A strange apologetic paradox

[Esquilax]

When asked about why the bible advocates slavery, or in any way says something that doesn't jive with current scientific knowledge, there's a specific brand of apologist who will rush to tell us that the writing was tailored to the people of the time, whose lacking understanding of the world would have rendered the truth incomprehensible to them.

Those same apologists will then turn around and claim that the bible is a densely packed, layered and coded series of metaphors and poetic language that never says incorrect things, despite how clearly incorrect a straight reading of a given verse might be.

So which is it, guys? If the bible is such a brilliantly wrought piece of literature, how and why could it be written by a bunch of dumbasses who can't understand simple concepts like "the world is a big sphere," or "kidnapping people and forcing them to work is bad," and to what end? You can't have it both ways: either the initial biblical audience needed to be talked down to, or they were capable of having their divine truth delivered to them in twisting labyrinths of metaphors and direct language and things that god didn't actually mean.

What's the deal?

[Ben Davis]

It's just rationalisation to resolve cognitive dissonance; they're trying to provide a context in which the action is okay. To this, I've always given the response: "So you think there's a context in which <insert moral reprehensibility/factual error> is okay/true? That speaks more to your values than anything else."

[Esquilax]

The other interesting thing about this is how aptly it demonstrates the focus of apologetics; each of these arguments is broached in a vacuum, without any interest in whether they hang together as a coherent worldview. The idea that the bible is metaphor-packed is contradicted by the idea that the biblical authors needed to simplify their prose to suit the times, but they both serve their purpose in silencing one or another specific anti-christian argument.

So long as they've done that, and shut down conversation on their purpose-built avenues, then it matters not whether they mesh or not. They aren't a part of actual christian belief, they're tailor made weapons designed to silence dissent so the apologist doesn't need to think about it any more.

[fr0d0]

That's a nice little bubble Esq.. How could those writing aincient texts have the knowledge of someone ~6000 years in the future? That's quite a leap of faith you're asking me to accept, that they should know this. And who's to say they didn't? I'm pretty sure there's evidence of primitive peoples speculating accurately. Given the information at hand, which we now have more than anyone in history, we can still be pretty ignorant. For example, you know very well that the Bible is a book on theology and the references to the natural world are used as the language to explain theology. Yet you seem bent on criticising the messenger rather than addressing the message. Perhaps we have to evolve from science virgins into beings that can take it as a subject along with other subjects.

[Esquilax]

... What the hell are you talking about, Frodo?

[Tonus]

The issue I have with the idea that we must consider the sensibilities and culture of the writers is that these are a people who were led by a very strict god who had no qualms about slaughtering Israelites by the thousands for disobeying him. He even massacred 70,000 because their king took a census. So what exactly was stopping him from:

> telling the Israelites not to have slaves at all?
> preventing them from raping girls after killing their families off?
> demanding that they not kidnap young women because they were short on wives?

The notion that he allowed these things "because culture" doesn't jibe with the way he dealt with other things he found offensive. He killed a man for the simple reflexive act of trying to steady the Ark of the Covenant when the oxen pulling it stumbled, but keeping slaves or raping young girls? TOO COMPLICATED LOL

[fr0d0]

So you're writing a book about yourself and your friends and family. What happens around you is as God wills, because that's how you all speak. Nothing more.

We could do exactly the same now. Events we witness could simultaneously (never replacing the science of the event) be interpreted with spiritual meaning. It's just that current society no longer uses or understands that angle.

[Angrboda]

So you're writing a book about yourself and your friends and family. What happens around you is as God wills, because that's how you all speak. Nothing more.

We could do exactly the same now. Events we witness could simultaneously (never replacing the science of the event) be interpreted with spiritual meaning. It's just that current society no longer uses or understands that angle.

So you're saying God is no better than a man?

[fr0d0]

So you're saying God is no better than a man?

You're going to have to draw me a map to that one

[Esquilax]

So you're writing a book about yourself and your friends and family. What happens around you is as God wills, because that's how you all speak. Nothing more.

We could do exactly the same now. Events we witness could simultaneously (never replacing the science of the event) be interpreted with spiritual meaning. It's just that current society no longer uses or understands that angle.

If that's the way you want to explain it, then fine, I guess I'm not addressing you with my point, there. I'm specifically talking about a pair of arguments that are often used to defend various points within the bible, but that specifically clash. It's got nothing to do with the original authors, and everything to do with the apologetics we hear about them now.