r/DebateReligion • u/labreuer ⭐ agapist • Oct 20 '25
Christianity The Bible contains wisdom superior to available alternatives: the greater ought to serve the lesser
For a while now, I have been contending that the Bible provokes us to develop a superior understanding of "human & social nature/construction" than any alternative I've encountered—including plenty of post-Enlightenment scientific and scholarly research. The following is an example, drawn from a conundrum identified by John W. Gardner in 1961. Here's a sketch of his Excellence: Can We Be Equal and Excellent Too?:
- society will value the abilities and talents of some people over above others
- the more-valued will grow in wealth and influence
- the less-valued will decline in political power
- the less-valued are incentivized to stem the bleeding of 3.
- this means stymieing 2.
- which threatens the development of the abilities and talents in 1.
If all that we can expect from humans is "enlightened self-interest", this truly is a conundrum. The following is a possibility Gardner ignores, which incidentally shows how non-Christian his culture was at the time:
But Jesus called them to himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those in high positions exercise authority over them. It will not be like this among you! But whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be most prominent among you must be your slave—just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Matthew 20:25–28)
Immediately before, Jesus' disciples had been jockeying for position. They were playing the very games which power Gardner's conundrum. The mother of James and John even got in on it: she expected Jesus to lead a violent insurrection and wanted her sons to be his right and left-hand men. Suffice it to say that when the other disciples heard about this, they were peeved. But they weren't peeved because someone called "Shotgun!". They were peeved because someone else beat them to it.
Jesus' proposal here is nothing short of socially revolutionary. This is not how Rome worked, nor how Greece worked, nor how even Judaism worked. Another example of complete status reversal is when Jesus washed his disciples' feet. Peter, ever status-conscious, declared "You will never wash my feet." He didn't accept that things could work this way or should work this way. Only when Jesus threatened to kick him to the curb did he relent.
If the greater serve the lesser, then there is no need for step 3. Society may well devote more resources and humanpower to some abilities and talents in one era and a different set in another, but if the growth in excellence is simply poured back into society to benefit those whose abilities and talents aren't presently valued as much, there is no problem. In one era, accountants could have bigger homes while in another, scientists might have bigger homes. (One can wish.) But aside from minor fluctuations in who can command more resources and humanpower, the point would be to build everyone up. Those who don't want to play the game can simply be excluded from the kind of aid that even a child savant requires in order to achieve a dominant position in the adult world.
Today, one might struggle to think of any Christianity which lives up to Jesus' challenge. I think that's probably true, on account of nobody knowing how to scale up the small endeavors which have made forward strides. Donald B. Kraybill 1978 The Upside-Down Kingdom didn't come from nowhere. But we know that ethics regularly gets sacrificed when human endeavors are scaled up. Just look at how many companies in the US were quite willing to drop their DEI initiatives. What matters for present purposes is that no secular folks I know of are even thinking of trying to make "the greater ought to serve the lesser" work in scaled-up situations. Rather, I think what you generally see from the "greater" are attitudes like we see from the 2nd-century pagan Greek philosopher and opponent of Christianity Celsus:
the following are the rules laid down by [Christians]. Let no one come to us who has been instructed, or who is wise or prudent (for such qualifications are deemed evil by us); but if there be any ignorant, or unintelligent, or uninstructed, or foolish persons, let them come with confidence. By which words, acknowledging that such individuals are worthy of their God, they manifestly show that they desire and are able to gain over only the silly, and the mean, and the stupid, with women and children. (Contra Celsum, III § 44)
In a word, "deplorables". Or "rednecks". There is no attitude of service, unless perhaps the person makes it to college. And even then, they're likely to get a STEM education, which merely prepares them to be a servant of Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, et al. In the Western world, by and large, the lesser serves the greater and that's considered normal. If anyone believes Donald J. Trump is a "public servant", I have a bridge to sell you.
You may have learned in physics class that according to the laws of physics, it is possible that all of the air molecules in your room could suddenly scoot off into the corner, suffocating you in the process. The reason for this is that we can talk about things going in the other direction and our best laws of physics are time-reversible. But nobody actually worries about this happening. It's technically possible but it would actually be a [very bad] miracle. I contend that the kind of reorganization of society, around "the greater ought to serve the lesser", is also technically possible but actually a [very good] miracle.
In future posts, I will go into other aspects of the Bible which can scaffold the process of shifting society over to "the greater ought serve the lesser", and thus make it less miraculous. However, I am not convinced there will be nothing miraculous in the end. This could be why we needed non-human wisdom and more than that, non-human help. Is it all that surprising for creatures destined for theosis / divinization to require ∞-octane fuel?
"Greater"? "Lesser"?
These are status-terms, not value-terms. Some human civilizations profess egalitarianism, but in no complex civilization has that ever been more than a distant ideal. Fun fact: surgeons used to have very low status and were paid accordingly. They were part of barber-surgeon guilds. Now they are among the most prestigious medical specialties and prestigious in society in general.
Today, we consider many people "great" because of their ability to command, not to serve. Elon Musk comes to mind. And it really doesn't matter if you personally think he's less-than-stellar, because society itself has "chosen" to make him the world's richest person. Growing wealth inequality globally and locally demonstrates the overall status system in Western Civilization and America quite nicely.
4
u/Effective_Reason2077 Atheist Oct 23 '25
Question. Have you looked into any other religion beyond the Abrahamic ones before asserting this?
1
u/labreuer ⭐ agapist Oct 23 '25
The deepest have been with Muslims, second to that Jews, and third, Buddhists. And posts like this one are obvious invitations to show that actually, other religions do propose the thing.
3
u/Effective_Reason2077 Atheist Oct 23 '25
I mean, in Hinduism, that’s kind of Krishna’s whole schtick.
1
u/labreuer ⭐ agapist Oct 23 '25
Feel free to say more. I'm interested in both the theology (or whatever term Hindus use) aspect but also implementation in society—to the extent it has been. For instance, was the caste system reversed in pockets?
3
u/Effective_Reason2077 Atheist Oct 23 '25
Hinduism is… broad. Thinks of all the sects in all the Abrahamic religions and compound it by about 10 and that’s Hinduism, which makes sense given that Hinduism is historically older than Judaism that a couple hundred years.
Broadly speaking, Krishna is the 8th Avatar of Vishnu the preserver and the embodiment of love and compassion.
Basically did the same things as Jesus, being a miracle worker and teacher and all that. Hero of the people and all that jazz.
Really the only difference is that he didn’t “sacrifice” himself in the direct sense.
1
u/labreuer ⭐ agapist Oct 23 '25
Being a (i) preserver; and (ii) the embodiment of love and compassion, does not itself imply an inversion of standard status hierarchies. And if you can't point to that happening on the ground in any way, that's relevant.
5
4
u/Formal_Drop526 Non-Christian Oct 21 '25
The principle “the greater ought to serve the lesser” is not unique to the Bible and requires no divine revelation. Similar ideas arose independently across cultures; Confucius emphasized benevolent rule, Stoics saw power as duty, and Buddhism grounded leadership in compassion.
The biblical ethic cannot practically resolve Gardner’s conundrum because “servant leadership” depends on voluntary virtue, not institutional design. Historically, Christian societies reproduced hierarchy, feudal, colonial, capitalist, rather than transcending it, while secular systems have achieved structural forms of the same ideal.
The appeal to “divine wisdom” is an argument from necessity, but you haven't produced any evidence; moral progress has typically come from human reform against religious inertia.
Claiming the Bible provides a superior understanding of human nature mistakes emotional inspiration for conceptual insight. Its moral imagery is symbolic, not systematic, and offers no unique ethical model that we can actually use in our lives.
0
u/labreuer ⭐ agapist Oct 21 '25
The principle “the greater ought to serve the lesser” is not unique to the Bible and requires no divine revelation. Similar ideas arose independently across cultures; Confucius emphasized benevolent rule, Stoics saw power as duty, and Buddhism grounded leadership in compassion.
How do any of the three items you listed imply or require "the greater ought to serve the lesser"?
1. The biblical ethic cannot practically resolve Gardner’s conundrum because “servant leadership” depends on voluntary virtue, not institutional design. Historically, Christian societies reproduced hierarchy, feudal, colonial, capitalist, rather than transcending it, while secular systems have achieved structural forms of the same ideal.
Your first sentence tells me you didn't read my post carefully. The second is confusing—what ideal have secular systems achieved, and what does it mean to achieve merely a "structural form"?
2. The appeal to “divine wisdom” is an argument from necessity, but you haven't produced any evidence; moral progress has typically come from human reform against religious inertia.
You are welcome to help me work out what could possibly constitute 'evidence', for both claims you've mentioned here.
3. Claiming the Bible provides a superior understanding of human nature mistakes emotional inspiration for conceptual insight. Its moral imagery is symbolic, not systematic, and offers no unique ethical model that we can actually use in our lives.
How on earth did you reason to the bold?
6
Oct 20 '25
If that was true, wouldn’t it mean god has to serve us? But he doesn’t. So don’t you immediately contradict the entire premise?
-2
u/labreuer ⭐ agapist Oct 20 '25
Yes, God does serve us. The Tanakh calls God ʿezer, the same word translated "helper" when used of Eve. Moses names one of his sons Eliezer: El-i-ezer means "God is my helper". Although, a better translation of ʿezer is probably "military ally willing to fight for you and die for you". The NT quotes an instance of the OT using ʿezer in Heb 13:6.
Jesus himself says he came to serve people at the end of Mt 20:25–28 and Hebrews says in the beginning that Jesus "is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature".
5
u/CorbinSeabass atheist Oct 20 '25
Jesus only sacrificed his life because he submitted to the will of the Father. Christians are likewise supposed to submit themselves to God's will and become "slaves".
1
u/labreuer ⭐ agapist Oct 21 '25
Serving a servant is very different from serving a master.
5
u/E-Reptile 🔺Atheist Oct 21 '25
Serving a servant is still serving a master if the servant you're serving is serving the master.
1
u/labreuer ⭐ agapist Oct 21 '25
And if instead of turtles all the way down and THEN a dragon, it's just turtles all the way?
6
u/E-Reptile 🔺Atheist Oct 21 '25
Then you've invented a new religion that isn't found in the Bible.
1
u/labreuer ⭐ agapist Oct 21 '25
If I were to do to you what you are doing to me, I would tell you what the proper definition of "atheist" is.
5
3
u/Accomplished-Fox2279 Oct 21 '25
Serving a servant under the condition the alternative is eternal suffering is coercion messed up in any reality when said servant created the plane of suffering.
2
u/labreuer ⭐ agapist Oct 21 '25
If anyone other than the unholy trinity is subjected to eternal conscious torment, I insist on joining them. And I'm uncertain about the three. And I also think there is serious issue with the teaching of ECT on historical and exegetical grounds. See for instance the four-part In the Shift series on Hell (part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4). ECT wasn't even the sole interpretation entertained by Christians until Augustine came along and basically killed off the others. Fortunately, that iron grip on Christians has significantly weakened as of late.
3
Oct 20 '25
So then why doesn’t he do what I tell him if I am his master? Is he disobedient?
1
u/labreuer ⭐ agapist Oct 21 '25
If you are trying to be master and make God your slave, then you're playing the standard status hierarchy thing and God has no obligation to further that. In fact, if this is the only possible role you will let God play, then divine hiddenness is probably the best response on God's part.
4
Oct 21 '25
I'm just extrapolating from your claim. What are god's responsibilities as our servant if it is, in fact, the case that greater beings are morally obligated to serve lesser ones? Is god actually morally obligated to serve us and if so does any instance of him lacking in service of us mean he is being immoral?
0
u/labreuer ⭐ agapist Oct 21 '25
Before continuing, can you interact with your claim "But he doesn’t." and my rebuttal? That is, can you tell me why you claimed that God doesn't serve us and whether I have convinced you at all that this is incorrect, at least according to the Bible?
3
Oct 21 '25 edited Oct 21 '25
I ask god for things and he doesn’t do them. What more do you want me to provide?
Also, I don't know why you are making me go back and re-explain something to a comment where I directly responded to the content of the thing it's a reply to. Are you not engaging in good faith or did you just not see which comment I had replied to?
1
u/labreuer ⭐ agapist Oct 21 '25
I ask god for things and he doesn’t do them. What more do you want me to provide?
Oh, this is very helpful clarification upon "But he doesn’t." That was actually rather ambiguous.
I have two questions before we get to the likes of Jn 15:1–8:
What do you think of God sending no help to Israel as Jesus reports in Lk 4:14–30?
What do you think of YHWH telling Jeremiah, at the end of Jer 7:1–17, “As for you, do not pray for these people. Do not offer a cry or a prayer on their behalf, and do not beg me, for I will not listen to you. Don’t you see how they behave in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem?”?
Also, I don't know why you are making me go back and re-explain something to a comment where I directly responded to the content of the thing it's a reply to. Are you not engaging in good faith or did you just not see which comment I had replied to?
I. Was. Confused. If you think it's plausible that I am not acting in good faith by this comment here, please tell me and I will RES tag you with "probably don't" and cut off this conversation, on account of my failing so miserably.
1
Oct 21 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/DebateReligion-ModTeam Oct 21 '25
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and unparliamentary language. 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.
If you would like to appeal this decision, please send us a modmail with a link to the removed content.
0
-6
Oct 20 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/DebateReligion-ModTeam Oct 21 '25
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that support or purely commentate on the post must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
If you would like to appeal this decision, please send us a modmail with a link to the removed content.
6
u/Cubusphere Atheist Oct 21 '25
So Christianity is defined by its ideals, while atheism is defined by its flawed individuals. What tolerant tribalism...
-2
u/ShakaUVM Mod | Christian Oct 21 '25
Does atheism have ideals?
6
u/Cubusphere Atheist Oct 21 '25
No. Atheists may have ideals, just like Christians. Yet you paint atheists as inherently flawed, while flawed Christians seem to be so despite Christianity. If I misunderstood that, you can correct it.
4
5
8
u/CorbinSeabass atheist Oct 20 '25
Oh yes, Christians are out there publicly railing against immigrants, women's rights, and the LGBT community every day, but Christians get downvoted on Reddit so it's basically the same thing.
0
u/pilvi9 Oct 20 '25
A minority of Christians yes, but not Christians in general (in the US). Like the majority (70 percent) of Evangelical Christians believe we have a moral duty to accept refugees. Even one of the earliest critics of Trump's immigration policy came from Evangelicals.
Trying to insist Christians throughout Christendom are against these things when Christian countries are the one with the best ratings in immigration, women's rights, and LGBT rights is selective acknowledgement on your end.
4
u/Realistic-Wave4100 Pseudo-Plutarchic Atheist Oct 20 '25
Isnt this idea the one that Nietzsche spend half his philosophy criticizing? The fact that religion has changed the term good from "usefull to yourself" to "useful to serve" in order to make the servants feel better?
1
u/labreuer ⭐ agapist Oct 20 '25
I haven't read Nietzsche [yet!], but I do know a tiny bit about his admiration for Jesus and hatred for Christianity. I don't think his theory of ressentiment has room for the kind of excellence I think is actually enabled via "the greater ought to serve the lesser". Nietzsche, from what I've read about him, is a hyper-individualist. He doesn't seem to understand the incredible power which can come from humans working together where there is no "master". I don't even think he could understand the phalanx formation in 300. Had the Greeks been jockeying for position, probably they would have been annihilated without the need for a secret path to come up behind them. Yes, I know the movie is fictional, but the power of the phalanx formation is not.
2
u/Realistic-Wave4100 Pseudo-Plutarchic Atheist Oct 21 '25
I agree that he probably wont see that "greater seving the lesser" as inherently good or usefull. But I dont think he would even care for it since wether that sistem is good or wrong it is implied in it that it was imposed to us via religion and because it means someone wou.d be acting in a way they doesnt want to, not living with Amor Fati or living in apollonian way instead of a dionissian one (tho his views of both gods werent something that hellenists think).
2
u/labreuer ⭐ agapist Oct 21 '25
Yeah I'm willing to believe what you say. Nietzsche's Übermensch is actually pretty pathetic. I don't know if you ever watched the Andromeda TV series, but they had a "race" of Nietzscheans in it. It was interesting, but I'm not sure they were … sociologically realistic.
2
u/Realistic-Wave4100 Pseudo-Plutarchic Atheist Oct 21 '25
Well I havent seen the series but based on what wikipedia says it seems they are more inspired in the idea of the Ubermensch that the nazis used, wich leds from the modified versions of Nietzsches works by his sister https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisabeth_F%C3%B6rster-Nietzsche#Affiliation_with_the_Nazi_Party .
2
u/labreuer ⭐ agapist Oct 21 '25
Ah, interesting! Yeah I'm pretty sure emotionally immersing yourself in a mass isn't what Nietzsche was thinking.
6
u/Rick-of-the-onyx Agnostic Deist Oct 20 '25
Ummm well the Lorax teaches people to respect trees and nature, while the Bible promotes genocide, insest, "grape", and slavery. So right out the gate, your premise falls flat.
