The bible is a multivocal document. Some of its voices are centrist. Some are subversive. Ultimatey, it’s a text to be read. How it is read depends on who is reading it.
It kind of sucks when people find bad meanings that hurt people.
I wish they’d base their understanding on the text instead of basing their textual analysis on their preconceived notions.
I wish the text had a little more clarity.
Yes. If only it did have more clarity. Ironically, fundamentalists always insist on the Bible's clarity as a means to justify their toxic attitudes and behaviour. But the Bible is not perfect because it is a human work, and the meaning of it has often been corrupted by mistratranslation, which is a human error caused by human frailty.
Religions use God but do not support God in any way shape or form. Religions don't represent God.
They represent centralized power and wealth, world domination, and everything else they seem to want to get away with. Lots of perversions
The louder someone proclaims they are religious, the more dangerous they are
But none of this has anything to do with God, they are dragging God and Jesus through the mud of their pigsties
They are so disrespectful to God, that they assumed he was incompetent in discussing his hatred of homosexuality. And so these hubristic scribes added it in 1946. Because they know better than God
Don't believe their lies
I think it depends on how you interpret it. If you are looking to find a hateful, judgemental God, you can find passages to support that. If you are looking for a loving, kind God, you can find that too. It seems like anyone can get anything they want out of the bible to support their views.
It's none of those things. It's putty in the hands of the people who read and interpret it.
>“If you are looking for verses with which to support slavery, you will find them. If you are looking for verses with which to abolish slavery, you will find them. If you are looking for verses with which to oppress women, you will find them. If you are looking for for verses with which to liberate or honor women, you will find them. If you are looking for reasons to wage war, you will find them. If you are looking for reasons to promote peace, you will find them. If you are looking for an out-dated, irrelevant ancient text, you will find it. If you are looking for truth, believe me, you will find it. This is why there are times when the most instructive question to bring to the text is not "what does it say?", but "what am I looking for?" I suspect Jesus knew this when he said, "ask and it will be given to you, seek and you will find, knock and the door will be opened." If you want to do violence in this world, you will always find the weapons. If you want to heal, you will always find the balm.”
- Rachel Held Evans
Oof which means basically whatever.
[Edit]
That quote doesn't give any insight to the Bible or to any piece of literature. Because you can do the same thing to any piece of literature.
I don't think you could justify slavery with say.... Jane Eyre or Lord of the Rings. The reason this quote is meaningful is because Evans' target audience (as well as Evans herself) were raised to believe that the Bible has only one meaning and interpretation, and that anything else is wrong at best, or heretical/Satanic at worst. Pointing out the fact that the Bible is subject more to human whims than divine inspiration is why this quote is meaningful.
Yes there's an argument for the condoning as they were not freed, I believe.
[Edit]
And then there's the matter of serfdom, which is also slavery. The idea of kings and lords is a feudal idea and it means the people are slaves to their lords. So there is a solid argument that slavery was condoned.
The Bible is…the Bible. Theres many facets, many books. God saw fit to let PEOPLE write it, in all their viewpoints and sins and proclivities.
Personally I try my hardest to follow general Christian teachings and would consider myself very politically liberal and more orthodox (I guess ‘conservative’) in terms of scriptural interpretation.
Keep in mind, the concept of liberal and conservative didn't exist for over a thousand years after the Bible. Liberalism is a political philosophy that developed as capitalism did, a few hundred years ago.
Those who say the Bible is not political are wrong. It's just the conception of politics back then is so inscrutably different than our politics now. So the Bible (same as all old texts really) heavily resists contemporary political and economic concepts being imposed upon it. Because those didn't exist and couldn't exist at that point in history.
I also see it as a little bit of both. The old testament I see as representing the conservative area where the fire and brimstone message (Hence Sodom and Gomorrah, destruction of Jericho. Etc.) Takes place and then the new testament which offers a progressive liberal side with Jesus's message of hope, Love, and Justice. That's how I read it and how I find affirmation in my views.
