be kind to others.
Good morning everyone 🥰
Never thought Dan would say all theology is based
Cogent argument. But I also think, and would add, that as with all rational discourse, Theology included, there is also an orientation toward the Truth. We want to be able to say also what is True about the world, - even though we do operate within interpretative frameworks, traditions, and so on - , in ways that are not completely bound up with our goals, or the rhetorics we inhabit.
As a Catholic, I would say that membership of the Church involves being drawn to Truth, more than it is a question of me choosing. In other words not a personal predilection. Ultimately, the foundation of Christian faith is Testimony, the repeated witness to God's Revelation, renewed in each age, down through history.
While this is true, the Bible does itself no favors by being full of inconsistencies and contradictions, and being deliberately obtuse in parts. I'm reasonably confident my understanding of, oh I dunno, the Alchemist, is pretty close to what Paulo Coelho intended, even if my subjective experience shapes my interpretation.
the bible is a sacred text and confusion is part of the genre
I'm going to wait for the audio book, because I can listen to it at work.
And by the same token, it is only through social circumstances and a set of rhetorical needs, goals and exigencies that we can assess the Dark Knight 🦇
We live in a society.
I always love how the sola scriptura people have large swaths of the bible that they never read and never discuss and act as if doesn't exist.
You say a lot what I say to people. I'm not a scholar whatsoever, but I do love critical thinking, and to see light being shown on tons of stuff we've been told is in the Bible when clearly it isn't and just for us to take people's word instead of doing the research for ourselves.
Not only is how we interpret a text based on our social circumstances, the text itself is also based on those same social circumstances. This is why i dont believe in canon or copyright. We always make and interpret art in dialogue with our circumstances and the people around us. for all of human history, art and its interpretation has been a social, communal act
Thats so true and even further thought, I mean, the Bible is still just someone else's experiences with God so you're still only getting second hand theology even from the Bible. I mean, what's the point of theology if it's not your own experience?
I think even Lewis points out in one of his introductions (possibly to The Great Divorce) that he is imagining something that reflects his understanding of the theology but that, if it's not a useful metaphor for the reader, they should feel free to close the book and ignore it.
@wartgin that's a good point. I was thinking the other day i never want to study to "show myself approved" ever again lol that got me nothing but nonsense and an ego that reality couldn't cash lol
Right. This is the problem with saying that the work of a specific author -- say, Paul -- is divinely inspired. You're saying God intended whatever Paul says, but you're relying on the fact that Paul said it to determine that God influenced or told Paul to say it. But you'd never even have known God spoke to Paul unless Paul told you God spoke to him, so how do you determine that God actually did speak to Paul? Unless God speaks to you and tells you definitively that everything Paul said is what God intended Paul to say, you don't really know... and if God can just talk to you, what do you need Paul's experience for?
@Uryvichk that's actually great point too lol
@@Uryvichk I tell people that I consider the Bible inspired but also remember that it is filtered through the understanding and cultural context of the human authors. We don't know what God said only how the human authors understood it.
When I was still a Christian, I tried my absolute best to consistently follow the teachings of the Bible and that ultimately is the reason I left because no one around me was doing that. Not a single person. There were people who were closer to it than others, but nobody was truly consistent. I also wasn't able to rectify the contradictions and the infallibility and improbability that at least the god of the judeo-christian Bible was in fact real.
Has it occurred to you that God could be real while the Bible has flaws? Why can God only be real if the Bible is believable?
I think the case here is overstated. I think you can figure out what a text from way back when is trying to say. The issue is that sometimes it's just heinous; and so people cover for it by making these kinds of death of the author arguments.
the phrase "And of some have compassion, making a difference" just doesn't parse dramatically for me so I honestly have no idea what it's supposed to mean
The biggest question in life is: Do porpoises have a purpose?
"Uncritical and Disengenuous Rhetoric" is basically the job description for most modern apologists, at least the professional ones. If they thought too critically or communicated too honestly, they'd have to go get a real job.
I similarly commented years ago to and in a book I composed over a decade ago I WANT YOU TO HAVE for free. Finding out where to send it has been elusively difficult. Help me out here. Thank you.
Many people think the Bible is the authentic word of God, and they worship the Bible, making it an idol
- Alan Watts
But to further this, as you say, it’s based on what people have heard first-
They still have the idea that the Bible is authentic and literal, and they put their faith or trust in the pastors and preachers who are interpreting it on their behalf.
So I think this quote still rings quite true.
I put your comment in my own Sage Book... Very helpful advice, thanks
Our understanding of an author's message is also governed by the words the author uses. Surely an all-knowing and loving God's inspiration would have been less ambiguous. Torture the text and you can make the Bible say almost anything you want it to say. I think they call that hermeneutics.
Putting aside my opinion regarding the Bible, Dan, I enjoy and appreciate your concise videos.