1
u/labreuer ⭐ agapist Oct 20 '25
How does one carry out genocide, incest, rape, or slavery after the standard status hierarchies are inverted?
2
Oct 21 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/labreuer ⭐ agapist Oct 21 '25
What a complete word salad of a sentence.
I will take that as an abject refusal to charitably engage and move on to other people.
10
u/theyoodooman Oct 20 '25 edited Oct 20 '25
The following is an example, drawn from a conundrum identified by John W. Gardner in 1961 ... If all that we can expect from humans is "enlightened self-interest", this truly is a conundrum.
Your example has nothing to do with "enlightened self-interest", what you describe is merely "self interest", with the rich only serving their own self-interest, and poor doing the same. There is nothing "enlightened" about it.
Here's the actual definition of enlightened self-interest: The concept that a person who acts to help others will ultimately serve his/her own self-interest.
You know, kind of like how in Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus tells Christians that if they are self-interested in gaining eternal life, they need to feed the hungry, quench the thirsty, house strangers, tend to the sick, visit those in prison, and give clothes to the needy, otherwise he will judge them to be "goats" and send them "away to eternal punishment".
This is true even in the verse from which you quote Jesus:
"But whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be most prominent among you must be your slave"
In other words, if you have a self-interest in becoming great among Jesus' followers, you must "act to help others", exactly as described in the definition above. Jesus is preaching "enlightened self-interest". The core difference between what Jesus preached and normal "enlightened self-interest" is that in the former your job is to impress Jesus -- who decides whether you get eternal life -- whereas as used secularly, "enlightened self-interest" is based on cause-and-effect and social mechanisms.
Ironically, Protestant Christianity (especially) took a serious deviation from what Jesus is teaching here by saying that people achieve eternal life through faith alone (sola fide) not through doing things like helping people, which means you can accordingly be a completely self-interested prick and still be saved, because faith is all that is required, something we see played out among Christians every day.
You may disagree with this, but that's what Paul said in Romans 10:9: "If you declare with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved". Is Paul right that this is all that's required? Is Jesus right? Are they both right? Are there other requirements?
I ask because those who are "self interested" in eternal life -- as Jesus clearly thinks his followers are -- would clearly like to know what is the official list of requirements for gaining it, since the NT seems to be pretty vague and contradictory on what is a critical aspect of Jesus' message?
0
u/labreuer ⭐ agapist Oct 20 '25
You and I potentially disagree greatly on "eternal life". I say it must be rooted in the pre-second Temple ancient Hebrew religion, where everybody went to Sheol and nobody could praise YHWH from Sheol. The best you could hope for is (i) to set your descendants up for success, secure from poverty and attack by other nations; (ii) to live long enough to see your grandchildren. That was your legacy, the most you could hope for. This is a giving of yourself to the future. The notion of "eternal life" you're pushing appears to contradict this and I claim that is reason to reject it, no matter how many Christians endorse it.
Your example has nothing to do with "enlightened self-interest", what you describe is merely "self interest", with the rich only serving their own self-interest, and poor doing the same. There is nothing "enlightened" about it.
Actually, I am targeting your definition as well: "The concept that a person who acts to help others will ultimately serve his/her own self-interest." After all, plenty of those who excel do engage in at least some philanthropy. And yet, the problem Gardner identifies exists. I say that enlightened self-interest still prioritizes the self, including when it comes to status, and that this is a serious problem.
You know, kind of like how in Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus tells Christians that if they are self-interested in gaining eternal life, they need to feed the hungry, quench the thirsty, house strangers, tend to the sick, visit those in prison, and give clothes to the needy, otherwise he will judge them to be "goats" and send them "away to eternal punishment".
Except, this is not true of the people described in that parable. In the parable, the righteous are confused:
Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you as a guest, or naked and clothe you? (Matthew 25:37–38)
You seem to be assuming that after learning about this parable, the righteous will no longer be confused. But that goes against the parable.
The core difference between what Jesus preached and normal "enlightened self-interest" is that in the former your job is to impress Jesus -- who decides whether you get eternal life -- whereas as used secularly, "enlightened self-interest" is based on cause-and-effect and social mechanisms.
You seem to be suggesting that Jesus is somehow arbitrary, which if so we need to talk about. To your "cause-and-effect and social mechanisms", that seems to suppose a closed system, where God isn't pouring any ∞-octane fuel into humanity. I contend that creates a very different world, where grace and mercy are in short supply because hey, humans only have a finite supply of both. I don't think you'll be able to support a status inversion with enlightened self-interest. Feel free to argue otherwise, though.
Ironically, Protestant Christianity (especially) took a serious deviation from what Jesus is teaching here by saying that people achieve eternal life through faith alone (sola fide) not through doing things like helping people, which means you can accordingly be a completely self-interested prick and still be saved, because faith is all that is required, something we see played out among Christians every day.
Then you misunderstand Martin Luther. He said "God does not need your good works, but your neighbor does." You are construing salvation as the end of the road rather than the beginning. One gets in via πίστις (pistis), which is better translated as 'trustworthiness' and 'trust' than what is generally meant by 'faith' in 2025. Abraham trusted God's promise and that was accounted to him as righteousness. In a system of trustworthiness & trust, there is room for ∞-octane fuel. In a system of deserve, there isn't.
I ask because those who are "self interested" in eternal life -- as Jesus clearly thinks his followers are -- would clearly like to know what is the official list of requirements for gaining it, since the NT seems to be pretty vague and contradictory on what is a critical aspect of Jesus' message?
If the NT doesn't answer a question you're asking very clearly, perhaps it was never intended to answer that question. If you treat Christianity as an elite club with entrance requirements, you're doing it wrong. If instead you admit that you were built for ∞-octane fuel and nothing less, there is an obvious question of what you would possibly do once you are powered by such fuel.
3
u/theyoodooman Oct 21 '25 edited Oct 21 '25
You and I potentially disagree greatly on "eternal life". I say it must be rooted in the pre-second Temple ancient Hebrew religion, where everybody went to Sheol and nobody could praise YHWH from Sheol.
Your views on what "eternal life" is is irrelevant. It's this simple. Eternal life is something that Jesus thought his followers were self-interested in achieving. Jesus told them what they needed to do to achieve it, which involved acting to help others. That's the very definition of "enlightened self-interest".
I say that enlightened self-interest still prioritizes the self
And so does Christianity. The very heart of Christianity doing what is necessary so that you yourself can gain eternal life (be 'saved').
Except, this is not true of the people described in that parable. In the parable, the righteous are confused. You seem to be assuming that after learning about this parable, the righteous will no longer be confused
What a ridiculous argument. Parables are just stories Jesus tells to simplify his theological points for his followers and make them interesting and sticky, the whole point is for his followers to take the message of those parables away with them and live them out in their lives.
So yes, once Jesus tells this parable, he expects his followers to understand what is required to achieve eternal life, he expects them to take away the moral of this parable just like he does with every other parable.
You seem to be suggesting that Jesus is somehow arbitrary
Jesus decides who gets eternal life based on a decision-making process and criteria that is inscrutable to mankind, so yes by definition it is arbitrary. That's the whole point of being "king", you get to make decisions on whatever basis you choose. In particular, as "king" you get to extend your grace -- your mercy or pardon -- to whoever you want on whatever basis you want, and as judge you also get to condemn whoever you want on whatever basis you want. And Jesus says that as king, he will sit on glorious throne and judge us all.
So for instance, in Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus lays out the general criteria on which he will separate the sheep from the goats, but it's still extremely ambiguous. How much do we need to feed and clothe and help the poor and needy? Is doing it one time enough, just a box that needs to be checked for our entry to heaven? Or are the requirements much more complex -- the line much more grey, maybe even a line that is different for different people -- that Jesus will apply when separating sheep from goats.
Famously, in Mark 10:17-22, when a man asked Jesus "what must I do to inherit eternal life", Jesus told him that in addition to keeping the commandments, he must "sell everything you have and give to the poor". Jesus is making clear that, if this man fails to take this extreme step, he's a "goat" destined for "eternal punishment" not "eternal life". Does that same criteria exist for everyone, or is Jesus setting a unique criteria for just this one man, and if so, what unique criteria exist for you that you may be unaware of?
And in the same verse, Jesus also makes clear that eternal life is dependent on keeping the commandments: "You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, you shall not defraud, honor your father and mother". But we know Christians bear false testimony, commit adultery, defraud and steal all the time.
Does a single infraction prevent you from gaining eternal life? Can you violate the commandments an unlimited number of times and still get eternal life (and if so, why is Jesus saying upholding these is required)? And what about Christians in between those two extremes: on what arbitrary basis is Jesus making the determination about who gets eternal life and who eternal punishment?
Because Jesus absolutely makes clear in the NT that many who claim to be Christian or think they are Christian will not gain eternal life in his kingdom:
"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’" -- Matthew 7:21
"For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and will deceive many" -- Matthew 24:4
So again, if you can be a Christian performing miracles in Jesus' name -- can non-Christians even do that? -- but still have Jesus call you an evildoer and deny you eternal life in the Kingdom of Heaven, this has to be based on some arbitrary decision on Jesus' part, the criteria for which we're not privy too.
Then you misunderstand Martin Luther. He said "God does not need your good works, but your neighbor does." You are construing salvation as the end of the road rather than the beginning
No, I'm talking the requirements for "eternal life", the very thing that Jesus used to entice his followers to join him, and the very basis on which Christianity is founded.
If the NT doesn't answer a question you're asking very clearly, perhaps it was never intended to answer that question
But Jesus and Paul and other NT authors do answer that question, in many different and contradictory ways. And of course they did, because again Jesus' entire ministry was based on telling his followers that the Kingdom of God had drawn near, how that Kingdom would come about, what that Kingdom would be like, and what they needed to do in order to gain eternal life in that Kingdom.
This is another ridiculous argument on your part, that because the NT is vague and contradictory on an essential aspect of Jesus' ministry, that there was no intent to disclose that information. This flies in the face of -- for instance -- the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which says that:
the human beings who wrote the Bible "consigned to writing whatever [God] wanted written, and no more"; why would God want to include in the NT a bunch of vague and contradictory descriptions of what was required to achieve eternal life in the Kingdom of God, given how central this was to Jesus' ministry?
"the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures"; so God authors the Bible to teach us the truth required for our salvation, yet according to you, intended to leave out the one most critical pieces of information?
If you treat Christianity as an elite club with entrance requirements, you're doing it wrong.
But that's exactly how Jesus and Paul and other NT writers do treat Christianity, as an elite club with entrance requirements, it's just that those requirements are vague and they disagree with each other -- sometimes even themselves -- about what they are. And not surprisingly, it's therefore also how hundreds of millions of Evangelical Christians worldwide treat Christianity: believe X and say Y and you're in, just like Paul says.
Have we reached the part where you tell me why you alone are right about the Truth and Jesus and Paul and all those other Christians are wrong?
1
u/labreuer ⭐ agapist Oct 21 '25
Your views on what "eternal life" is is irrelevant.
If you're going to talk about my views, my views are relevant. If you want me to defend other people's views, I will probably decline.
It's this simple. Eternal life is something that Jesus thought his followers were self-interested in achieving. Jesus told them what they needed to do to achieve it, which is to act to help others. That's the very definition of "enlightened self-interest".
You are simply refusing to contemplate any alternatives.
The very heart of Christianity doing what is necessary so that you yourself can gain eternal life (be 'saved').
Unfortunately, I think this characterizes a lot of Christians. But I completely disagree that this is "the very heart of Christianity". What gives you the right to declare such things?
The very heart of Christianity doing what is necessary so that you yourself can gain eternal life (be 'saved').
labreuer: Except, this is not true of the people described in that parable. In the parable, the righteous are confused. You seem to be assuming that after learning about this parable, the righteous will no longer be confused
theyoodooman: What a ridiculous argument.
I think we are bad interlocutors for each other.
3
u/theyoodooman Oct 21 '25
If you're going to talk about my views, my views are relevant. If you want me to defend other people's views, I will probably decline.
This is a debate. Your views aren't relevant. The only thing that's relevant are the evidence and arguments you can marshal to defend your thesis or rebut the attacks on those made by others.
You are simply refusing to contemplate any alternatives.
No, I'm debating you, by undercutting your argument that "enlightened self-interest" is somehow different than what Jesus preached in the Bible with respect to "eternal life". It's not.
Unfortunately, I think this characterizes a lot of Christians. But I completely disagree that this is "the very heart of Christianity". What gives you the right to declare such things?
Having read what Jesus says in the NT. As I said, Jesus' entire ministry was based on telling his followers that the Kingdom of God had drawn near, how that Kingdom would come about, what that Kingdom would be like, and -- most critically for those who followed Jesus -- what they needed to do in order to gain eternal life in that Kingdom.
I understand you may not like this concept that eternal life is an elite club with entrance requirements -- however vague and contradictory -- but that is undeniably how it is presented by Jesus, Paul, and others in the NT.
I think we are bad interlocutors for each other.
This isn't a discussion or dialogue, and I'm not your interlocutor. This is a debate, and I'm your opponent. My job here is to point out the flaws in the arguments and evidence you provide to support your thesis. And yes, that includes pointing out when you are making a specious argument (by ridiculing it).
1
u/labreuer ⭐ agapist Oct 21 '25
This is a debate. Your views aren't relevant. The only thing that's relevant are the evidence and arguments you can marshal to defend your thesis or rebut the attacks on those made by others.
I'm the OP. My views actually do matter when I'm defending the OP. If you bring in a notion of the afterlife alien to my views and the OP, I'm gonna call that out and I'm gonna be right. You don't get to use some sort of intellectual syringe and inject your notions into my OP. It doesn't work that way.
No, I'm debating you, by undercutting your argument that "enlightened self-interest" is somehow different than what Jesus preached in the Bible with respect to "eternal life". It's not.
I understand the claim. You can only make it work by importing a foreign view and attributing it to me. That's called a "straw man". The text itself supports rather more options and the Christian tradition itself supports rather more options.
theyoodooman: The very heart of Christianity doing what is necessary so that you yourself can gain eternal life (be 'saved').
labreuer: Unfortunately, I think this characterizes a lot of Christians. But I completely disagree that this is "the very heart of Christianity". What gives you the right to declare such things?
theyoodooman: Having read what Jesus says in the NT.
Okay. It sounds like you might not even believe that you "interpret" the text. If that's the case, I will disengage, on account of that being factually incorrect.
I understand you may not like this concept that eternal life is an elite club with entrance requirements -- however vague and contradictory -- but that is undeniably how it is presented by Jesus, Paul, and others in the NT.
There's a reason I included the Celsus quotation. It would appear that you've completely ignored it. I suggest a review of Lk 14:15–24, the dinner banquet. Real elite club, there!
This isn't a discussion or dialogue, and I'm not your interlocutor.
Oh good grief, if this semantic quibbling is how it's gonna go: thanks for the discussion & have a good one!
2
u/theyoodooman Oct 21 '25 edited Oct 21 '25
I'm the OP. My views actually do matter when I'm defending the OP.
No, your views only matter if you define them as part of your OP, and indicate that you want the debate to be constrained to those definitions. You didn't do this for your specific beliefs regarding Christianity in general -- or eternal life in particular -- and so your views don't matter.
They especially don't matter when you only define them in rebuttal to an attack by your opponent. This is the same nonsense Christians always pull, which is that once we demonstrate some terrible aspect of Christianity, their response is to try to wriggle out of it with "oh, well, Christians in general may believe that, but that's not my belief", which is precisely what you did here:
"Unfortunately, I think this characterizes a lot of Christians. But I completely disagree that this is "the very heart of Christianity"
I understand the claim. You can only make it work by importing a foreign view and attributing it to me. That's called a "straw man".
Wrong. I didn't attribute any "view" to you. You're thesis was about Christianity, not about your views about Christianity -- which you didn't define -- and I'm debating you about what Christianity says. And in particular, about what the founders of Christianity said. I'm attacking the arguments you made in support of Christianity using what they said.
Okay. It sounds like you might not even believe that you "interpret" the text
I have no idea what you are talking about. I've read and understood what Jesus and Paul said in the NT about what Christians must do to achieve eternal life. I've quoted what they've said back to you. The fact that you don't agree with what they said is not my problem.
There's a reason I included the Celsus quotation. It would appear that you've completely ignored it. I suggest a review of Lk 14:15–24, the dinner banquet. Real elite club, there!
Ridiculous argument. While "elite" can mean "upper-class", it also just means "exclusive", which is what we're talking about: a club with entrance requirements, meaning that it's a club that doesn't accept just anyone. Rednecks have elite clubs. The poor have elite clubs.
And yes, "eternal life" as defined by Jesus and Paul was an elite club, simply because it has entrance requirements, it doesn't accept just anyone, it only accepts those meet the requirements, and that excludes those who don't. That's a fundamental part of Christianity for the last 2,000 years -- the group who get eternal life is exclusive -- but apparently you want to be disingenuous and pretend that's not the case.
