(July 29, 2021 at 2:41 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:(July 25, 2021 at 5:51 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: Is Christianity Inherently Supportive Of Slavery And Misogyny? The answer is, unfortunately yes. Or at least it can and sometimes does.
It seems to me that there are two broad strategies that are implemented when approaching Scripture; and given that they lead to different conclusions, they often reflect Christian/Atheist differences:
Approach 1 interprets the Bible bottom-up. As such, Christian's often lay the basics and fundamentals down at the base of the pyramid (things such as God is love or Treat your neighbor as yourself) and work their way up to less essential and more debatable parts of Scripture. And if a verse seems odd given the whole, it can be left with a question mark without consequence; or if it leads to a problematic interpretation, they can retreat to a lower step and course-correct. (Differences between religions often occur at the base of the pyramid, whereas differences between denominations occur near the top.)
Approach 2 interprets the Bible top-down. It takes the parts that seem problematic or debatable (things such as Paul said women should be silent in Church or There are verses about slavery), and makes them a starting point through which the rest of Scripture is interpreted. It inverts the pyramid, so to speak. In atheism this might lead to easy rejection of the whole structure, given that if the inverted base is removed, the entire pyramid collapses. And in radical Christian groups it might lead to extremism, given that a single verse shapes their entire interpretation of Scripture.
My argument is that Approach 1 is the only appropriate approach. Whereas Approach 2 often results in a Strawman. For example, it leads to conclusions that many Christians would reject (such as your argument that Christianity inherently supports X or Y). It also opens the door to "nutpicking," when you look for members that use Approach 2 to justify things like misogyny, and make them representative of Christianity.
Given this framework I would ask: Do you think that "If you're a Christian, and you want to justify your misogyny," that you could still do so using Approach 1?
Well, nobody takes approach 2. The reason atheists focus on the problematic parts is that many Christians regard scripture as the inerrant revealed word of God, with which no dispute may be taken. If someone says that to me, the first thing I'll do is focus on the problematic parts. Not just because *I* have a problem with them, but that I suspect that the believer also does.
Still, reasonable Christians are going to be more prone to take approach 1. That makes their position more defensible, but then other issues crop up.
What necessarily privileges "Do unto others"? What makes that foundational? I'm aware of the two greatest commandments... and if you want to tackle that, we can. Seems to me, the two "greatest" commandments ought to supercede all others when in disagreement, but many Christians don't see any commandments superseding others. They rather want to force or warp all parts of the book to work together. Everything in the book is true. No one commandment supersedes another. But then why call any commandment "the greatest"?
I love the Golden Rule. Might be the best thing in the whole book. I wish it was regarded as foundational by more Christians. Because (maybe they hold it in principle, but historically speaking) Christians have violated the Golden Rule because of some other verse. Mind you, I'm not criticizing Christians for falling short of the Golden Rule. (It's a high bar, and I fall short of it too.) It's the justification that bothers me. And if something else in the Bible justifies breaking the Golden Rule, then that means it is not privilaged or foundational after all.