My family & pastors told me all my life that “the Bible is clear” & I should read it & take it seriously.
So I did, and it made me into a filthy socialist. 😂
The problem is that most people use this as an excuse to ignore the majority of what the bible actually says. "The bible doesn't promote slavery" for example.
A-Men 🙏🙏🙏
There's an old skeptical snark about theology being the study of something which nobody can show actually exists. The "-ology" is speaking and writing about what other people have said and written. There's no data apart from that. ;)
Dan the man.... which one man brought sin into the world?
It goes further than that. The people who wrote the bible got what they wrote from... again... what they heard from other people.
Dan’s opinions are interesting
I opened my Bible, and the Holy Spirit led me to the Gnostic Gospels and the Gospel of the Holy Twelve.
I would agree, it's very much in line with monkey see, monkey do.
Then there are the outliers. My theology and spirituality come from a book that I did not hear anybody talk about growing up - the Urantia Book. I pretty much only hear people "talk" about it when we're reading the text out loud during study group.
The bible is a collection of things people said. People a long time ago with very little relevance to our world today.
Interestingly enough the Judeans had no requirement to put definitions of terms in their scripture. Why? They knew exactly what they were conveying. Then the "new" testament comes along and particular terms need to be clearly defined. So if we back up a word or two, to love we have this requirement being filled starting with Saul in 2 Corinthians I believe. Then in Saint Johns 1 epistle we have another definition of love. The entire principal that fuels the "new" testament.....
You’re largely correct here (especially when it comes to such a loose, contradictory collection of texts like the Bible) but I think it’s wrongheaded to (initially, at least) act like there is no original meaning at all, and that meaning is *only* found in people projecting themselves onto the text. Anti-intentionalism is just plain stupid. You even acknowledge (when quoting from your book) that these texts do have original intended meanings.
You hit on a crucial point here. There is the original intent of the authors. Independent of this is the ideology of those interpreting the text. Independent of both is the reality of the institution that arose. This can be seen being played out with parents and children. The adult plainly tells the child not to eat a cookie with the because it is being saved for someone else. This is the intended meaning.
The child can misinterpret this as "don't eat *any* cookies," "don't eat *any* sweets," "don't eat that cookie (for some other reason." This is the resulting ideology, and it can be shared with others.
It is also possible that the child can understand correctly, but then eat the cookie anyway. This is the practice in reality.
The closest we ever get to the intended meaning, in my estimation, is to consider the text in a vacuum.
Is not everything in the bible what the authors either heard people say, or what they - as people - are writing in order to say?
All UA-cam videos are based on rhetorical goals
👍...
The Christian idea that their thoughts are the voice of God is pure delusion.
So, when Dan points out what he claims a biblical text really means, are we supposed to believe him because of what the text says or because that's just what we've heard Dan say?
Sorry for my ignorance but was Jude and Leviticus written by the same person, or could the two authors have different meanings from the same phrase?
Leviticus is part of the Hebrew bible, specifically the Torah, while Jude is a new testament letter. They were written hundreds of years apart, so not the same author.
0:22 Bro, essentially every religion is based on what people say about gods. That's literally how the synoptic Gospels that cover Jesus's life came to be, that's how the Torah came to be, and so many other religious texts, coming from oral tales and traditions. The tweet guy seems confused 😂
You mean theology based on text. In this case, different Christian theologies supposedly based on whatever is deemed to be inspired text. Philosophical theology is not based on what we hear people say or ancient text, or religious dogma and practices.
All theology is based on what they have not read.
OTOH I see God on the bus almost daily and we occasionally talk theology. He thinks I'm naive and overly idealistic, but is too polite to say so. Dunno if he talks to the Pope, but he doesn't carry a cell phone.
There's nothing wrong about not critiquing the inherent value of the practice of slavery because slavery, if defined as the owning of other human beings isn't intrinsically immoral. If it was, we'd have to abolish all prisons.
_Are_ prisoners "slaves?" I have no idea because I've yet to be provided a metric for what _makes_ property, property. Without a clear metric that can be systematically tested, we are left with question-begging and prescriptivist semantic and etymological fallacies.
Yet, every time I ask for such a metric, my interlocutor declines to provide one. And, as you pointed out, if we aren't careful, then _other_ institutions *become* "slavery" through the application of reductio ad absurdem.
@@JustifiedNonetheless We can do the same for any categorisation. If we inquire about what exactly is exhaustively constituted by any particular concept we will struggle to provide a comprehensive account which clearly incorporates all instances and is able to demarcate everything which falls under a particular category and everything which doesn't. This however shouldn't stop us from being able to identify clear examples. If you are stuck in a cage against your will and perform labour for little or no compensation this is clearly an instance of slavery.