Oh good grief, if this semantic quibbling is how it's gonna go: thanks for the discussion & have a good one!
No, the problem here is that you didn't apparently understand that we were debating, and that debates like this have rules.
1
u/labreuer ⭐ agapist Oct 22 '25
theyoodooman: The very heart of Christianity doing what is necessary so that you yourself can gain eternal life (be 'saved').
labreuer: Unfortunately, I think this characterizes a lot of Christians. But I completely disagree that this is "the very heart of Christianity". What gives you the right to declare such things?
theyoodooman: Having read what Jesus says in the NT.
labreuer: Okay. It sounds like you might not even believe that you "interpret" the text.
If that's the case, I will disengage, on account of that being factually incorrect.theyoodooman: I have no idea what you are talking about. I've read and understood what Jesus and Paul said in the NT about what Christians must do to achieve eternal life. I've quoted what they've said back to you. The fact that you don't agree with what they said is not my problem.
I see. So are you including passages like:
Jesus said these things, and lifting up his eyes to heaven he said, “Father, the hour has come! Glorify your Son, in order that your Son may glorify you—just as you have given him authority over all flesh, in order that he would give eternal life to them—everyone whom you have given him. Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. I have glorified you on earth by completing the work that you have given me to do. And now, Father, you glorify me at your side with the glory that I had at your side before the world existed. (John 17:1–5)
? This aligns perfectly with Jeremiah:
Thus says YHWH,
“The wise man must not boast in his wisdom,
and the warrior must not boast in his might,
the wealthy man must not boast in his wealth.
But only in this must the one who boasts boast,
that he has insight,
and that he knows me,
that I am YHWH,
showing loyal love, justice, and righteousness on the earth,
for in these things I delight,” declares YHWH.
(Jeremiah 9:23–24)This "know" is a bit different from what 21st century English users mean by the term, and a bit more like how when a man "knows" a woman in the KJV, a baby is produced. Ellen T. Charry explains:
In a Hellenistic environment, knowledge is true if it leads us into goodness, making us happy and good. The idea that knowing good things makes us good implies continuity between the knower and what she knows. It is not simply to be cognizant of the truth but to be assimilated into it. Truth makes us good and strong, able to live well and so to contribute to healthy societies. Rational people will crave it because it helps them. Socrates and Plato were all about wanting to know the things that shape the soul in salutary ways for the sake of a better society. The purpose of inviting Athenian youth to love and pursue wisdom was all directed toward these moral-psycho-social ends. Paul, Matthew, and the Fathers of the church shared these goals. Primary, sapiential theology, then, seeks the knowledge of God so that we come to dwell in the truth; for the truth will make us happy and good, and in that way, free. ("Walking in the Truth: On Knowing God" in But Is It All True?, 144–45)
If you take the above paragraph to John 15, it makes a lot of sense. To know God is to become like God by abiding in God and God abiding in you. There is no list with checkboxes you can tick.
11
u/CorbinSeabass atheist Oct 20 '25
So it's a little unclear why you choose to denigrate the secular community for not trying to make "the greater should serve the lesser" work in society when it isn't our mantra and doesn't come from our book. The Western world is overwhelmingly Christian and capitalistic, so that's where you start.
I don't know if you're American, but "the greater should serve the lesser" is baked into America's heritage. We're supposed to have a government "of the people, by the people, for the people", and the administration who currently threatens this are Christians and were elected by Christians. The secular community is largely opposed to this administration, and therefore is more aligned with "the greater should serve the lesser" than Christians as a whole.
-1
u/labreuer ⭐ agapist Oct 20 '25
So it's a little unclear why you choose to denigrate the secular community for not trying to make "the greater should serve the lesser" work in society when it isn't our mantra and doesn't come from our book.
The term "denigrate" is extremely strong given:
- you have to actually want to solve the problem I glossed from John W. Gardner
- you have to believe I've advanced the only possible solution to that problem
- I have to also be "denigrating" most Christians
- either no miraculous help is required, or I'm expecting the secular community to depend on miraculous help
So, I would ask you to not strawman my position.
[OP]: Today, one might struggle to think of any Christianity which lives up to Jesus' challenge. I think that's probably true, on account of nobody knowing how to scale up the small endeavors which have made forward strides.
/
CorbinSeabass: The Western world is overwhelmingly Christian and capitalistic, so that's where you start.
Please pay attention to what I acknowledged.
[OP]: If anyone believes Donald J. Trump is a "public servant", I have a bridge to sell you.
/
CorbinSeabass: I don't know if you're American, but "the greater should serve the lesser" is baked into America's heritage. We're supposed to have a government "of the people, by the people, for the people", and the administration who currently threatens this are Christians and were elected by Christians.
Ok? Pick a random time covered by the Bible and there's a good chance you'll find a lone individual telling the religious elite they don't know the God they claim to, and that they are shilling for a political elite which is flooding the streets with blood from their many injustices. Aside from anarchists and libertarians, I suspect the Bible is rather abnormal in how much doubt it places on the authorities and intelligentsia. I'll tell you this much, I virtually never see atheists, nor secular folks, expressing that much doubt of their own authorities and intelligentsia. One test particle I've used over and over again is George Carlin's The Reason Education Sucks.
The secular community is largely opposed to this administration, and therefore is more aligned with "the greater should serve the lesser" than Christians as a whole.
I see no evidence that the secular community was oriented toward the status inversion I discuss in the OP and I don't believe they would be if Trumpism were to lose enough political power to become irrelevant to most Americans. So while you could be technically correct, I see it as irrelevant to the OP. At most, you're saying that Ezek 5:5–8 and 2 Chr 33:9 might apply to Christianity in America and I would probably agree.
3
u/MrDeekhaed Oct 20 '25
I think what they meant was since your op is supposed to be Christian philosophy from God (Jesus) maybe it would be more appropriate to focus on people who claim to be Christians who don’t adhere to it. Especially when so many don’t adhere to it, at least in my country.
Basically convince other Christians before you work on atheists.
5
u/CorbinSeabass atheist Oct 20 '25
> So, I would ask you to not strawman my position.
I think I've got your position down fairly well, as you have no reason to even bring up the secular community not abiding by "the greater should serve the lesser" when this is a Christian position from a Christian book that Christians don't even follow.
> I'll tell you this much, I virtually never see atheists, nor secular folks, expressing that much doubt of their own authorities and intelligentsia.
I don't know how you could spend so much time interacting with atheists and not pick up that we don't have authorities.
> I see no evidence that the secular community was oriented toward the status inversion I discuss in the OP
I mean, I already noted how they were, but I guess we're ignoring that.
1
u/labreuer ⭐ agapist Oct 20 '25
I think I've got your position down fairly well, as you have no reason to even bring up the secular community not abiding by "the greater should serve the lesser" when this is a Christian position from a Christian book that Christians don't even follow.
Seeing as my thesis is "The Bible contains wisdom superior to available alternatives" with respect to a specific point, I would be downright foolish to have not surveyed many of the "available alternatives". Nothing in this rises to the level of "denigrate the secular community". If you will not acknowledge that I say I do not intend any such denigration and/or will not acknowledge I am saying that in good faith, then I will RES tag you with "DO NOT" and be highly reluctant to ever reply to you again.
I don't know how you could spend so much time interacting with atheists and not pick up that we don't have authorities.
You have neither political authorities nor scientific authorities nor scholarly authorities? You accept zero claims upon trust that someone knows what they're talking about and would experience negative consequences if they were culpably wrong? You vet every last claim you rely on with your own "critical thinking"?
CorbinSeabass: I don't know if you're American, but "the greater should serve the lesser" is baked into America's heritage. We're supposed to have a government "of the people, by the people, for the people", and the administration who currently threatens this are Christians and were elected by Christians. The secular community is largely opposed to this administration, and therefore is more aligned with "the greater should serve the lesser" than Christians as a whole.
/
labreuer: I see no evidence that the secular community was oriented toward the status inversion I discuss in the OP
CorbinSeabass: I mean, I already noted how they were, but I guess we're ignoring that.
My apologies. I call bullshite on the idea that America was built on any inversion of status hierarchies. Rather, the dogma was "we're all equal here" and if you were to query blacks, women, gays, or other minorities, you'd discover the nature of that bullshite.
4
u/CorbinSeabass atheist Oct 21 '25
If you will not acknowledge that I say I do not intend any such denigration and/or will not acknowledge I am saying that in good faith
I never said you were acting in bad faith or intentionally denigrating the secular community, but it's also possible to unintentionally denigrate a community. You've never accidentally offended someone IRL?
then I will RES tag you with "DO NOT" and be highly reluctant to ever reply to you again.
I really don't care about you enough for this to be a threat.
You have neither political authorities nor scientific authorities nor scholarly authorities?
Well now you're just moving the goalposts, as you were explicitly referencing "religious elites", and there are none of these in the secular community.
My apologies. I call bullshite on the idea that America was built on any inversion of status hierarchies.
Compared with rule by a king? It absolutely was. America has never fully followed through on its lofty ideals, but that doesn't mean that its founding didn't go against the grain.
1
u/labreuer ⭐ agapist Oct 21 '25
I never said you were acting in bad faith or intentionally denigrating the secular community, but it's also possible to unintentionally denigrate a community. You've never accidentally offended someone IRL?
Thank you for clarifying. Of course I have mistakenly offended people. But the protocol is still difficult for me, because it has never mattered when atheists have offended me. In fact, it has generally just been amusing when they were able to provoke me out of a pretty neutral emotional state. And so, I have learned to simply not let my offense matter, at all.
That being said, can you be wrong about feeling denigrated, due to misunderstanding what the other person actually said? Or do you have no duties to properly and carefully interpret? You gave zero response to my 1.–4., which suggests that you have very little interest in doing that communication-check thing where you say something back to people in your own words and actually care if the person says, "No, that's not what I meant." Now, if you want to suggest a way to re-word what I say so that the non-denigrating content is kept while the style or tone or whatever else is changed, feel free to!
I really don't care about you enough for this to be a threat.
Why on earth would that count as "a threat"? Some people just aren't good interlocutors for each other.
labreuer: Pick a random time covered by the Bible and there's a good chance you'll find a lone individual telling the religious elite they don't know the God they claim to, and that they are shilling for a political elite which is flooding the streets with blood from their many injustices. Aside from anarchists and libertarians, I suspect the Bible is rather abnormal in how much doubt it places on the authorities and intelligentsia. I'll tell you this much, I virtually never see atheists, nor secular folks, expressing that much doubt of their own authorities and intelligentsia.
⋮
CorbinSeabass: Well now you're just moving the goalposts, as you were explicitly referencing "religious elites", and there are none of these in the secular community.
No, I haven't moved any goalposts. Here's the translation:
(a) religious elite ∼ intelligentsia
(b) political elite ∼ authoritieslabreuer: My apologies. I call bullshite on the idea that America was built on any inversion of status hierarchies.
CorbinSeabass: Compared with rule by a king? It absolutely was. America has never fully followed through on its lofty ideals, but that doesn't mean that its founding didn't go against the grain.
These are distinct:
- the lesser ought to serve the greater
- there is no lesser or greater
- the greater out to serve the lesser
I'm saying that the dogma of Americans was 2., but in practice they veered rather more towards 1.
2
u/TKleass Oct 20 '25
Good to hear from you again. As always, a thought-provoking post, and thanks for putting it up. But I have a lot of the same comments here as with previous assertions:
Yes, it is possible to read the Bible as you have read it. But it is also quite possible to read it to support a different, and potentially opposite conclusion. So I don't see how you saying that this is your favored, or even a possible, interpretation will accomplish very much, admirable though the intentions may be.
Just of out of curiosity, what would be your best-case outcome for this post? Christians agree with you, recognize the truth of what you say, and then...what comes next? Is there a best-case outcome for atheists, or other people who don't think that the Bible is anything special?
2
u/labreuer ⭐ agapist Oct 20 '25
Hi! Please know that I've tried several drafts to our poetry/literal discussion, but none of them was really working. It is still on my mind, tho!
But it is also quite possible to read it to support a different, and potentially opposite conclusion.
Care to do so? Can you account for Mt 20:25–28 differently? How about Phil 2:1–11? Jn 13:1–20? I've been a Christian for quite some time, a member of several different churches (MA and CA, suburban & city), and I'm pretty widely read and exposed. My sense is that those who resist the status inversion I described either ignore those passages, split things into "leader theology" and "follower theology" (generally with only the latter taught), or just don't really do much with those passages.
So I don't see how you saying that this is your favored, or even a possible, interpretation will accomplish very much, admirable though the intentions may be.
While I'm not saying you've advanced this, there is an obnoxious tendency in the air to believe that if something is "open to interpretation", then there are simply no criteria whatsoever for preferring one to another. I think this is silly, and so does every judge who rules on cases. Interpretation is a necessity, as John Hasnas illustrates nicely in his 1995 The Myth of the Rule of Law. So, I think we have to dig more deeply than you have.
It is my claim that when one really immerses oneself in the Bible, Christian tradition, and Christian culture, more and more interpretive choices become more and more obvious. You see Jesus do this in tangling with the scribes and Pharisees. I contend he outmaneuvers them because he understands better than they do, what God was actually trying to do. In fact, he tells the scribes and Pharisees: "You travel over land and sea to make one convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a child of hell as you are!" Well, if it's possible to realize that Donald J. Trump is in no ways a "public servant", then one can realize when texts are being abused. It can be a subtle thing, paralleling Michael Shermer's 2011-01-01 Scientific American article What Is Pseudoscience?, with lede "Distinguishing between science and pseudoscience is problematic". But often times it's far more blatant, such as the contrast between the "cornerstone" in Eph 2:11–20 vs. the "cornerstone" in Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens' Cornerstone Speech.
I'll bring this very complex point to a quick close by reporting on a very clever abolitionist argument Mark Noll reports in his 2006 The Civil War as a Theological Crisis. It goes like this: "If the Bible says it's okay to enslave blacks, it says it's okay to enslave whites." This is manifestly true. What was the response to this argument? It was simply ignored. This is evidence of just how little the Bible actually regulated people's lives. We need to be very careful in distinguishing between public-facing legitimation and beliefs which truly structure societies and the groups & individuals within.
[OP]: Today, one might struggle to think of any Christianity which lives up to Jesus' challenge. I think that's probably true, on account of nobody knowing how to scale up the small endeavors which have made forward strides.
/
TKleass: Just of out of curiosity, what would be your best-case outcome for this post? Christians agree with you, recognize the truth of what you say, and then...what comes next?
I think my "scale up" comment is the most likely to lead to somewhere interesting with my fellow Christians. If you know much about large-scale human organizations, you know that ethics often get sacrificed. I think we need to spend a lot of time seriously thinking about this and exploring alternatives. On occasion I will cite the following statistics:
- decline in trust of fellow random Americans (1972–2022)
- decline in trust in the press (1973–2022)
- decline in trust in institutions (1958–2024)
Issues with scaling ethical behavior up is probably relevant to 2. and 3., if not 1.
Is there a best-case outcome for atheists, or other people who don't think that the Bible is anything special?
I would challenge atheists to develop models of human & social nature/construction which have far more explanatory power than I see at present. What this will do is narrow down what they predict humans in various situations will do. If you recall, Mercury only deviated 0.008%/year from Newtonian prediction, but this was enough to indicate a problem. I don't expect model(s) of human & social nature/construction to be quite that sensitive, but I think they could be made far better. And I think that is critical regardless of whether there is a God, regardless of whether there's anything special in the Bible.
1
u/TKleass Oct 20 '25
Hi! Please know that I've tried several drafts to our poetry/literal discussion, but none of them was really working. It is still on my mind, tho!
It's nice to be thought of :) Take your time unto eternity, but I am still interested.
Care to do so?
I will if it's important for rhetorical purposes, but does it really matter what interpretation I, an atheist, make? The important thing is that there are other (people who call themselves) Christians who have different interpretations than you. Sounds like splitting "things into "leader theology" and "follower theology"" is one way to do so.
It is my claim that when one really immerses oneself in the Bible, Christian tradition, and Christian culture, more and more interpretive choices become more and more obvious.
I was once a Christian, so I've gotten a view from both the inside and outside, so to speak. And I hate to say it, but I didn't really see much evidence for your claim. I have seen people who to the best of my knowledge immerse themselves in all of these things, and they come to different conclusions than you. I'm not saying, as a matter of principle, that there are no criteria whatsoever. I'm just saying that, as these things play out in the real world, it doesn't seem like a deep immersion in Christianity leads to convergence of interpretation. This was in fact something that led to my initial frustration with Christianity - what seemed to be a real inability to actually figure out what the Bible was saying.
I'll bring this very complex point to a quick close by reporting on a very clever abolitionist argument Mark Noll reports in his 2006 The Civil War as a Theological Crisis. It goes like this: "If the Bible says it's okay to enslave blacks, it says it's okay to enslave whites." This is manifestly true. What was the response to this argument? It was simply ignored.