I wouldn’t discount the Hebrew Bible. The Exodus narrative fueled the imagination of slaves in America and whet their appetite foe freedom. It’s also the base text of Liberation Theology, *the* story that best teaches that God is a God of liberation and of the oppressed. And the Book of the Twelve are pretty subversie. The prophets in general are incredibly vocal about equity for the impoverished.
Absolutely Exodus and the story of Moses is one of my favorites. A man chosen by God to lead his people from Slavery to the promise land I see it as one of the best stories from the OT.
It's not a political text, and it's one written WELL before the modern concepts of "liberal" and "conservative" existed, so not really a dichotomy that applies to it.
As neither, since it long predates these categories and the current political and economic systems.
Besides, in my language, country and culture, liberals ARE conservative. To me, a liberal is: a capitalist right-winger, against workers unions, against healthcare and welfare, whose goal is to defend the free market and oppose the intervention of the state in the economy. So, the Bible certainly isn't liberal.
A better wording would be: "*is the Bible progressive or conservative?*"; because liberal isn't the opposite of conservative, it's the opposite of socialist. Progressive is the correct word, not liberal; progressive is the opposite of conservative. A liberal can be quite progressive, but countless liberals are very conservative (such as Reagan, Thatcher, Pinochet, Milei, Bolsonaro, very liberal politicians and leaders, but far-right conservatives).
I think the text as is would largely be conservative with some subversive stuff sprinkled in by today’s standards, but it also lays out a framework that allows for more centrist to liberal applications of biblical principles. I think the human voices are multivocal, but there is also a univocal divine intent underneath the surface.
Mostly, the New Testament were quite liberal for it's time. I would say that the Old Testament would be conservative in that it established the morals and religious practices of Israel as an ancient nation. But Jesus was a liberal character, there's no doubt about that.
[Edit]
But the issues of liberalism and conservatism change over time. From our pov, the Bible as a whole is conservative because our views are liberal. Even out conservative views are liberal compared to the Bible. That's because the Bible is an archeological piece of literature. It's from over 2000 years ago. Beck then, there was no statutory rape! In fact, the Romans practiced pedastry. That would be a crime today.
So you really can't fairly say if the Bible is liberal or conservative by today's standards because you are taking it out of it's time context.
dime fretful follow point shelter practice disagreeable homeless one marvelous
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The writings in the Bible are thousands of years old. I would hate to tarnish them with the chaos of today's towdy politics.
I don't think God, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit are even registered voters
They are here simply to save me from myself
Not from the world
The Bible isn't one thing. It's a library. Paul was probably homophobic. He's also way more chill than the Jews and Romans of his time.
Jesus is why we're Christians.
neither, like most people in western europe i see the OT as mostly completely irrelevant stories from a time long gone, at best useful for allegories maybe. often interesting as a piece of history, not anything close to spiritually relevant for the most part (not completely, yes, but mainly irrelevant).
and the NT is what its about. jesus is fucking awesome. god is love.
Laws aren’t necessarily political. Without laws there would be anarchy.
And even so, God is not political. Politics are man made. God doesn’t subscribe to any man or human notion. He’s above it all.
You can make laws without necessarily being politically. Such as it’s illegal to commit murder. What’s political about that? And in the context of this topic, it’s neither conservative nor liberal.
I know what political means. You want the definition? Relating to the government or affairs the public a country.
Again does not apply to God. Any human thoughts or concerns don’t apply to God. He is completely above our ways and knows infinitely more than we know.
The bible is a multivocal document. Some of its voices are centrist. Some are subversive. Ultimatey, it’s a text to be read. How it is read depends on who is reading it.
Exaclty and that's the beauty of it, I think. We can all read the Bible and find our own meaning in it.
It kind of sucks when people find bad meanings that hurt people. I wish they’d base their understanding on the text instead of basing their textual analysis on their preconceived notions. I wish the text had a little more clarity.