@@peterchristeas5519
_Are_ prisoners compelled to do labor against their will without pay? As far as I am aware, that is not the case.
I understand what you are saying about having a comprehensive account for what does and does not fit without a category, but I disagree with the notion that this is impossible. While I would agree that there are certainly different forms of servitude, what makes slavery, slavery is that the individual is *owned* as *property.* I would further argue that what matters is not the _words_ being used, but that the unambiguous metric for what constitutes ownership is exclusive rights and control. In the case of slaves, this would necessarily involve a complete loss of autonomy and capacity for self governance. The usage of this metric is aligned with slave codes of the Antebellum South that clearly and unambiguously state as much, with Federick Douglass' account of his own enslavement, and clearly separates slavery from other institutions and circumstances that involve compulsory labor (like children doing chores and those sentenced to community service), unpaid labor (like aforementioned chores and POWs under Section III of the Geneva Convention), and loss of some other degree of autonomy (wards of the state, inmates, military personnel--particularly those conscripted or in basic training).
The text has no inherent meaning. Its all contingent on social circumstances and rhetorical goals. So what social circumstances and rhetorical goals allow you to get to the meaning of this passage from St. Jude that the King James translators meant to impart?
I've recorded a lot of audiobooks, including my own. Have fun recording yours. It's a lot like work.
Thought this said all geology for a second
You’ve had me at your first sentence.
one theology seeks to answer the Evil Problem
by claiming god doesn't interfere with free will
even though the entire bible is about god intervening
even salvation is only possible by god physically coming to earth to intervene
so where do these christians even pull their theology from?
Today’s vocab word is exigency.
"Atheism is what happens when you read the bible. Christianity is what happens when somebody else reads it for you." - Bertand Russell.
I think that's a good message but not the whole story. I ultimately rejected theology I heard people say because it disagreed with lived experience. Or I read the Bible in its original language and saw it disagreed with what people say. Or I discovered church fathers with a different view (what earlier people say). Theology is never based on scripture alone, but it's more complicated than "based on what we hear people say", and scripture can influence you and "make a difference" (in both senses).
In your example in Jude, you literally just proved the hermeneutic principle of allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture which implies that Scripture gives meaning to Scripture. There is inherent meaning which has to be found through the process of exegesis. So yes, it's based on what other people IN THE BIBLE have said!
All this hermeneutics is giving me wind.
People believe in the "rapture" because they have been told the rapture is true. They rely on their Pastors for the truth. It is too time consuming to read the Bible to find where it says about the "rapture".
People have been told lies by their Pastors about the Catholic Church, so naturally, they are going to believe them. They could never accept that their Pastors are capable of telling lies to them.
"...wondering why we don't have slavery..."
Lol
BREAKING NEWS: Humans get ideas from other humans.
I'll always have faith in Jesus and His practical teachings of loving God with all your heart mind and soul and doing unto others as you'd want done unto you. But I'll admit I'm suspecting Paul screwed that all up and turned Jesus into this weird blood sacrifice death cult not too different from Baal worship.
Do you agree with Jesus saying to obey the pharisees=law of Moses? To deal with children who disrespect their parents in a specific way? To keep even the smallest commandments of the law of Moses? What he does in Revelation 2? What he calls women and Gentiles ? What he says about parents and family?
You are only cherry picking and Paul is more reliable than the gospel authors. And even in the Gospels Jesus is a human sacrifice 😂
Well that's maybe a problem then. Because all of the stories about Jesus come after Paul and are dependent on Paul's letters to invent their narrative.
Christianity as we know it all stems from Paul's writings and the groups he founded and their offshoots. We have no access to the Jesus cult as understood by Peter et al. They left no writings which survived and all we have about them comes from Paul.
But also, christianity didn't exist in Paul's time. It was a sect of judaism... which prominently featured blood sacrifice etc. etc. So which is more likely then? That the original Jesus cult, a fringe sect of jews in the 1st century in a time of political turmoil and messianism, didn't have blood sacrifice and death cult stuff in their theology? Or that it was all invented later by some other guy who was also jewish and had all the same cultural influences?
It's a complicated question and one with no real answer. But before you go laying all the blame at Paul's feet, really think about what Jesus is. You like the nice, agreeable things. Of course you do. You're living in a post enlightenment era where we've largely rejected a lot of the barbarism of the past. Your moral intuitions are shaped more by Rousseau and Hume than Jesus. There's just no group of people running around venerating Rousseau and Hume to act as a constant reminder of that.
You don't really have any way of linking those nice, agreeable things that you like to any historical figure of Jesus, supernatural or otherwise. All that you have are writings which are dependent on the guy you don't seem to like. Which, now we're at the subject of the video here. Your theology of Jesus is just a thing someone else said. You don't know why they said it. And you don't even know who said it. You're interpreting the things this person had Jesus say as good. But you don't actually have the cultural framework to understand why they had Jesus say those things. You're just assuming that the Jesus in the stories agrees with your modern moral intuitions.