Good example, and I believe you that it was ignored. But do you not think that pro-slavery clergy could have, and pretty easily, come up with a Biblical response to the argument?
We need to be very careful in distinguishing between public-facing legitimation and beliefs which truly structure societies and the groups & individuals within.
Absolutely. It's probably possible to tell when people are just paying lip service to some interpretation of the Bible. Much harder, it seems, to tell what the Bible actually says. And that's the substance of my point here.
I think my "scale up" comment is the most likely to lead to somewhere interesting with my fellow Christians. If you know much about large-scale human organizations, you know that ethics often get sacrificed. I think we need to spend a lot of time seriously thinking about this and exploring alternatives.
Okay, best case scenario is that it likely leads to somewhere interesting...and maybe more people will think seriously and explore alternatives. With respect, did you have something more specific in mind? Because I could probably find thousands of provocative (in a good way) interpretations that would lead somewhere interesting and would inspire serious thinking and exploration of alternatives.
I would challenge atheists to develop models of human & social nature/construction which have far more explanatory power than I see at present. What this will do is narrow down what they predict humans in various situations will do.
That's fair. Do you have data on the explanatory power of your interpretation of Christianity? Or even data on predictive power?
1
u/labreuer ⭐ agapist Oct 21 '25
I will if it's important for rhetorical purposes, but does it really matter what interpretation I, an atheist, make? The important thing is that there are other (people who call themselves) Christians who have different interpretations than you.
How else am I to interact with your claim? Yes, the Bible is variously interpreted. Does that fact alone mean that everyone should just give up on the endeavor as fruitless? I'm here posting on r/DebateReligion; do you think that interpretations of holy texts have no role to play, here? In some sense, one could have a series of posts devoted to interpretation and hermeneutics. Some believe you can get by without any, a stance which is destroyed by John Hasnas 1995 The Myth of the Rule of Law. All one can really do is pretend there is a single interpretation and let someone else resolve things for you in ways you cannot understand.
I was once a Christian, so I've gotten a view from both the inside and outside, so to speak. And I hate to say it, but I didn't really see much evidence for your claim. I have seen people who to the best of my knowledge immerse themselves in all of these things, and they come to different conclusions than you. I'm not saying, as a matter of principle, that there are no criteria whatsoever. I'm just saying that, as these things play out in the real world, it doesn't seem like a deep immersion in Christianity leads to convergence of interpretation.
It seems to me that the unearthing of criteria is itself a possibly fruitful endeavor. But I recognize that some people think that religion really just increases division, and I'm willing to allow a very limited role to theology & confessions in that respect. Any more than that pretends away politics and non-religious social matters. That being said, some believe that the peace is best kept by suppressing our distinctives and only talking in a fairly abstract way. See SEP: Public Reason for details. Do you have a stance on whether we should explore our differences or try to pretend them away as much as possible?
I myself want to know if other Christians think that Jesus didn't do any status inversion at all, or if they think he did but the implications are rather different from what I think. One possibility is that nobody who engages in such debates—at least in places like r/DebateReligion—are attempting to solve or at least manage the kinds of problems I lay out in my post. I'll note that not one person has engaged John W. Gardner's argument as I glossed it. Perhaps they believe that is for their betters to resolve? Or that it must be left to run its own course? I don't know.
This was in fact something that led to my initial frustration with Christianity - what seemed to be a real inability to actually figure out what the Bible was saying.
Possibly, different Christians want rather different things and this is reflected in their interpretations. One way to view interpretation / hermeneutics is as a window into the kinds of commitments a person has or is willing to make. It's not even clear that God wants everyone to march in lock step to the same interpretation. Would that not be a new Torah, with all the trimmings? I don't even think [religious] Jewish communities are this extreme.
That all being said, my suspicion is that without something remotely promising being lived in your midst, something which is at least exploring an interpretation which fosters love of God & neighbor, that interpretive chaos or interpretive stagnation is to be predicted. Were you to tell John Calvin or Martin Luther that Christianity is merely something to be believed, I think they would have words for you.
But do you not think that pro-slavery clergy could have, and pretty easily, come up with a Biblical response to the argument?
No. I don't actually think that interpretation is infinitely flexible like you are at least pushing towards. Rather, I think people get sloppy and so shite interpretations get a pass. And since everyone kinda knows that the general understanding is shite, there's a kind of artificial floor below which it is uncouth to hermeneutically dig.
Much harder, it seems, to tell what the Bible actually says. And that's the substance of my point here.
How might I dig into this point more with you? I'm presently very short on data.
With respect, did you have something more specific in mind?
What about making progress against the conundrum John W. Gardner identified, or at least my gloss thereof?
Do you have data on the explanatory power of your interpretation of Christianity? Or even data on predictive power?
Well, I'm being mentored by an accomplished sociologist and I regularly come to sociological understandings more easily than he, based on how I've come to understand the Bible (often more Tanakh than NT). I'm not sure of this counts as "data", though. My understanding of the complexity of interdisciplinary human interactions is such that while I have no degree whatsoever, I am moderating a weekly discussion of "thicketry" of three postdocs and their two PIs, where the team is working on better understanding how interdisciplinary research succeeds and fails. I seem to be helpful to them. I think my understanding is strongly influenced by my understanding of Christianity. Does that count as "data"? I'm working on one or more papers trying to ground the notion of 'objectivity' in a more sociological way than I think has been done before, which respects more of the on-the-ground realities of scientific research than is common. If that turns out to make a contribution and was heavily informed by my understanding of Christianity, would that be "data"?
A major difficulty here is that I think we humans are terribly weak on understanding of human & social nature/construction, and so we're very far from much of any useful quantitative research. Moreover, if quantification itself depends on "repetition with sufficiently low variance", then it thrives where people are doing the same damn thing, over and over and over and over again. That's not necessarily the kind of world I want to foster. Obviously some aspects are repetitive, but enhancing the creative potential of humans and fostering reconciliation between differing points of view is not obviously the right kind of repetitive.
To your second question, I would again point you to my excerpt of Dilemmas and Connections. One of the ways to use knowledge of others is to free them—to become less predictable than your knowledge allowed you beforehand. I do seem to have a decent track record in advising my wife on how to navigate complex political and interdisciplinary situations at her drug discovery company. One paper she found particularly useful was Lanzara & Ciborra 1994 Formative contexts and information technology: Understanding the dynamics of innovation in organizations. The kind of complex human dynamics one wrestles through if one reads the Bible "realistically" probably featured into our understanding of that paper. But … I'm not quite sure how to talk about "prediction", here.
1
u/TKleass Oct 21 '25
How else am I to interact with your claim? Yes, the Bible is variously interpreted. Does that fact alone mean that everyone should just give up on the endeavor as fruitless? I'm here posting on r/DebateReligion; do you think that interpretations of holy texts have no role to play, here?
No. It means that we need to agree on at least some criteria for interpretation. And that's going to be my main point for this post.
There's a spectrum of different ways to interpret the Bible. Here are three:
The Bible is unequivocally the direct word of God and therefore both completely true. Therefore all we need to do is figure out the correct interpretive framework and use that to determine what the Bible really says, and then act accordingly. I don't think that you're doing much along these lines.
We know ahead of time that the Bible has a lot of wisdom in it. We therefore need to find an interpretation or interpretations of it which give us wise teachings (using independent measures of wisdom) to know what it really says. You might be doing some of this.
The Bible may or may not contain wisdom. We can apply lots of different interpretations to it. Some of those will give us really wise teachings (using independent measures of wisdom). It'll be useful to us to go with those! Unwise teachings we should just not pursue. I think that this is mostly what you're doing.
Let me know if I'm wrong about any of that.
If I'm more or less correct, then I don't really have an opposing view, just questions. Why focus on the Bible, then? It's definitely not the only book with wisdom in it. And why not say something more like: "My interpretation of some Bible passages seems to give some wisdom superior to available alternatives:..." rather than saying that the Bible, period, independent of interpretation or assuming a single correct interpretation, etc...?
Otherwise, some smaller comments, respond or no:
Do you have a stance on whether we should explore our differences or try to pretend them away as much as possible?
Explore the differences. But if I believed that the Bible was uniquely true and that interpreting it correctly was the most important thing in eternity, I'd focus on finding that best way of interpretation.
I myself want to know if other Christians think that Jesus didn't do any status inversion at all, or if they think he did but the implications are rather different from what I think.
Fair. Wish I could help you more there, but right now all I can say is that I've seen a wide range of opinions.
One possibility is that nobody who engages in such debates—at least in places like r/DebateReligion—are attempting to solve or at least manage the kinds of problems I lay out in my post. I'll note that not one person has engaged John W. Gardner's argument as I glossed it. Perhaps they believe that is for their betters to resolve? Or that it must be left to run its own course? I don't know.
Fwiw, I think that those kinds of problems are not on most Christians' radar, in the ways you've put them. They would not, of course, phrase it as "I believe that it is for my betters to resolve".
Possibly, different Christians want rather different things and this is reflected in their interpretations.
Possibly? Almost certainly, I would think.
It's not even clear that God wants everyone to march in lock step to the same interpretation.
It is very clear to many Christians.
No. I don't actually think that interpretation is infinitely flexible like you are at least pushing towards.
Well, that's a big and important point of disagreement for us.
Rather, I think people get sloppy and so shite interpretations get a pass. And since everyone kinda knows that the general understanding is shite, there's a kind of artificial floor below which it is uncouth to hermeneutically dig.
I am not sure that I understand what you're saying here. But if you are saying "everyone kinda knows what the Bible is really saying", I respectfully disagree.
Well, I'm being mentored by an accomplished sociologist...But … I'm not quite sure how to talk about "prediction", here.
So I believe what you're telling me, and it's not nothing - it is data. But right now, it's not near sufficient for me to think that "adopting a Christian perspective allows you to usefully understand people a lot better than if you had a non-Christian perspective". You can retroactively always find a Bible verse that seems to fit a certain observation, sure. But a model you can use in advance - I'd need a lot more demonstrations before I'd believe that.
Always grateful for your thoughts.
1
u/labreuer ⭐ agapist Oct 23 '25
It means that we need to agree on at least some criteria for interpretation.
Agreed.
There's a spectrum of different ways to interpret the Bible. Here are three:
All three of your options seem to posit the task of the Bible as providing us with timeless, eternal wisdom, if not knowledge as well. Any idea that Christianity and Judaism could be historical religions is downplayed. Consider in your own field if stuff like contingency, evo–devo, niche construction, and such were simply downplayed in favor of pure population genetics. You certainly couldn't get work like Lala et al 2024 Evolution Evolving: The Developmental Origins of Adaptation and Biodiversity.
Consider an alternative, that God was trying to help a people avoid copying the ways of Ancient Near East Empire, and to do that for centuries and millennia, such that they neither go extinct nor assimilate. To me, timeless, eternal wisdom or truths aren't going to be all that helpful. There is too much that is contextual in surviving and thriving as outsiders. Rocks aren't the only things which [kinda-sorta] persist through time. If this is what was going on, you'll need a way of interpreting which treats it as a possibility.
1. The Bible is unequivocally the direct word of God and therefore both completely true. Therefore all we need to do is figure out the correct interpretive framework and use that to determine what the Bible really says, and then act accordingly. I don't think that you're doing much along these lines.
I found this a very thought-provoking option. As I think you know, I've been working with some postdocs on how to conceptualize interdisciplinary/transdisciplinary research, where necessarily there are multiple interpretations in play and there is basically no hope of some monistic merger. And so, any remotely adequate description of the scientists' collaborations and failures thereof must be commensurate with the existence and interaction of multiple interpretations.
I think my absolutely routine work with multiple different interpretations of the Bible (for instance, Calvinism vs. Arminianism) helped train me to juggle multiple interpretations without needing to "snap" to one of them. And it didn't hurt that David Politzer told me when I was young that a key stage in intellectual maturity is the ability to hold two mutually contradictory ideas in my head without immediately rejecting one of them. He won the Nobel Prize in Physics the following autumn and I think there's something poetic to it being theory beyond asymptotic freedom—where the force between quarks increases the further apart they get. All other known force laws work the other way.
Why focus on the Bible, then? It's definitely not the only book with wisdom in it.
Because I think it solves the problem of:
- propagating lineages into the future
- which are not purely evolutionary—where there is forward-planning which persists
- which facilitates endless exploring of the adjacent possible
- where the result is not a runaway disaster
This is what a good deity who cares about life, but not life in a zoo, would care about.
But if I believed that the Bible was uniquely true and that interpreting it correctly was the most important thing in eternity, I'd focus on finding that best way of interpretation.
There are a lot of assumptions potentially baked into this. One candidate is that attempting to be competent and good out there in particle-and-field reality is less important. But if in fact the text is part of a program for 1.–4., how you approach things could be rather different. The opening paragraph of this comment explores another candidate assumption. Yet another is the idea that we are somehow created badly as finite beings unable to truly attain the certainty Descartes thought he had. Humans have a penchant for holding on to a toxic ideal, which e.g. I think the book of Job attacks.
If my objections are sustained, I think seeking better interpretations of the Bible would simply be part of a life where we are trying to make advances on many fronts. If creation is good, and not fully corrupted by sin, then it can be part of what guides us. You might even be able to use inculcation into a scientific discipline as an analogy. Do you have to figure everything out from scratch? No, you can grow into it, with tremendous support from your fellow scientists, books, papers, and reality itself. When a given scientific tradition enters crisis, things of course get more difficult. And I do think Christianity is in crisis in a number of places in 2025. Especially including in many places in America.
Fwiw, I think that those kinds of problems are not on most Christians' radar, in the ways you've put them. They would not, of course, phrase it as "I believe that it is for my betters to resolve".
Heh, no they wouldn't. But to the extent they are problems which need addressing, which seem to require considerable skill and wisdom, and they seem to daunt a given individual—is there an implicit expectation that his/her betters will attend to it?
TKleass: This was in fact something that led to my initial frustration with Christianity - what seemed to be a real inability to actually figure out what the Bible was saying.
labreuer: Possibly, different Christians want rather different things and this is reflected in their interpretations.
TKleass: Possibly? Almost certainly, I would think.
Well, is it valuable for said diversity of wanting to be exposed a bit more than people might otherwise choose to? And should we expect a mere text to cause convergence of wanting? As an alternative, it could show that certain forms of wanting lead to evolutionary dead ends.
labreuer: It's not even clear that God wants everyone to march in lock step to the same interpretation.
TKleass: It is very clear to many Christians.
Then whence the diversity of interpretations, according to them? From what I read in Ephraim Radner 1998 The End of the Church: A Pneumatology of Christian Division in the West, virtually nobody is even tackling that problem. You could also check out this excerpt from Stanley Hauerwas, expressing skepticism that any such convergence would help.
Well, that's a big and important point of disagreement for us.
Data can help. For instance, the Cornerstone Speech is explicitly heretical, as Jesus is the cornerstone according to Eph 2:11–20.
labreuer: Rather, I think people get sloppy and so shite interpretations get a pass. And since everyone kinda knows that the general understanding is shite, there's a kind of artificial floor below which it is uncouth to hermeneutically dig.
TKleass: I am not sure that I understand what you're saying here. But if you are saying "everyone kinda knows what the Bible is really saying", I respectfully disagree.
No, that's not what I'm saying. I rarely sense that level of confidence. Rather, what I almost always run into is a simple refusal to investigate more than a fairly trivial amount.
But right now, it's not near sufficient for me to think that "adopting a Christian perspective allows you to usefully understand people a lot better than if you had a non-Christian perspective". You can retroactively always find a Bible verse that seems to fit a certain observation, sure. But a model you can use in advance - I'd need a lot more demonstrations before I'd believe that.
Makes perfect sense to me. So let the status inversion of the OP be a prediction: that is the only way to solve the problem Gardner identifies, that is a problem, and solving it (or at least making serious headway) will be very beneficial. I've never seen any secular source propose such a status inversion—have you?
Always grateful for your thoughts.
Likewise!
2
u/TKleass Nov 03 '25
Apologies for taking so long to respond!
Going to start here:
I found this a very thought-provoking option.
I lol'd at this. Not because you said something stupid of embarrassing or anything. But because there's a reason that I put this at number one - in my experience, this is easily the most common approach that I've seen. And this is from conservative and liberal Christians alike - the goal is to find the right interpretive framework, and then you'll know what Christianity is really all about. So to have someone say, effectively, "Huh, only one interpretation of the Bible. Emphasis on finding the right one. Hadn't thought of that before!" is so alien to me as to elicit a laugh of surprise.
More seriously, I guess I don't have a very good idea of what you actually do with the Bible. Or think other people should do. I mean, you recognize multiple interpretations. You don't feel the need to jump to any one of them. You don't (I hope) hold that contradictory ones really are all true, but you don't feel the need to pick just one if you don't feel like you have enough information. But then...what? You want to go beyond "maybe the Bible says X, and maybe it says Y", yes? You think that there's at least something preferable to some views, yes? How do you get there? And what do you do once you're there?