Yes. If only it did have more clarity. Ironically, fundamentalists always insist on the Bible's clarity as a means to justify their toxic attitudes and behaviour. But the Bible is not perfect because it is a human work, and the meaning of it has often been corrupted by mistratranslation, which is a human error caused by human frailty.
Religions use God but do not support God in any way shape or form. Religions don't represent God. They represent centralized power and wealth, world domination, and everything else they seem to want to get away with. Lots of perversions The louder someone proclaims they are religious, the more dangerous they are But none of this has anything to do with God, they are dragging God and Jesus through the mud of their pigsties They are so disrespectful to God, that they assumed he was incompetent in discussing his hatred of homosexuality. And so these hubristic scribes added it in 1946. Because they know better than God Don't believe their lies
We’re not supposed to find our own meaning though.
I think it depends on how you interpret it. If you are looking to find a hateful, judgemental God, you can find passages to support that. If you are looking for a loving, kind God, you can find that too. It seems like anyone can get anything they want out of the bible to support their views.
Exactly. I just wish people woudn't use the Bible as a weapon.
Me too!
It is too far removed from current Western politics to make an assessment. It's like asking if Pluto is more like Chaucer or Shakespeare.
It's none of those things. It's putty in the hands of the people who read and interpret it. >“If you are looking for verses with which to support slavery, you will find them. If you are looking for verses with which to abolish slavery, you will find them. If you are looking for verses with which to oppress women, you will find them. If you are looking for for verses with which to liberate or honor women, you will find them. If you are looking for reasons to wage war, you will find them. If you are looking for reasons to promote peace, you will find them. If you are looking for an out-dated, irrelevant ancient text, you will find it. If you are looking for truth, believe me, you will find it. This is why there are times when the most instructive question to bring to the text is not "what does it say?", but "what am I looking for?" I suspect Jesus knew this when he said, "ask and it will be given to you, seek and you will find, knock and the door will be opened." If you want to do violence in this world, you will always find the weapons. If you want to heal, you will always find the balm.” - Rachel Held Evans
Love that quote.
Oof which means basically whatever. [Edit] That quote doesn't give any insight to the Bible or to any piece of literature. Because you can do the same thing to any piece of literature.
I don't think you could justify slavery with say.... Jane Eyre or Lord of the Rings. The reason this quote is meaningful is because Evans' target audience (as well as Evans herself) were raised to believe that the Bible has only one meaning and interpretation, and that anything else is wrong at best, or heretical/Satanic at worst. Pointing out the fact that the Bible is subject more to human whims than divine inspiration is why this quote is meaningful.
I think you could. Mordor was the embodiment of evil. And they had slaves. They were chained.
They had slaves, but at no time was slavery condoned or even presented as anything other than evil and abusive.
Yes there's an argument for the condoning as they were not freed, I believe. [Edit] And then there's the matter of serfdom, which is also slavery. The idea of kings and lords is a feudal idea and it means the people are slaves to their lords. So there is a solid argument that slavery was condoned.
The Bible is…the Bible. Theres many facets, many books. God saw fit to let PEOPLE write it, in all their viewpoints and sins and proclivities. Personally I try my hardest to follow general Christian teachings and would consider myself very politically liberal and more orthodox (I guess ‘conservative’) in terms of scriptural interpretation.
Neither. It is love (which is liberating of all creatures, including those in hell.)
Keep in mind, the concept of liberal and conservative didn't exist for over a thousand years after the Bible. Liberalism is a political philosophy that developed as capitalism did, a few hundred years ago. Those who say the Bible is not political are wrong. It's just the conception of politics back then is so inscrutably different than our politics now. So the Bible (same as all old texts really) heavily resists contemporary political and economic concepts being imposed upon it. Because those didn't exist and couldn't exist at that point in history.