All that to say, Paul isn't really the problem here. Was he a good guy? Are fringe cult leaders typically good guys? But recall that Paul got the whole Jesus thing from another fringe cult about which we know next to nothing. So maybe the problem isn't stemming from any one person but rather the ideas themselves. Food for thought.
@@Grauenwolf both are unreliable. But Paul at least met apostles. The Gospel authors just wrote theology they supported. at the end of the day: the guy above is just cherry picking.
@@Cr-pj8bz paul met Peter and James and didn't like or agree with them. that's what we know from Paul's letters.
Well said, ALL interpretation of scripture and spiritual experiences from others, are left up to individuals, whether they believe it, or not, and to what extent, and how that guides their life, mixed with how others interpret these same things. I believe the Bible to be true, but don't believe many of the things written in it, which is how I believe most people feel about it.
What do you mean by true?
@@baonemogomotsi7138 Maybe we can say it's true that it was not written by AI? Unless the universe is a simulation based on rules of boolean logic and... uh oh.
The entire new testament is an oral tradition.
No one knows who wrote anything.
And the OT even moreso.....
We actually have no idea if there was even an oral tradition, outside of a few possible hints at one in Paul's letters. The Gospels may not be based on any oral tradition at all.
@@Grauenwolf define "most"....do we have any of the original letters? If not, what evidence are we relying on?
I just heard a discussion about a paper describing how at least 6 of the letters are believed NOT to be written by Paul and further research is questioning some of the others.....
@@Uryvichk there is actually some speculation that the NT was either a fabrication by "Rome" as a tool to control the populous or possibly Greek literature. The lack of actual physical evidence is mine boggling....
@@Grauenwolf the gospels are not eyewitness accounts but theology of a specific group.
The majority of Christians are against slavery? What is slavery? involuntary servitude with no pay and punishment for failing to succeed or to the work to satisfaction? Slavery? That sounds like childhood. Moreover, that's what many think of as a "good Christian upbringing".
Yeah, equating children with property is one of the disgusting things about Christianity. Do you consider dependent adults property or dependent individuals? Is it okay to strike a person as "punishment"? Might makes right?
Speaking of opening your bible Dan…Marvel or DC?
Mine is Aesop as Aesop has more truths.
John 16:13 “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come”
Wasn't that written by a man?
Incanting magical words does not work.
"Bible is the word of God" but also, has "no inherent meaning" LOL
Same with the warlord tribes of the Muslim faith and the so called chosen people of the Jewish faith and the Hindus faith of India and the Taoists faith of China and the Norse beliefs and the Lotuko mythology in deepest Africa etc All of them based in what other people said, wrote or made up before they were born and all of them false and simply stories! If you think one of them is a story then you have to grant that all of them are just stories!
The bible is a poorly written and inconsistent text with infinite ways to interpret it.
All human languages, written or spoken, are usually local and forever changing. It's a horrible way to transmit a supposedly universal and unchanging message. A god should know better.
What would a person on an island taught to read by visitors who then left, think of the Bible by age 45?
That's never happened and so has no relevance to actual extant Christian theology, but it would depend on how they were taught to read and what other literature was involved, in which case, it would depend on what the individual heard from other people.
@maklelan
"...has no relevance to extant Christian theology..."
No, but it has everything to do with eisegesis and exegesis. So, it's worth the thought experiment.
If one were taught to read through say, a dictionary, by individuals who then left before ever having encountered the text or having been told anything about the text, that would be as close to pure exegesis as one ever hope to get. What such a hypothetical person might glean from the text under such conditions is worth contemplating.
@@JustifiedNonetheless indeed.
You're saying that I can't believe the words and cannot understand the words without hearing what other people say about it. So, you're saying only your opinion is correct? What if you're wrong?
Making a difference can mean differentiation. I understand that without you're telling me ...
Another one who feels a little bit dangerous to me
My Goodness most peoples theology is so flawed! I hate the English Bible! Love the Greek and Hebrew I will give one Hint its a mistranslated 3 letter word them dang Catholics
What you hear also has no inherent meaning if you want to play this language game.
Indeed.
The universe is governed by laws. ...in hope that creation itself would be set free from slavery to corruption (Rom 8:20-21 NABO) YHWH and Christ, in becoming the Snake (Serpent) and the Worm, bore that corruption, in demonstration of the Spirit and of ability: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God (1Co 2:4-5) For the Spirit scrutinizes everything, even the depths of God. (1Co 2:10 NABO) That the just demands of the law might be fulfilled in us who live... according to the spirit (Rom 8:4 NABO)
Where did that come from?
Religion follows people not people follow religion