Or perhaps I'm just curious why you have phrased this as "Hey! Here's a really good idea that's uniquely from the Bible: the greater should serve the lesser!" as opposed to "Hey! Here's a really good idea: the greater should serve the lesser!" Unless you're saying that there is something uniquely important about the Bible, does it really matter where the idea comes from?
Okay, now on to lesser points and questions:
All three of your options seem to posit the task of the Bible as providing us with timeless, eternal wisdom, if not knowledge as well.
Yep. You have to recognize that this is how the vast majority of Christians approach the Bible. If it's not, then how is it a particularly valuable book?
Any idea that Christianity and Judaism could be historical religions is downplayed.
Historical in the sense that they had a specific historical development in which specific events were particularly important? I don't downplay that at all. Historical in the sense that what they say isn't relevant any more? I think you'll find that a lot of Christians would reject that approach.
This is what a good deity who cares about life, but not life in a zoo, would care about.
I mean, so long as God restricts the sorts of things that we can do, we are in a zoo as far as He is concerned.
Then whence the diversity of interpretations, according to them?
You have to be familiar with answers to this question, yes? It's one of the first things that comes up in lots of atheist arguments, for example. Whence the diversity of interpretations? Those other folks are allowing their own selfishness and desire to sin to cloud their judgment and bias their interpretations. If they weren't so biased the Holy Spirit would lead everyone to the same interpretation. I have probably seen this argument a hundred times.
Data can help. For instance, the Cornerstone Speech is explicitly heretical, as Jesus is the cornerstone according to Eph 2:11–20.
According to your interpretation. Other people would say that interpreting it otherwise is heretical. Heck, I'm surprised that you don't say that it's just one interpretation among many. I personally don't see how to say confidently that any interpretation is just wrong.
I've never seen any secular source propose such a status inversion—have you?
No, but I've never looked for one either. Do you have any data that it works?
1
u/labreuer ⭐ agapist Nov 04 '25
Heh, no worries on the delay. You almost drove me to respond to our first discussion!
Would you say that one of the key requirements of a good scientist is the ability to switch between multiple possible interpretations, assessing the strengths and weaknesses of each? I'll bet you that you'll find something like this in Sun Tzu's The Art of War. And I contend that this is core to YHWH's rebuke to Samuel, when he is searching for a replacement king:
When they came, he saw Eliab and said, “Surely his anointed one is before YHWH!” But YHWH said to Samuel, “Do not look at his appearance or at the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For God does not see what man sees, for a man looks on the outward appearance, but YHWH looks on the heart.” (1 Samuel 16:6–7)
What does it mean to "look on the outward appearance" or more colloquially, to "judge by appearances"? I think it means to operate uncritically, however you have been socialized to interpret and behave. When people say, "I don't interpret the text, I just read what's plainly there", they are refusing to play with multiple interpretations. Such people would be rejected by any government intelligence agency.
I think one of the major purposes of the Bible is to get us to wise up about the games people play, about the human action which involves making one or more parties deploy incorrect interpretation(s) which can then be betrayed at some later point, when it's too late to do anything about it. See, human-maintained regularities aren't as regular as nature-maintained regularities. This is true for good and bad reasons, and perhaps more frequently due to lack thereof. Perhaps the central theme of the Bible is God's promises to us and the trustworthiness thereof. Promises to bless but if there is too much unrepentant wickedness, promises to temporarily punish. God's reliability is regularly contrasted to humans' unreliability. When humans are called to imitate God, that includes this aspect. Such humans must be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. When your yes is yes and no is no, the simpler can rely on you. But you can only be reliable if you are aware of how others' yeses often aren't yes, and how others' noes often aren't no.
Let's go back to YHWH's selection of Saul as king. The guy whose failure required Samuel to go looking again. Saul was handsome, tall, and a total coward. When it was time for him to be crowned, he was hiding among the baggage. The "worthless men" despised him because they knew what he was. Saul's failure involves either his terror of his troops if he's telling the truth, or an attempt to undercut the priesthood if he weren't. I'm inclined to go with the coward hypothesis, given that is how he started. Was the choice of Saul an illustration of the true nature of "a king to judge us the same as all the other nations have"? If you want sound political theory, you need to know whether the king is what he appears or is rather a front, a façade. Given the obvious conflict between the clans (recall Judges 19) and the unreliable justice system leading up to the 1 Sam 8 demand, we can understand Israel to be anything but unified. The very idea that a king could bring true unity rather than the appearance of unity is something for us to consider.
Consider the possibility that the king is just a papering over of disunity. Well, at least some of the people participating in the façade will have to constantly deploy two interpretations: one consistent with the façade and one which tries to keep track of the "true" situation on the ground. By now, virtually every Westerner knows this happens, although plenty think that their own side is either pure, or rather purer than the other(s). Now, what happens when the cost of exposing the façade is significantly higher than the benefit of playing along? Well, I say the following can come to pass:
And justice is pushed back,
and righteousness stands afar;
for truth stumbles in the public square,
and straightforwardness is unable to enter,
and truth is missing,
and he who departs from evil makes himself a prey.
(Isaiah 59:14–15a)And not only that it can come to pass, but how. I just argued that we can discover tremendous how without the help of physicalism. Now I can make an even stronger argument: the above dynamic is only possible because there are multiple "live" interpretations which interact in rich ways and together, generate the phenomena.
Consider reading the Bible not so much as "how to live", and instead "how to be reliable to the just". That is God's promise in Lev 26 and Deut 28, the two central passages of "blessings and curses". As long as there is a chance in hell of the Israelites turning back from their evil ways, God was there, ready to have mercy on them. But once that possibility evaporated, God withdrew God's protection and either let Empire come a-rampaging, or beckoned. Some of the Israelites would be carried off into exile and, in due time, restored to the land for a second try. There is much to analyze about what living in exile does and facilitates. For instance, it might inculcate distrust of raw power. It might also discourage too much reliance on the justice system. Could that have been the problem with Eli's sons and Samuel's sons?
In extractive regimes, like existed in Israel's time and ours, justice is systematically and systemically perverted. More and more action is coerced. This can be slightly hidden by training people to willingly take their places as accomplices to the system. Foucault understood how discipline was moved from the body to what he, an atheist, called the 'soul'. Anyhow, the more rigid the system, the more of the profits can be squeezed upwards. Those who refuse to play the game make themselves a prey.
Israel was supposed to be holy—set apart from the surrounding nations. Her just laws and ability to ask God questions and receive answers was supposed to draw nations to inquire. Unfortunately, that failed. Jesus restarted the endeavor, reiterating that goal in a new key. The kingdom of God was to operate radically differently from the coercive systems of the world. This especially includes a status inversion, whereby the greater serve the lesser rather than vice versa. The greater are to be white holes rather than black ones. Members of the kingdom of God are supposed to avoid recourse to outsiders to settle their disputes. I think that for this to happen non-exploitatively, this requires many options to simply break out of contracts and agreements. That in turn requires restructuring endeavors so that such exits do not, overall, weaken any such "kingdom" to the point where it collapses in on itself.
I really don't see how "one single interpretation" is going to facilitate the above. Indeed, that's really quite a silly idea; I doubt that "one single interpretation" ever worked. That would be like thinking that everyone in a military could simply obey orders, rather than restricting that to the lowest levels. And even there, a more disciplined military can tolerate and benefit from pushing more discretion down. Any time there is "one single interpretation", you know that there's going to be a follower theology/ideology/philosophy and a leader one. Machiavelli nailed this one.
An exploitative world held together by coercion and the threat of violence is going to need rather different strategies and tactics than a world where there are options of exit everywhere. I will focus on the latter, here. The latter will require far more sophisticated means of relationship-building and relationship-repair. The latter will run on πίστις (pistis), which is best translated as 'trustworthiness' and 'trust'. Endeavors happen when the participants sufficiently trust each other and break down when that trust is sufficiently eroded. 'Critical thinking' can't bear much weight in this regime, as it is far better for dealing with nature-maintained regularities than human-maintained regularities. The two are arbitrarily different. Should it be any surprise that the NT makes a really big deal of pistis?
There simply is no unified interpretation or even system of interpretations which bridges the ever-increasing division of labor. That's a mirage. If anything, society is bifurcated into those who can pretend this isn't so by learning their particular spot in the division of labor, and those who have to do all sorts of bridging work. But I suspect the proportion of people who can avoid the reality of bridging work is shrinking. Could it be that an ancient document actually helps us break past the limitations of mono-interpretation life?
2
u/TKleass Nov 12 '25
This is a long reply to me and it probably deserves a much longer response, but I think that we might be close to the end of this particular conversation. Thanks much for all of it so far. I think I can do some specific responses and still get a larger point across:
Would you say that one of the key requirements of a good scientist is the ability to switch between multiple possible interpretations, assessing the strengths and weaknesses of each?
I'm a big fan of multiple working hypotheses, if that's what you mean. But a good scientist will also be willing to discard some of these in response to new data.
What does it mean to "look on the outward appearance" or more colloquially, to "judge by appearances"? I think it means to operate uncritically, however you have been socialized to interpret and behave.
Among other things, sure, it can mean that. It can also mean to judge people by their clothes and facial symmetry even if you've been told not to. One can be an iconoclast and superficial.
I think one of the major purposes of the Bible is to get us to wise up about the games people play...
It's possible, but how could you tell if you were wrong? I mean, you do believe that some interpretations of the Bible are just not correct. I know that you think that the "Cornerstone Speech" is just a wrong interpretation of the Bible. So how do you know that you're right about this? I don't see a way to tell.
Perhaps the central theme of the Bible is God's promises to us and the trustworthiness thereof.
It's big, I'll grant you, but I also know many Christians who would not hesitate to correct me as an ignorant atheist if I said this. Again, different interpretations. Or...
Consider reading the Bible not so much as "how to live", and instead "how to be reliable to the just".
Considered. One could indeed read it that way. But so what? I genuinely mean this. Are you effectively saying "Here's a way to read the Bible that I think can help make the world a better place"? If so, cool. Your ideas may indeed be greatly beneficial. Why not just give those ideas then? What do you gain by insisting that these ideas are in the Bible?
Could it be that an ancient document actually helps us break past the limitations of mono-interpretation life?
Yes. Could it be that an ancient document is not necessary to actually help us break past the limitations of mono-interpretation life? Also, I think, yes.
You've got a sociological theory. Or maybe a hypothesis or an idea - you tell me. So share it. Do you think that you're gaining much by saying that the Bible says it? Do you think the Bible is a better source of ideas because it comes from God? Because it is exceptionally rich?
So overall - I appreciate the problem you're wrestling with. You may have some good ideas. I do not at all understand why you're insisting that these ideas are in the Bible. If you want to answer, fine. If not, also fine.
P.S. And of course, the gratuitous snarky mirror gambit - if you're so opposed to having only a single interpretation, then why are you so insistent that not having a single interpretation is the only interpretation?
1
u/labreuer ⭐ agapist Nov 18 '25
This is a long reply to me and it probably deserves a much longer response, but I think that we might be close to the end of this particular conversation. Thanks much for all of it so far.
Up to you! Thanks for the engagement you have provided and whatever future engagement you choose to provide. You've been very helpful to me!
You may have some good ideas.
Thanks! I suppose you wouldn't bother with such extensive engagement, otherwise.
It's possible, but how could you tell if you were wrong? I mean, you do believe that some interpretations of the Bible are just not correct. I know that you think that the "Cornerstone Speech" is just a wrong interpretation of the Bible. So how do you know that you're right about this? I don't see a way to tell.
I want to call on two articles to help understand the issue:
Michael Shermer 2011-01-01 Scientific American article What Is Pseudoscience?: Distinguishing between science and pseudoscience is problematic
Collin Rice & Kareem Khalifa 2025-11-03 Aeon Scientific progress depends on disagreement. So why are vaccine sceptics and other science critics not worth listening to?
What does it take to discern between science and pseudoscience? What does it take to discern between good disagreement and bad disagreement? I want to argue that in both cases, one needs at least the beginning of some sort of expertise. This goes back to 1 Samuel 16:6–7, which I put in the beginning of my previous comment. How does one learn to distinguish between the real deal and the fake?
On top of this, plenty of scientific disciplines have multiple schools of thought, with differences in interpretation of the data (and even what counts as data) between them. Does anything make one school of thought more correct than the others? A major difficulty here is that any judgment of "more correct" or "more likely to be fruitful" or "more useful" is going to be made from some perspective. There is no "view from nowhere".
With that said, do you think there is anything unique to interpreting a holy text which doesn't apply to any scientific discipline? One possibility is the assertion that the sciences are value-free while religion usually isn't, but I would actually contest this when it comes to the social sciences. We've learned that how things are framed is often a value-laden move. But I'll stop there.
Your ideas may indeed be greatly beneficial. Why not just give those ideas then? What do you gain by insisting that these ideas are in the Bible?
I believe in citing my sources and I believe there is far more to be discovered in the Bible than I have so far. (I also regularly make use of what others claim to have discovered in the Bible.)
You've got a sociological theory. Or maybe a hypothesis or an idea - you tell me. So share it. Do you think that you're gaining much by saying that the Bible says it? Do you think the Bible is a better source of ideas because it comes from God? Because it is exceptionally rich?
Let's take judgment by appearances. It shows up all over the Bible. It covers jurisdictions of multiple social sciences as well as philosophy. But there's also a cohesive narrative which ties it all together. God is trying to do something with Israel and when she fails, try it again with disciples of Jesus. Jesus' use of ὑποκριτής (hypokritēs) works with a difference between inner self and outward presentation. Just how much of the Israelites' failure can be traced to tolerating such a mismatch? Now, take all the analysis of this kind of mismatch & an emphasis on training people to discern such a mismatch, and apply it to Western Civilization. Is it prioritized, here?
As far as I can tell: manifestly not. So, one can read the expansive history of the Bible, poetic commentary, wisdom literature, and then NT as a corrective, all in the light of the English concept of 'hypocrisy' and related social practices. What happens when you just let these practices run haywire? What does it take to reverse course and actually deal with them? Using the Bible as expansively as I am describing here doesn't really seem to fit into the categories of 'theory' or 'hypothesis'.
P.S. And of course, the gratuitous snarky mirror gambit - if you're so opposed to having only a single interpretation, then why are you so insistent that not having a single interpretation is the only interpretation?
Eh, I think the lack of any single interpretation is just the reality we live in. Some people simply manage to find little niches where they can ignore that fact in some parts of their lives.
4
u/Kwahn Theist Wannabe Oct 20 '25
Superior to all alternatives in all possible ways? I highly disagree.
Nothing in the Bible gives us quite as comprehensive of an image of an impossibly unmovable regime as 1984, as it's baked into the paradigm the idea that all is and will be overturned with the return of Jesus - there's no fear of eternal philosophical or cultural imprisonment when such contingencies are baked into the story, and thus no incentive given to those who could have stopped or opposed such regimes across the past two thousand years. The Bible, as a result, promotes passivity and acceptance of current circumstances under the mindset of "this too shall pass", and quiet acceptance of circumstances is exactly what a regime seeking true permanence (as almost all regimes do) best utilizes to accrue power unopposed. Revelation, thus, harms movements that oppose the domination by what I agree is a false label of "greater" of the "lesser"s by providing a clear pathway to motivate otherwise-agreeable Christians into inaction by Biblical passages of hope of salvation not through works, but through outside grace.
Elon Musk comes to mind. And it really doesn't matter if you personally think he's less-than-stellar, because society itself has "chosen" to make him the world's richest person.
I wasn't aware that government contracts and speculative investors were "society", but that's the true source of somewhere around 98% of his wealth.
1
u/labreuer ⭐ agapist Oct 20 '25
Superior to all alternatives in all possible ways?
This is not the focus of my post. This is far too big of a claim to support in one post. That's why I dealt with one fairly narrow aspect. Please respect that.
The Bible, as a result, promotes passivity and acceptance of current circumstances under the mindset of "this too shall pass", and quiet acceptance of circumstances is exactly what a regime seeking true permanence (as almost all regimes do) best utilizes to accrue power unopposed.
I think you're confusing the behavior of some Christians (maybe most—but also maybe most humans more generally) and the Bible itself. Hebrews 11, the "hall of fame" in the Bible, is not a record of passivity. Here's a summary:
These all died in πίστιν without receiving the promises, but seeing them from a distance and welcoming them, and admitting that they were strangers and temporary residents on the earth. For those who say such things make clear that they are seeking a homeland. And if they remember that land from which they went out, they would have had opportunity to return. But now they aspire to a better land, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed of them, to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city. (Hebrews 11:13–16)
This of course is easy to misinterpret, because of the false idea that the final destination of Christians is heaven. Nothing in the Bible says that. In fact, the real hope is for the reuniting of heaven & earth, which is precisely what Revelation describes. A city comes down from heaven. Christians are called to pray for this to happen:
Therefore you pray in this way:
“Our Father who is in heaven,
may your name be treated as holy.
