It’s always cool to go back to The Brick Testament. One of my favorites is the Instructions for Slaves section. Awesome shit (and also very helpful).
Commentary, news, and rants on the evils and stupidity of belief in the big invisible daddy in the sky. Illuminating and watchdogging the widespread attempts to institutionalize the theocratic rule of the US. Making fun of believers everywhere.
The instructions for slaves is mostly out of context so as to deliberately mislead a reader what the Bible actually says. The Brick Testament would have a reader believe the passage in 1 Corinthians instructs a slave to remain in bondage even if the opportunity for freedom presents itself when the Bible actually teaches just the opposite.
1 Corinthians 7:21 … “Were you a slave when you were called? (that means saved) Don’t let it trouble you — although if you can gain your freedom, do so”
Hmmm, that’s not at all like what the “Brick Testament” would have a reader believe the passage says. It kind of makes you wonder what other cutsie little parodies are taken out of context, reworded, or just flat out fabricated in an effort to make the Bible say what the writers of the “Brick Testament” want it to say.
It’s a lot easier to argue against or make fun of a straw man than it is to actually, reasonably, consider the facts of the matter. Then again, it’s not surprising, I’ve discovered this is pretty typical of most critics of the Bible.
Let’s give the full quote, shall we.
“Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord’s freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ’s servant.”
I guess we are all slaves to Christ. Or maybe I’m just a foolish person and took this quote out of context.
Oh, and don’t forget, if your master is a believer in the lord, do them service because they are your brethren:
1 Timothy 6:1 - 6:2
“6:1 Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.
6:2 And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.”
If god were all that, he/she/it would have outright condemned slavery in his/her/its Big Book o’ Stuff … but you don’t see that anywhere, do you?
The theists are the ones that take the text of the bible and try to reconcile it with their preconceptions of how their religion works. Take for instance, god killing all living creatures with a giant flood just because a few humans did something he didn’t like. Seems to me that this constitutes a vile, despicable act and yet the theists like to reconcile it by sayingthings like, “oh, those were different times”, “We just misunderstand gods intentions”, or “It was written by a human and the human misinterpreted it.” Theists can’t accept that their fictioinal big daddy in the sky is a very malevolent being because they, the theists, see all morality stemming from this being. No matter what act the bible condones, we will always have theists running up to defend what the bible is saying.
Yes, Tim, let’s consider the full quote (I’ll use the New American Standard version, as it is one of the most literal English translations) …
“Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that. For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord’s freeman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ’s slave.” — 1 Cor. 7:21-22
As I said before, the first part of the passage encourages a slave to take his freedom if given the opportunity. The second part is a spiritual application. Believers in Christ are free from the bondage of sin, this is what Paul is referring to when he says, “the Lord’s freeman.” Believers are also slaves of Christ, because the Bible says we are bought with a price. This is what Paul is referring to when he says, “is Christ’s slave.”
You said, “I guess we are all slaves to Christ? Or maybe I’m just a foolish person who took this quote out of context”
You didn’t so much take it out of context as you just didn’t understand it. Paul is speaking only to Christians …”were you a slave when you were called?” (meaning saved). The letter is to the church at Corinth. To believers, not to unbelievers. As you, Tim, have obviously indicated you are not a believer in Christ this passage does not apply to you. You are not a slave to Christ. We are ALL not slaves to Christ. Only those of us who are believers in Him.
The bible was written by a bunch of bronze age dudes, and it shows. The absurdity of thinking otherwise is shown every time the cristians try to reconcile some part of it with contemporary moral values. What the text says is of little interest beyond that, because no matter how many times a book says ‘hey, i was written/inspired/created by a real live GOD’ it’s simply not true. That the book condones slavery isn’t any more surprising than the fact that christians try to gloss over the fact.
Kevin — the Bible neither condones nor condemns slavery. It assumes the existence of slavery and instructs Christians accordingly on their behavior within that context. As slavery was a worldwide practice for centuries (and was very common during the times the Bible was written) it only makes sense to address how to deal with, what was for many, a very serious reality.
In fact, if you wanted to press for whether or not the Bible condones or condemns the practice it would be easier to make a case that the Bible condemns it. The principles that we all accept about the equality of men and how to treat one another that contradict the practice of slavery are all contained within Scripture. What you cannot find is a blatant advocacy of the practice.
You are right about one thing … the Bible was written by a bunch of “bronze age dudes” and should be read accordingly in its proper context. To try to apply modern standards to ancient writings is foolish at best and dishonest at worst.
And to try and pretend that this book was written or inspired by a fictional skydaddy is even more foolish and dishonest.