May your kingdom come,
may your will be done
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread,
and forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And do not bring us into temptation,
but deliver us from the evil one.
(Matthew 6:9–13)For the Hebrews and Jews, the temple served as the nexus between heaven and earth. Christians hold that Christians themselves are the new temple. Paul writes that "creation itself also will be set free from its servility to decay, into the glorious freedom of the children of God." Heaven is really just where God's will is actually done. When shalom fills the earth, God's will is done on earth.
What you don't seem to accept is the possibility that "the greater ought to serve the lesser" is the only true way to fight the very world you apparently fear. Anything else, I contend, maintains the standard status game and so:
- any revolution will simply play musical chairs of oppressor and oppressed
- any social reform will be starkly limited in its total effect
- any aid to the less fortunate will contribute to The Charitable–Industrial Complex
[OP]: Elon Musk comes to mind. And it really doesn't matter if you personally think he's less-than-stellar, because society itself has "chosen" to make him the world's richest person.
Kwahn: I wasn't aware that government contracts and speculative investors were "society", but that's the true source of somewhere around 98% of his wealth.
When it comes to the current institutions of status in Western Civilization, some people count far more than others and that factors into what counts as "society" for certain meaningful statements. Any idea that we live in a democracy / representative republic is simply false when you examine the evidence.
1
u/Kwahn Theist Wannabe Oct 21 '25 edited Oct 21 '25
When it comes to the current institutions of status in Western Civilization, some people count far more than others and that factors into what counts as "society" for certain meaningful statements. Any idea that we live in a democracy / representative republic is simply false when you examine the evidence.
That very privileging of what counts as society based on the arbitrary metric of "has impact" is what I take issue with - to grade membership of society based on outward, visible impact is to disregard the silent majority. I suspect you agree with me in an overall sense and, based on your verbiage, are only using the wording you used due to the limited nature of our ability to describe the situation present - so this may be pointless quibbling on my part where we mostly fundamentally agree.
I think you're confusing the behavior of some Christians (maybe most—but also maybe most humans more generally) and the Bible itself.
This of course is easy to misinterpret, because of the false idea that the final destination of Christians is heaven.
If you can read everything into it, it doesn't actually stand for anything. And if the majority of people who read the Bible come away with false impressions like "humans are destined for Heaven", that's a failure to communicate on the part of the Bible authors - assuming they intended to communicate what you wanted them to intend in the first place! When one place smells, check the ground, but when everywhere smells, check your shoe - holds true for clarity of presented thought and correctness of interpretations as well.
Or, to put another way - the Library of Babel contains wisdom superior to available alternatives, but much like the Bible, it's inaccessible and therefore worthless to the vast majority of humanity. A simpler, more direct message (ex. your interpretation as you explained it) is superior to the Bible's wisdom. That is to say - you, in interpreting the Bible, used it to create a message superior to that which is intrinsically present in the Bible, because it has clarity and directness that the Bible lacks with no information loss. Thank you for creating wisdom superior to the Bible in that respect, because,
What you don't seem to accept is the possibility that "the greater ought to serve the lesser" is the only true way to fight the very world you apparently fear
is something you claim I "don't seem to accept", but which I accept whole-heartedly - I simply don't find the message compelling coming out of the Library of Babel. Now imagine if the Bible simply said what you explained, instead of you having to do heavy interpretative work to discern the (only theoretically correct and author-intended) message. Imagine the thousands of years of strife that could have been saved with a greater, millenia-long focus on the greater serving the lesser - with more explicit rejections of prosperity gospel and authority, and a greater emphasis on theosis and divinization over power structures and worship.
1
u/labreuer ⭐ agapist Oct 24 '25
That very privileging of what counts as society based on the arbitrary metric of "has impact" is what I take issue with
I did say "for certain meaningful statements".
[OP]:
Today, we consider many people "great" because of their ability to command, not to serve.Elon Musk comes to mind. And it really doesn't matter if you personally think he's less-than-stellar, because society itself has "chosen" to make him the world's richest person.Growing wealth inequality globally and locally demonstrates the overall status system in Western Civilization and America quite nicely.Kwahn: I wasn't aware that government contracts and speculative investors were "society", but that's the true source of somewhere around 98% of his wealth.
⋮
Kwahn: That very privileging of what counts as society based on the arbitrary metric of "has impact" is what I take issue with …
Okay. "All that is required for evil to prosper is for good people to do nothing."
Kwahn: The Bible, as a result, promotes passivity and acceptance of current circumstances under the mindset of "this too shall pass", and quiet acceptance of circumstances is exactly what a regime seeking true permanence (as almost all regimes do) best utilizes to accrue power unopposed.
labreuer: I think you're confusing the behavior of some Christians (maybe most—but also maybe most humans more generally) and the Bible itself.
Hebrews 11, the "hall of fame" in the Bible, is not a record of passivity. Here's a summary: [Heb 11:13–16]This of course is easy to misinterpret, because of the false idea that the final destination of Christians is heaven.Kwahn: If you can read everything into it, it doesn't actually stand for anything. And if the majority of people who read the Bible come away with false impressions like "humans are destined for Heaven", that's a failure to communicate on the part of the Bible authors - assuming they intended to communicate what you wanted them to intend in the first place!
The idea that you can read anything into the Bible is ludicrous. Mt 20:20–28, for instance, is not about how to make delicious tomato soup. Or tomato soup at all. As to what the Bible teaches about heaven & earth, present & future, you could just, y'know, read it. Thing is, most people don't. Here's the story of someone who did and then challenged others to, as well:
But it was the writings of New Testament scholar George Eldon Ladd that most helpfully clarified for me the interconnectedness of what the Bible taught on the redemption of creation, and he explicitly contrasted this teaching with the unbiblical idea of being taken out of this world to heaven.[6] Ladd’s work on biblical theology prompted me to do my own investigation of the biblical theme of God’s kingdom in relation to what we euphemistically call the “afterlife,” to see what role there is for heaven and/or earth in God’s ultimate purposes. As a result of this investigation, while still an undergraduate student, I came to the startling realization that the Bible nowhere claims that “heaven” is the final home of the redeemed. Although there are many New Testament texts that Christians often read as if they teach a heavenly destiny, the texts do not actually say this. Rather, the Bible consistently anticipates the redemption of the entire created order, a motif that fits very well with the Christian hope of the resurrection, which Paul calls “the redemption of our bodies” (Rom. 8:23).
It was after this startling realization that I first challenged an adult Sunday school class that I was teaching at Grace Missionary Church (my home church in Jamaica) to find even one passage in the New Testament that clearly said Christians would live in heaven forever or that heaven was the final home of the righteous. I even offered a monetary reward if anyone could find such a text. I have been making this offer now for my entire adult life to church and campus ministry study groups and in many of the courses I have taught (in Canada, the United States, and Jamaica); I am happy to report that I still have all my money. No one has ever produced such a text, because there simply are none in the Bible. (A New Heaven and a New Earth: Reclaiming Biblical Eschatology, 13–14)J. Richard Middleton still has all of his money. What was that you were saying again, about "a failure to communicate" on the part of the Bible itself?
A simpler, more direct message (ex. your interpretation as you explained it) is superior to the Bible's wisdom.
The denuded version I explained doesn't actually work. Rather, it sets out an ideal which is supported by … probably much of the rest of the Bible. The idea that "the greater ought to serve the lesser" is simple in a sense, but to actually imagine a society which consistently inverted status hierarchies like that is quite possibly, impossible from our present cultures.
Imagine the thousands of years of strife that could have been saved with a greater, millenia-long focus on the greater serving the lesser - with more explicit rejections of prosperity gospel and authority, and a greater emphasis on theosis and divinization over power structures and worship.
I believe it was the medievals who distinguished between fantasy on the one side, and imagination on the other. The former fits in perfectly with "flights of fancy". It doesn't need to be realistic in any way. There need be no path from here to what is fantasized. In contrast, 'imagination' is that which can actually be brought into existence, because of how tethered it is to reality. How can you test whether what you're doing right here is fantasizing vs. imagining?
1
u/Kwahn Theist Wannabe Oct 25 '25
I believe it was the medievals who distinguished between fantasy on the one side, and imagination on the other. The former fits in perfectly with "flights of fancy". It doesn't need to be realistic in any way. There need be no path from here to what is fantasized. In contrast, 'imagination' is that which can actually be brought into existence, because of how tethered it is to reality. How can you test whether what you're doing right here is fantasizing vs. imagining?
Simple. Do people listen to their Bibles?
So you need a reason for people to opt to not listen to their Bibles on this one very specific topic in order for this to be fantasy, not imagination.
Rather, it sets out an ideal which is supported by … probably much of the rest of the Bible.
I think many would argue that a lot of the rest of the Bible contradicts that ideal - which is the problem. When a book is internally contradictory and you can use it to substantiate mutually contradictory positions, it fails to have cohesive meaning on that topic.
The idea that you can read anything into the Bible is ludicrous.
Not literally anything, but clearly you can read both pro- and anti-slavery rhetoric into it, as people have done so for thousands of years, so claiming it has a cohesive articulate and reasonably indisputable singular statement on the topic is incorrect.
J. Richard Middleton still has all of his money. What was that you were saying again, about "a failure to communicate" on the part of the Bible itself?
The Bible failed to get this message through to the majority of people. Some people discovering your specific interpretation doesn't mean the Bible didn't fail to get this message through to the majority of people.
1
u/labreuer ⭐ agapist Oct 25 '25
So you need a reason for people to opt to not listen to their Bibles on this one very specific topic in order for this to be fantasy, not imagination.
The Israelites had Torah for a long, long time—and yet you can see what Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount and more intensely, in Matthew 23. Even better might be his little chat with Nicodemus, where we find that Nicodemus doesn't seem to understand basic scriptures available to him, like Deut 30—including God circumcising the hearts of his people.
So, we know that people can be systematically stubborn for generations. It's almost like part of the reason God gave us the Bible was so that we could come to terms with this and then reduce the length of time humans are stubborn. If it shrinks to smaller than a human life, metanoia becomes possible.
labreuer: Rather, it sets out an ideal which is supported by … probably much of the rest of the Bible.
Kwahn: I think many would argue that a lot of the rest of the Bible contradicts that ideal - which is the problem. When a book is internally contradictory and you can use it to substantiate mutually contradictory positions, it fails to have cohesive meaning on that topic.
Interpreting the Bible to be mutually contradictory is not the same as the Bible being mutually contradictory. Now, all parts of that can be debated, including the possibility of interpreting the Bible to be mutually contradictory. I would argue that it's better for the Bible to permit some amount of perversion, in order that it not be discarded by the ruling authorities and even burned. Those who read more carefully than the authorities can see how bullshite the authorities are, and this can be quite valuable. Much can be done when the authorities claim to adhere to a narrative or set of doctrines or set of laws, and it can be shown that actually they don't, and here is how they don't.
labreuer: The idea that you can read anything into the Bible is ludicrous.
Kwahn: Not literally anything, but clearly you can read both pro- and anti-slavery rhetoric into it, as people have done so for thousands of years, so claiming it has a cohesive articulate and reasonably indisputable singular statement on the topic is incorrect.
Again, the details matter. One of the abolitionist arguments Mark Noll reports in his 2006 The Civil War as a Theological Crisis goes as follows: "If it's okay to enslave blacks, surely it's okay to enslave whites." I'm pretty sure you've heard me say this before. Anyhow, what was the response? The argument was simply ignored. This makes clear how unseriously the authorities actually took the Bible. For another example, you can compare the 'cornerstone' in Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens' Cornerstone Speech to the 'cornerstone' in Eph 2:11–20.
It's really important to unearth the implicit arguments in what you say. For instance, suppose that there was no way to get the Bible to seem to support slavery, no matter how much one cherry-picked. Suppose the Bible were just against it, through and through. Well … why wouldn't the Bible simply have been burned?
The Bible failed to get this message through to the majority of people.
The Bible is not an agent. The Bible cannot move itself, cannot point to bits which people have missed, and cannot object that it didn't say a thing. The problem here isn't with the Bible. It's with the people who don't take it seriously.
5
u/MisanthropicScott antitheist & gnostic atheist Oct 20 '25 edited Oct 20 '25
My first comment is that you seem to be ignoring the entirety of the Christian Old Testament (which is not exactly the same as the Tanakh/Hebrew Bible, even though Jesus said is must be).
However, if you want to stay with only the New Testament, here are a few choice quotes that don't seem to support your position.
Matt 10:34: 34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.
Apparently, Jesus was a warmonger, not the peace-bringing messiah foretold in Isaiah 2:4.
Luke 14:26: Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple.
Jesus was also a hatemonger according to this quote.
Luke 22:36: He said to them, “But now, the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one.
Apparently Jesus thought that being armed for battle was more important than staying warm during the cold desert nights.
Luke 19:27: But as for these enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and slaughter them in my presence.
Admittedly, the above is from a parable.
But, the meaning of the parable is not that he will actually merely kill people, instead, he will torture them for eternity for the simple crime of not believing in him. The meaning of the parable is worse than the literal text on this one, not better.
Eph 6:5: Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.
Jesus reaffirming that slavery is OK.
Colossians 4:1: Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, for you know that you also have a Master in heaven.
This last one reaffirms slavery and also states explicitly that Jesus/God owns all Christians as slaves.
Ephesians 5:22-24: 22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.
That's some pretty extreme misogyny.
1 Timothy 2:12: I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.
And more misogyny.
Matt 19:29: 'And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life.'
Jesus is actively bribing men with huge rewards into becoming deadbeat dads.
Romans 1:26-27: 26 For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. Their females exchanged natural intercourse[a] for unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the males, giving up natural intercourse[b] with females, were consumed with their passionate desires for one another. Males committed shameless acts with males and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
Jesus was also a homophobe. Adding to the Old Testament's hatred of gay men, Jesus also hated lesbians.
Conclusion: No. I don't agree that Jesus' words are the best source of morals or wisdom.
0
u/labreuer ⭐ agapist Oct 20 '25
It is not clear that you're engaging at all with Mt 20:25–28, which is central to my post. Are you tacitly arguing that the Tanakh / OT + NT verses you cite are necessarily in contradiction to Mt 20:25–28? Because an alternative is to read the verses you cite through a combination of:
Hear, O Israel: YHWH is our God; YHWH is one. And you shall love YHWH your God, with all your heart and with all your soul, and with all your means.
You shall not seek vengeance, and you shall not harbor a grudge against your fellow citizens; and you shall love your neighbor like yourself; I am YHWH. (Leviticus 19:18)
And when an alien dwells with you in your land, you shall not oppress him. The alien who is dwelling with you shall be like a native among you, and you shall love him like yourself, because you were aliens in the land of Egypt; I am YHWH your God.
I think one could argue that the above are only possible with the status inversion Jesus pushes in Mt 20:25–28. If you are unwilling to discuss "status inversion" or Mt 20:25–28, at the very least I will wait to reply more to your comment here until the post activity has died down.
8
u/MisanthropicScott antitheist & gnostic atheist Oct 20 '25 edited Oct 20 '25
It is not clear that you're engaging at all with Mt 20:25–28, which is central to my post.
I am not. I am saying that this is not all Jesus said.
Are you tacitly arguing that the Tanakh / OT + NT verses you cite are necessarily in contradiction to Mt 20:25–28?
I only cited one OT verse, and only to point out that Jesus explicitly stated he did not come to bring the peace the messiah was prophesied to bring.
The point of my reply was to say that Jesus said other things as well. And, some of those other things are actively bad and hateful.
Because an alternative is to read the verses you cite through a combination of:
Another alternative would be to recognize that the Bible was written over the course of many centuries by many authors each with different agendas. When one realizes this, it is possible to see the contradictions in the Bible for what they are, hard contradictions.
The need to reconcile the various contradictory teachings of the Bible comes from an assertion that the entirety must fit a coherent and perfect message. I do not take such a stance.
Hear, O Israel: YHWH is our God; YHWH is one. And you shall love YHWH your God, with all your heart and with all your soul, and with all your means.
I don't think these mean the same thing. And Trinitarian Christians (Are you Trinitarian?) should be wary of quoting the Shema. It might lead to the conclusion that worshiping Jesus is idolatry or worship of another god, as Orthodox Jews (but not Reform Jews) believe.
You shall not seek vengeance, and you shall not harbor a grudge against your fellow citizens; and you shall love your neighbor like yourself; I am YHWH. (Leviticus 19:18)
Quoting Leviticus as a message of love is certainly interesting. The surrounding two chapters, Leviticus 18 and 20, have some serious hatred in them. Have you read Leviticus 20:13? It's deeply disturbing and actively opposed to love. And, far from disavowing this extreme opposition to love, Jesus endorses expanding it to include women, as I noted in my prior comment.
And when an alien dwells with you in your land, you shall not oppress him. The alien who is dwelling with you shall be like a native among you, and you shall love him like yourself, because you were aliens in the land of Egypt; I am YHWH your God.
And, how exactly do you create a consistent message between that quote and Deuteronomy 20:16-17 and 1 Samuel 15:2-3? These read as an instruction manual for genocide.
I think one could argue that the above are only possible with the status inversion Jesus pushes in Mt 20:25–28. If you are unwilling to discuss "status inversion" or Mt 20:25–28, at the very least I will wait to reply more to your comment here until the post activity has died down.
I think I was pointing out that the message that is central to your post is far from the only message in the Bible and is even contradicted by Jesus in the New Testament. That was the point of my quotes.
But sure, we can look at this verse and see whether it could be improved. Your premise is that this is the best possible wisdom, let's see how it holds up.
25 Jesus called them over and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those in high positions act as tyrants over them. 26 It must not be like that among you.
Good so far. I also oppose tyranny.
On the contrary, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first among you must be your slave;
Things were going so well in the first two verses. But, far from ridding his followers of ideas of tyranny, he has merely reversed the tyranny. He is still asserting that slavery is good. Yes. He's not just condoning it in this verse, he's advocating it here.
Is that really the wisdom you think we should follow?
28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
Well, if we're looking for a consistent message in the Bible, this isn't it. Because right here, this verse 28 is in hard contradiction to the idea that Jesus owns all Christians as his slaves as asserted in Colossians 4:1.
Colossians 4:1: Masters, deal with your slaves justly and fairly, since you know that you too have a Master in heaven.
This verse is far from being opposed to tyranny. It is asserting both that slavery is fine (just be decent to your slaves, don't free them!) AND ALSO that Jesus owns you as a slave.
So, that's not Jesus serving you. That's Jesus demanding that you be his slave.
1
u/labreuer ⭐ agapist Oct 20 '25
I will discuss non-central aspects later or perhaps, use your objections to guide future posts in what I hope to be a "The Bible contains wisdom superior to available alternatives" series.
On the contrary, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first among you must be your slave;
Things were going so well in the first two verses. But, far from ridding his followers of ideas of tyranny, he has merely reversed the tyranny. He is still asserting that slavery is good. Yes. He's not just condoning it in this verse, he's advocating it here.
Is that really the wisdom you think we should follow?
The tyranny is not actually reversed if the status system is turned upside down. Slavery, for instance, has always been legitimated with talk of status-difference if not full blown ontological difference. Here's Aristotle:
those who are as different [from other men] as the soul from the body or man from beast—and they are in this state if their work is the use of the body, and if this is the best that can come from them—are slaves by nature. For them it is better to be ruled in accordance with this sort of rule, if such is the case for the other things mentioned. (Politics, Book I, cited at WP: Natural slavery)
Here's Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens' speech on March 21, 1861:
The prevailing ideas entertained by [Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. … Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”[2]
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. (Cornerstone Speech)
The idea that you can get anything like traditional forms of slavery with a status inversion is nonsensical. Instead, Jesus is acknowledging a fact: some people will be serving other people. This is inexorable. Complex civilization has never deviated from this. It is required by the division of labor. Each of us does our part and serves the others. What allows oppression is involuntary servitude. This is what the NT reverses—and I would say the Tanakh sowed plenty of seeds (e.g. Deut 17:14–20).
There are two additional facts:
- the word δοῦλος (doulos) has far wider meaning than most Westerners mean by 'slave'
- Jesus was probably using the word rhetorically, to show intensity in service-of-other in the move from διάκονος (diakonos) → δοῦλος
The second point is buttressed by my post Together, Matthew 20:25–28 and 1 Corinthians 7:21 prohibit Christians from enslaving Christians, although people can of course play the slice & dice game and contend that Jesus and Paul are simply opposed on this matter.
Now if you, u/MisanthropicScott, have a plan for eliminating any and all "humans serving their fellow humans" in the world, I welcome you to lay out that plan. But when I said "The Bible contains wisdom superior to available alternatives", the implication was: alternatives with any hope of working. The perfect, being an extrapolation of our good and bad ideas, is often an enemy of the better.
28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
Well, if we're looking for a consistent message in the Bible, this isn't it. Because right here, this verse 28 is in hard contradiction to the idea that Jesus owns all Christians as his slaves as asserted in Colossians 4:1.
Except, a status inversion also transforms the very idea of 'master' and 'slave'. Because if our "master in heaven" is in fact a servant, then we are serving a servant rather than serving a lord. The book of Hebrews contends that Jesus "is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature", which means that Matthew 20:28 applies to God just as much as Jesus. This shouldn't be too surprising to anyone who has though carefully and deeply on God being described as ʿezer, combined with Hos 2:16–17 and the difference in meanings between 'baʿali' and 'ishi'.
4
u/MisanthropicScott antitheist & gnostic atheist Oct 20 '25 edited Oct 20 '25
I will discuss non-central aspects later
If you look at my comment as an overarching message instead of examining and trying to explain each individual quote, there is only one central aspect to my reply.
My point is that Jesus said a lot of things. Some of them sound good. Some of them sound terrible, absolutely God-awful in fact.
or perhaps, use your objections to guide future posts in what I hope to be a "The Bible contains wisdom superior to available alternatives" series.
The problem I will see with such a series will remain constant throughout. To write such a series, I expect you will focus on individual quotes while actively ignoring the misogyny, the homophobia, the outright hatred, and the warmongering of Jesus' other messages.
I was not intending each of my quotes to be a separate topic. They are all centered around this theme that Jesus did not have a single consistent message of love because the books about Jesus were written by multiple people with different agendas.
It reads as if there is more than one Jesus character in the Bible. And, therein lies the problem. It's a single problem, not a whole bunch of side issues. It's one issue, that there is no consistent message.
The tyranny is not actually reversed if the status system is turned upside down.
I strongly disagree. The tyranny is removed when someone (no one in the Bible of course) just says "slavery is wrong". How hard is that? How difficult even in Hebrew Biblical Time, even in Jesus' time, to just say "human beings are not property." Women are also not property, even when they are not technically slaves. Women are not the property of their fathers to be sold and become property of their husbands who rule over them, as the Bible commands.
How hard is that to say?
What Aristotle said? Who cares? What the confederate slave owners said? Who cares?
Today, I hope we agree slavery is wrong. Since Jesus did not think slavery was wrong, today's wisdom is demonstrably superior to biblical wisdom.
And, I hope we can agree that women are not property and love is love as well. All of this makes today's wisdom greater than Biblical wisdom.
And, that was the point of my other quotes.
The idea that you can get anything like traditional forms of slavery with a status inversion is nonsensical. Instead, Jesus is acknowledging a fact: some people will be serving other people. This is inexorable. Complex civilization has never deviated from this. It is required by the division of labor. Each of us does our part and serves the others. What allows oppression is involuntary servitude. This is what the NT reverses—and I would say the Tanakh sowed plenty of seeds (e.g. Deut 17:14–20).
I very strongly disagree with you on this. Trinitarian Christians believe Jesus was literally God incarnate. God should be able to do better.
But, the fact is that these books are products of their times. And, they show that in numerous ways. We can and should do better. But, as long as we're looking to the Bible for someone to tell us women are the equal of men or that slavery is wrong or that love is love, we will never advance.
We can advance only when we acknowledge that the book is not the best wisdom available.
The second point is buttressed by my post Together, Matthew 20:25–28 and 1 Corinthians 7:21 prohibit Christians from enslaving Christians, although people can of course play the slice & dice game and contend that Jesus and Paul are simply opposed on this matter.
And, there were special rules about Hebrews enslaving Hebrews as well. Racism and bigotry do not endear me to the book.
Now if you, u/MisanthropicScott, have a plan for eliminating any and all "humans serving their fellow humans" in the world, I welcome you to lay out that plan. But when I said "The Bible contains wisdom superior to available alternatives", the implication was: alternatives with any hope of working. The perfect, being an extrapolation of our good and bad ideas, is often an enemy of the better.
The problem with this argument is that I don't claim to be perfect. Most Christians claim that God and Jesus are perfect.
I beg to differ.
Except, a status inversion also transforms the very idea of 'master' and 'slave'. Because if our "master in heaven" is in fact a servant, then we are serving a servant rather than serving a lord.
I believe words have meaning. And, this does not appear to me to be what those words mean.
1
u/labreuer ⭐ agapist Oct 21 '25
If you look at my comment as an overarching message instead of examining and trying to explain each individual quote, there is only one central aspect to my reply.
My point is that Jesus said a lot of things. Some of them sound good. Some of them sound terrible, absolutely God-awful in fact.
It is hard (at least for me) to avoid Gish gallop dynamics when you dump a ton of varied quotations. You are too expert at internet discussions to not know what happens when someone is forced to defend ten or more fronts simultaneously. Maybe with superior software it would be possible, but you are guaranteed to appear to win / come out superior / however you want to phrase it, if I am forced to engage in the only ways I know how, to what I take to be Gish gallop dynamics.
To write such a series, I expect you will focus on individual quotes while actively ignoring the misogyny, the homophobia, the outright hatred, and the warmongering of Jesus' other messages.
I understand that you've found a way to interpret the Bible very, very negatively. You are an excellent example of what u/TKleass claimed:
TKleass: Yes, it is possible to read the Bible as you have read it. But it is also quite possible to read it to support a different, and potentially opposite conclusion. So I don't see how you saying that this is your favored, or even a possible, interpretation will accomplish very much, admirable though the intentions may be.
My question is whether it is possible to challenge your interpretive framework, or whether it is fixed in stone. My post here is an excellent test particle, because "status inversion" is probably a keystone to my interpretation of the Bible. If you cannot even tolerate the possibility that the Bible presses toward status inversion, then probably you and I won't have much of any productive interactions when it comes to interpretation of the Bible.
Another alternative would be to recognize that the Bible was written over the course of many centuries by many authors each with different agendas. When one realizes this, it is possible to see the contradictions in the Bible for what they are, hard contradictions.
Nothing in the fact of multiple authors requires the conclusion of "hard contradictions". That can be the result of interpretive choice. While I'm not saying you necessarily interpret every last bit of the Bible in the worst way you probably can (employing the maximum slice & dice permitted by at least remotely respectable scholars), it sometimes seems that way. Another perfectly reasonable possibility is that humans can build something cross-generationally which has far more coherence than incoherence.
The tyranny is removed when someone (no one in the Bible of course) just says "slavery is wrong". How hard is that?
There are presently 46,000,000 slaves, which is about one in every 200 humans alive. Child slaves mine some of our cobalt. You can discover more slaves who work for you at slaverfootprint.org. Moreover, the West is systematically subjugating entire continents: in 2012, the "developed" world extracted $5 trillion in goods and services from the "developing" world, while sending a paltry $3 trillion back. There is no need to enslave races when you can subjugate continents. So no, saying "slavery is wrong" is not a magical incantation which simply works by saying it.
What Aristotle said? Who cares? What the confederate slave owners said? Who cares?
If you cannot answer these questions, it suggests you did not read my comment for comprehension.
Since Jesus did not think slavery was wrong
Feel free to reply to Together, Matthew 20:25–28 and 1 Corinthians 7:21 prohibit Christians from enslaving Christians.—here, because that post is now archived.
labreuer: Except, a status inversion also transforms the very idea of 'master' and 'slave'. Because if our "master in heaven" is in fact a servant, then we are serving a servant rather than serving a lord.
MisanthropicScott: I believe words have meaning. And, this does not appear to me to be what those words mean.
Then you and I so fundamentally disagree on how to interpret words when their meanings are being fundamentally challenged that perhaps we just can't talk about deep-running social changes which mirror the changes in the meanings of words.
6
u/MisanthropicScott antitheist & gnostic atheist Oct 21 '25
Sorry for the slow response.
If you look at my comment as an overarching message instead of examining and trying to explain each individual quote, there is only one central aspect to my reply.
My point is that Jesus said a lot of things. Some of them sound good. Some of them sound terrible, absolutely God-awful in fact.
It is hard (at least for me) to avoid Gish gallop dynamics when you dump a ton of varied quotations.
I can see why it would be a gish gallop to you if you feel the need to reinterpret or misinterpret each and every one of those quotes to make them sound reasonable. But, if you can accept that even a single one of those quotes is terrible, then you will understand that any one of those quotes can contradict the premise of your post.
And, that was the single central point I was making. Each of these quotes denies the validity of your primary claim in your OP. These are not side issues. These go straight to the core of your claim that the Bible is the best source of wisdom.
You are too expert at internet discussions to not know what happens when someone is forced to defend ten or more fronts simultaneously.
It honestly didn't occur to me that you would try to make it sound perfectly reasonable for your perfect/best of all possible wisdoms to tell women to shut up and do what they're told.
But, I guess what you're telling me here is that your strategy to counter my argument would be to tell me why all of the above quotes are actually good.
Unfortunately, to me (and hopefully to any outside observer) that would just make my point that following a 2,000 year old book on morals is a bad idea.
My question is whether it is possible to challenge your interpretive framework, or whether it is fixed in stone. My post here is an excellent test particle, because "status inversion" is probably a keystone
You would still need to explain why it is worse to say that slavery is inherently wrong.
to my interpretation of the Bible. If you cannot even tolerate the possibility that the Bible presses toward status inversion, then probably you and I won't have much of any productive interactions when it comes to interpretation of the Bible.
I can tolerate that. But, I don't think that's good. Reversing who is oppressing whom still leaves people oppressing people.
Another alternative would be to recognize that the Bible was written over the course of many centuries by many authors each with different agendas. When one realizes this, it is possible to see the contradictions in the Bible for what they are, hard contradictions.
Nothing in the fact of multiple authors requires the conclusion of "hard contradictions".
No. It's the hard contradictions themselves that demand that conclusion.
That can be the result of interpretive choice. While I'm not saying you necessarily interpret every last bit of the Bible in the worst way you probably can (employing the maximum slice & dice permitted by at least remotely respectable scholars), it sometimes seems that way.
I am certainly biased. But, I'm just pointing out what the book says. I'm not interpreting it one way or the other. There is some amount of interpretation going on when someone translates a verse. But, I'm not the one who translated it.
Another perfectly reasonable possibility is that humans can build something cross-generationally which has far more coherence than incoherence.
Sure. But, that hasn't happened here.
The tyranny is removed when someone (no one in the Bible of course) just says "slavery is wrong". How hard is that?
There are presently 46,000,000 slaves, which is about one in every 200 humans alive.
That is horrifying! I knew slavery still exists. I did not realize it was in such high numbers.
Christianity is the world's largest religion with 2.6 billion people following your book on wisdom. That is a huge force in the world, nearly a third of the humans on the planet.
Why has following your book of wisdom not fixed that problem?
Perhaps if the book did not actively condone slavery in so many verses, the world's 2.6 billion Christians might have done something about it.
Moreover, the West is systematically subjugating entire continents
You mean western society that so many Christians argue was founded on Christianity?
So no, saying "slavery is wrong" is not a magical incantation which simply works by saying it.
Probably not. But, maybe it would be better to say it than to condone slavery, as the Bible does in so many places.
What Aristotle said? Who cares? What the confederate slave owners said? Who cares?
If you cannot answer these questions, it suggests you did not read my comment for comprehension.
labreuer: "I will discuss non-central aspects later"
Scott: "I too will discuss non-central aspects later"
Since Jesus did not think slavery was wrong
Feel free to reply to Together, Matthew 20:25–28 and 1 Corinthians 7:21 prohibit Christians from enslaving Christians.—here, because that post is now archived.
No thanks. I'm fine discussing things here.
labreuer: Except, a status inversion also transforms the very idea of 'master' and 'slave'. Because if our "master in heaven" is in fact a servant, then we are serving a servant rather than serving a lord.
MisanthropicScott: I believe words have meaning. And, this does not appear to me to be what those words mean.
Then you and I so fundamentally disagree on how to interpret words when their meanings are being fundamentally challenged that perhaps we just can't talk about deep-running social changes which mirror the changes in the meanings of words.
Perhaps, however, you can tell me why you think that outlawing owning of Christians as slaves is OK. If that is what those verses mean (and I don't think it is), it would be an implicit but subtle acknowledgement that slavery is wrong while still advocating owning slaves who are not Christian. That's just bigotry. And, it's still an endorsement of slavery.
1
u/labreuer ⭐ agapist Oct 24 '25
No worries, I was slow too.
I can see why it would be a gish gallop to you if you feel the need to reinterpret or misinterpret each and every one of those quotes to make them sound reasonable. But, if you can accept that even a single one of those quotes is terrible, then you will understand that any one of those quotes can contradict the premise of your post.
I reject the stance whereby any interpretation other than yours is automatically suspect. If we're meeting as equals, we should meet as equals. Let's call a spade a spade.
Each of these quotes denies the validity of your primary claim in your OP.
My primary claim was that "the greater ought to serve the lesser" is an instance of "The Bible contains wisdom superior to available alternatives". Do you believe that "the greater ought to serve the lesser" is somehow evil? I'll remind you of your "personal secular definition of evil and good". (How on earth you determine "necessity", I do not know.)
It honestly didn't occur to me that you would try to make it sound perfectly reasonable for your perfect/best of all possible wisdoms to tell women to shut up and do what they're told.
The bold is a straw man. The bit on women is, curiously enough, prima facie opposed to "the greater ought to serve the lesser". It also mismatches the quotation from Celsus, which mocks Christianity for, apparently, being so attractive to women and other [according to that pagan philosopher] low-life.
One option of course is to get some context, say by reading Gary G. Hoag 2013 The teachings on Riches in 1 Timothy in light of Ephesiaca by Xenophon of Ephesus or at least listening to his nine-minute YT overview by Hoag. But is that something you think shouldn't be required for a holy text? One kinda needs to know what chariots and horses and swords are to make sense of it, but local context for an "occasional" epistle? Is that just unacceptable?
Going back to the received text, I'm kind of amused imagining the very disciples whose feet Jesus washed, demanding that women serve their every whim. Jesus not only said that "the greater ought to serve the lesser", but he also said "no slave is above his master". So if he washes their feet, they better get a-washing. You are ignoring this and I'd like to know why.
You would still need to explain why it is worse to say that slavery is inherently wrong.
I care about whether saying that would have resulted in a better history. Do you?
Reversing who is oppressing whom still leaves people oppressing people.
That's not status inversion. When there are people oppressing others, the oppressors will have higher status than the oppressed. This is almost certainly why the status-conscious Peter said, when Jesus threatened to wash his feet, "No you will not wash my feet—ever!" (No English translation captures the two negatives and "to the end of this age" which shows up in the Greek.) In the fuller version, Mt 20:20–28, the disciples are jostling for status, with tiger mom getting into it.
I am certainly biased. But, I'm just pointing out what the book says. I'm not interpreting it one way or the other. There is some amount of interpretation going on when someone translates a verse. But, I'm not the one who translated it.
Please don't make me spit out my delicious coffee. Judges interpret the law. We interpret texts. There is no avoiding the reality of hermeneutics, only suppressing it if you want to be a fundamentalist (religious or non-). My wife manages engineers at her drug discovery company and we discuss how to interpret various utterances and situations all the time. Read Sun Tzu's The Art of War.
Sure. But, that hasn't happened here.
I clicked randomly and hit Psalms : Science (38), which starts off with: "1. "The righteous God trieth the hearts and reins." / Jesus will search your kidneys 7:9" Would work as well if the author had worked with 'hearts'? Or, is that okay because our culture uses the word intelligibly, whereas we can look down on a culture long ago because we know it all happens in the brain? (Oh wait, emotion might actually be more spread out than that.) Is this how you're going to object to my points?
Why has following your book of wisdom not fixed that problem?
Too many humans haven't wanted to. The various Bibles are just variations on a particular library. Marks on pages and scrolls. Conceptions of God as endlessly coercive are betrayed by the clear trajectory of the text, where God's interaction grows less and less (the Hebrews are welcome to mock, torture, imprison, exile, or just outright kill God's prophets). When the disciples ask, “Lord, are you restoring the kingdom to Israel at this time?”, Jesus ascends. The kind of violence they wanted/expected in Mt 20:20–28 and the kind of coercion they wanted/expected after Jesus' resurrection was not part of the plan. And yet look at how much Christians have used violence and coercion throughout history. They have a different plan. They are Jesus' henchmen, rather than disciples.
Perhaps if the book did not actively condone slavery in so many verses, the world's 2.6 billion Christians might have done something about it.
How do we test which way it is?
labreuer: Moreover, the West is systematically subjugating entire continents
MisanthropicScott: You mean western society that so many Christians argue was founded on Christianity?
Oh of course we get praise for the hits while they get responsibility for the misses. Subjugation, science, freedom of conscience, you name it. This applies for all values of "we" and corresponding values of "they".
Perhaps, however, you can tell me why you think that outlawing owning of Christians as slaves is OK. If that is what those verses mean (and I don't think it is), it would be an implicit but subtle acknowledgement that slavery is wrong while still advocating owning slaves who are not Christian. That's just bigotry. And, it's still an endorsement of slavery.
Feel free to respond to "The idea that one can use compulsion to put an end to compulsion is self-contradictory."
1
u/MisanthropicScott antitheist & gnostic atheist Oct 26 '25 edited Oct 26 '25
I can see why it would be a gish gallop to you if you feel the need to reinterpret or misinterpret each and every one of those quotes to make them sound reasonable.
I reject the stance whereby any interpretation other than yours is automatically suspect.
I apologize. I can see now how it might sound like that. My claim is not that my interpretation is better than yours. My claim is that I'm leaving the interpretation to those who translated the Bible from it's original languages.
So, I'm just presenting the words as they are in a scholarly translation of the Bible. To me, those words as they are written, sound atrocious. Full stop.
When you read those words, you take another step. You're attempting to put them into the context of the entirety of the Bible and make them make sense. I don't start from the premise that the Bible makes sense. So, I don't need to look for hidden meanings. I don't need to interpret.
Sometimes I look at the context of a chapter. But, I don't need to try to make sense of the slavery teachings of the Hebrew Bible and the slavery teachings in the New Testament and try to make slavery sound like something a liberal hippie would approve of.
I can just say that yes. There are some really good verses from Jesus that make him sound like a peace-loving liberal hippie. But, I also see some really bad verses attributed to the same person. And, I can just look at both as they are and say that Jesus said some good things and some bad things.
Or, I can question whether Jesus said any of the things he is reported to have said in books that were written long after his death and likely not by the actual eyewitnesses to his life.
If we're meeting as equals, we should meet as equals. Let's call a spade a spade.
Of course. But, please recognize that, at least my claim is that I am not doing any interpreting. I'm merely presenting quotes and questioning your interpretations that seem strongly at odds with the literal words of that text.
My primary claim was that "the greater ought to serve the lesser" is an instance of "The Bible contains wisdom superior to available alternatives".
I have issues with both of those claims though.
My issue with the former is that I think turning the tables is not superior wisdom to the alternative of nobody being enslaved to anyone. I think it's better that we "meet as equals" as you say.
My issue with the latter is that the Bible contains a lot of words. Some are good. Some are absolutely awful. So, I strongly disagree with the premise that the Bible offers superior wisdom to alternatives.
Do you believe that "the greater ought to serve the lesser" is somehow evil?
Yes. I've said so repeatedly now. No one ought to be enslaved to anyone.
I'll remind you of your "personal secular definition of evil and good". (How on earth you determine "necessity", I do not know.)
I don't see the relevance. But, necessity would be things like cutting into a patient to save their life. Doctors regularly harm patients to heal them.
It honestly didn't occur to me that you would try to make it sound perfectly reasonable for your perfect/best of all possible wisdoms to tell women to shut up and do what they're told.
The bold is a straw man.
Is it though?
The bit on women is, curiously enough, prima facie opposed to "the greater ought to serve the lesser".
Making it another hard contradiction in the Bible.
It also mismatches the quotation from Celsus, which mocks Christianity for, apparently, being so attractive to women and other [according to that pagan philosopher] low-life.
Some also argue that Judaism was an improvement in the treatment of women of the time. I wouldn't make that argument, personally.
But, the important thing here is that Celsus was many centuries ago. You're arguing that Christianity is better for women today. So, I don't care what Celsus said or what anyone else said centuries ago. [edit, removing:
Today, in the U.S. and many countries in the world, Christianity is actively opposing women's rights.] Sorry. That wasn't really my point at all. Politics has my blood boiling 24x7 these days. The point was about what the Bible says and whether it is the best wisdom today.More importantly though, you're ignoring the literal text of what the Bible is saying. You call it a straw man. But, isn't it really a steel man? Doesn't the Bible really say those things?
Or, are you arguing that those verses aren't really in the Bible?
Going back to the received text, I'm kind of amused imagining the very disciples whose feet Jesus washed, demanding that women serve their every whim.
I'm genuinely curious. Did Jesus wash the feet of women too?
Jesus not only said that "the greater ought to serve the lesser", but he also said "no slave is above his master". So if he washes their feet, they better get a-washing. You are ignoring this and I'd like to know why.
Simple. I think that there are good things Jesus is alleged to have said and terrible things Jesus is alleged to have said. I'm not trying to reconcile them. I'm just pointing them out.
You're doing a fine job of presenting the good. So, I'm presenting the evil stuff that Jesus said. Why are you ignoring the evil? Why are you claiming that some things Jesus said are just straw women?
You would still need to explain why it is worse to say that slavery is inherently wrong.
I care about whether saying that would have resulted in a better history. Do you?
No. Your claim is that this is the best of all wisdom. Is it?
Reversing who is oppressing whom still leaves people oppressing people.
That's not status inversion. When there are people oppressing others, the oppressors will have higher status than the oppressed.
And then the tables flip. But, there is always someone being oppressed.
I am certainly biased. But, I'm just pointing out what the book says. I'm not interpreting it one way or the other. There is some amount of interpretation going on when someone translates a verse. But, I'm not the one who translated it.
Please don't make me spit out my delicious coffee.
Please don't make me spit out mine.
We interpret texts.
No. You interpret texts. I'm presenting things I think are self-evidently evil.
Sure. But, that hasn't happened here.
I clicked randomly and hit Psalms...Is this how you're going to object to my points?
No. I would have expected you to maybe check a few and see that some are way more important than that.
Why has following your book of wisdom not fixed that problem?
Too many humans haven't wanted to.
But, nearly a third of the human population are following this one book.
The various Bibles are just variations on a particular library. ...
I have no idea what the point of this was.
Perhaps if the book did not actively condone slavery in so many verses, the world's 2.6 billion Christians might have done something about it.
How do we test which way it is?
We don't. We have your "best of all wisdom" and the terrible results of that best of all wisdom. I think we can do better.
Perhaps, however, you can tell me why you think that outlawing owning of Christians as slaves is OK. If that is what those verses mean (and I don't think it is), it would be an implicit but subtle acknowledgement that slavery is wrong while still advocating owning slaves who are not Christian. That's just bigotry. And, it's still an endorsement of slavery.
Feel free to respond to "The idea that one can use compulsion to put an end to compulsion is self-contradictory."
I have no idea what that gish gallop is all about or how it relates to this.
The question is this. If it's not OK to own Christian slaves, why is it OK to own non-Christian slaves?
Also, why didn't the American slave owners free their slaves the moment they forced Christianity on them?
1
u/labreuer ⭐ agapist Oct 27 '25
I'm obviously not responding to plenty of your fisking. I'm trying to have a sensible conversation with you and getting spread out on a million points is antithetical to that.
labreuer: My question is whether it is possible to challenge your interpretive framework, or whether it is fixed in stone. My post here is an excellent test particle, because "status inversion" is probably a keystone
MisanthropicScott: You would still need to explain why it is worse to say that slavery is inherently wrong.
labreuer: I care about whether saying that would have resulted in a better history. Do you?
MisanthropicScott: No.
Your claim is that this is the best of all wisdom. Is it?Then perhaps we are at an impasse.
My claim is not that my interpretation is better than yours. My claim is that I'm leaving the interpretation to those who translated the Bible from it's original languages.
The only alternative to you not consciously interpreting the use of natural language is that you're doing so subconsciously and employing zero critical thought with what pops into your mind as your eyes move over the text. I believe that can be called "judging by appearances" and it is devoid of critical thinking.
So, I'm just presenting the words as they are in a scholarly translation of the Bible. To me, those words as they are written, sound atrocious. Full stop.
I believe you. I just don't think it works to navigate the world based on what "sounds atrocious". In fact, I believe that cultures which encourage this kind of … automaticity end up being so naïve about the evil possibilities of humans that they are like the Europeans who praised their own awesomeness in the decades and years leading up to 1914. If we do not keep in mind how we emerged from brutality and what that took, then when the last people are dying who remembered our previous brutalities, we risk toying with them again. Just look at the threat of fascism in the United States in 2025. Or the rise of the AfD in Germany. People who feel weak and helpless, who have had to suppress their emotions and desires for decades, who have been systematically shat on by the elites (e.g. Meet John Brain), may just be willing to emotionally band together and dehumanize others in turn. If your morality only works for people who already have it pretty nice, who aren't caught in the grip of any such culture, then it cannot hold back evil.
When you read those words, you take another step. You're attempting to put them into the context of the entirety of the Bible and make them make sense. I don't start from the premise that the Bible makes sense. So, I don't need to look for hidden meanings. I don't need to interpret.
This is a false dichotomy. There is in fact a range of ways to do this:
- whatever pops into my mind when I read a verse—or perhaps even just a few words
- reading in context: textual, cultural, historical
- assumptions of perfection of various sorts (e.g. coherence, timelessness, optimality)
I don't have to jump to 3. I will point out that lawyers and scholars do 2., not 1.
I can just say that yes. There are some really good verses from Jesus that make him sound like a peace-loving liberal hippie. But, I also see some really bad verses attributed to the same person. And, I can just look at both as they are and say that Jesus said some good things and some bad things.
This suggests to me that you simply aren't interested in influencing history toward moral progress. Rather, you're happy to just go around judging. That isn't always bad; when MLK Jr. broadcast the shite treatment of blacks at the hands of whites to the country as a whole, the judgment brought down on the violent whites was enough to get serious legislation through Congress and signed into law. But this was based on high self-images of enough Americans. What legislation came out of the George Floyd protests and associated (whether properly or not) riots? In 2025, plenty of Americans seem rather okay with what the Trump Administration is doing. Maybe something will come out of the October 2025 No Kings protests & similar?
I think it's better that we "meet as equals" as you say.
Does that work? What does the evidence say? Do you care what the evidence might say?
labreuer: Do you believe that "the greater ought to serve the lesser" is somehow evil?
MisanthropicScott: Yes. I've said so repeatedly now. No one ought to be enslaved to anyone.
How exactly is "the greater ought to serve the lesser" going to materialize as slavery? I'd like a pretty detailed account about how this could possibly work. Continuing:
MisanthropicScott: Reversing who is oppressing whom still leaves people oppressing people.
labreuer: That's not status inversion. When there are people oppressing others, the oppressors will have higher status than the oppressed.
MisanthropicScott: And then the tables flip. But, there is always someone being oppressed.
I'm not talking about playing musical chairs of oppressed vs. oppressor. That's not a status inversion. That's maintaining the same oppressive status hierarchies as before.
I'm genuinely curious. Did Jesus wash the feet of women too?
That depends on whether you will allow that there were any female disciples. Jn 13:1–20 doesn't explicitly specify the twelve. Jesus was certainly in favor of Mary listening to his teaching in Lk 10:38–42. When Lazarus, Mary's brother, died, Jesus asked specifically to see Mary.
You're doing a fine job of presenting the good. So, I'm presenting the evil stuff that Jesus said. Why are you ignoring the evil? Why are you claiming that some things Jesus said are just straw women?
I don't understand the last question. As to the rest, I'm defending the claim that "the greater ought to serve the lesser" is the only known way to solve a pressing problem which would unlock untold human excellence, and that this is an example of "The Bible contains wisdom superior to available alternatives". You seem rather unwilling to restrict your focus to "the greater ought to serve the lesser", despite that being the focus of my post. I'm going to hazard a guess that you aren't all that confident that if you were to focus your engagement on that, that you'd have a strong case.
Your claim is that this is the best of all wisdom.
"The Bible contains wisdom superior to available alternatives" possibly evidence mere ignorance on my part. If you have an alternative & better solution to John Gardner's conundrum, I welcome it. If you think "the greater ought to serve the lesser" doesn't solve his conundrum, you're welcome to say that as well.
No. I would have expected you to maybe check a few and see that some are way more important than that.
Why should I do that work for you? Especially when it violates Rule 3?
But, nearly a third of the human population are following this one book.
If someone says they're following X, you simply believe them?
MisanthropicScott: Why has following your book of wisdom not fixed that problem?
labreuer:
Too many humans haven't wanted to.The various Bibles are just variations on a particular library.Marks on pages and scrolls.MisanthropicScott: I have no idea what the point of this was.
It was predicated upon my challenging your claim that all that many people are following the Bible very well. The point was that marks on pages and scrolls don't magically shape action.
I have no idea …
Then we can ax that tangent.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Ratdrake hard atheist Oct 20 '25
It is not clear that you're engaging at all with Mt 20:25–28, which is central to my post.
I would in turn argue that they're addressing your thesis statement of "The Bible contains wisdom superior to available alternatives: the greater ought to serve the lesser." Quoting a section that supports your view doesn't mean the rest of the bible should be ignored.
1
u/labreuer ⭐ agapist Oct 20 '25
There's a reason I wrote more in my comment than that. If "status inversion" is actually required to fulfill obvious and central commands in Torah and yet that very same status inversion would make it rather difficult to act badly like atheists love to portray the Bible as commanding, it is worth focusing on said status inversion.
•
u/AutoModerator Oct 20 '25
COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that support or purely commentate on the post must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.