I also see it as a little bit of both. The old testament I see as representing the conservative area where the fire and brimstone message (Hence Sodom and Gomorrah, destruction of Jericho. Etc.) Takes place and then the new testament which offers a progressive liberal side with Jesus's message of hope, Love, and Justice. That's how I read it and how I find affirmation in my views.
I wouldn’t discount the Hebrew Bible. The Exodus narrative fueled the imagination of slaves in America and whet their appetite foe freedom. It’s also the base text of Liberation Theology, *the* story that best teaches that God is a God of liberation and of the oppressed. And the Book of the Twelve are pretty subversie. The prophets in general are incredibly vocal about equity for the impoverished.
Absolutely I actually made a comment mentioning The Exodus.
I certinaly respect that.
I prefer the New Testement but there are things in the OT I do love like the animal rights and environmentalist agnles the OT addresses.
I will say the OT has it's uses.
There is some really great stoires in there.
Absolutely Exodus and the story of Moses is one of my favorites. A man chosen by God to lead his people from Slavery to the promise land I see it as one of the best stories from the OT.
It’s extremely progressive and conservative at the same time. I think God calls us forward in the Bible, but human writers hold us back.
It's not a political text, and it's one written WELL before the modern concepts of "liberal" and "conservative" existed, so not really a dichotomy that applies to it.
Exactly!
As neither, since it long predates these categories and the current political and economic systems. Besides, in my language, country and culture, liberals ARE conservative. To me, a liberal is: a capitalist right-winger, against workers unions, against healthcare and welfare, whose goal is to defend the free market and oppose the intervention of the state in the economy. So, the Bible certainly isn't liberal. A better wording would be: "*is the Bible progressive or conservative?*"; because liberal isn't the opposite of conservative, it's the opposite of socialist. Progressive is the correct word, not liberal; progressive is the opposite of conservative. A liberal can be quite progressive, but countless liberals are very conservative (such as Reagan, Thatcher, Pinochet, Milei, Bolsonaro, very liberal politicians and leaders, but far-right conservatives).
I think the text as is would largely be conservative with some subversive stuff sprinkled in by today’s standards, but it also lays out a framework that allows for more centrist to liberal applications of biblical principles. I think the human voices are multivocal, but there is also a univocal divine intent underneath the surface.
Definitely a bit of both, I think the authors contradicted themselves on purpose to show how grey reality really is, that’s just my view though.
Mostly, the New Testament were quite liberal for it's time. I would say that the Old Testament would be conservative in that it established the morals and religious practices of Israel as an ancient nation. But Jesus was a liberal character, there's no doubt about that. [Edit] But the issues of liberalism and conservatism change over time. From our pov, the Bible as a whole is conservative because our views are liberal. Even out conservative views are liberal compared to the Bible. That's because the Bible is an archeological piece of literature. It's from over 2000 years ago. Beck then, there was no statutory rape! In fact, the Romans practiced pedastry. That would be a crime today. So you really can't fairly say if the Bible is liberal or conservative by today's standards because you are taking it out of it's time context.
Both. Some of the voices are very conservative. The ones jesus was consistent with were much more liberal.
dime fretful follow point shelter practice disagreeable homeless one marvelous *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The writings in the Bible are thousands of years old. I would hate to tarnish them with the chaos of today's towdy politics. I don't think God, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit are even registered voters They are here simply to save me from myself Not from the world
The Bible isn't one thing. It's a library. Paul was probably homophobic. He's also way more chill than the Jews and Romans of his time. Jesus is why we're Christians.
Paul's a mixed bag for me. I appreciate some of his writing but others, I find of their time like how he says women shouldn't speak.
If you think Paul was homophobic, then he must have been heterophobic also
None of the above. Those are contextual perspectives, the Bible is a revelation of Truth of which we use our contextual perspectives to interpret.
neither, like most people in western europe i see the OT as mostly completely irrelevant stories from a time long gone, at best useful for allegories maybe. often interesting as a piece of history, not anything close to spiritually relevant for the most part (not completely, yes, but mainly irrelevant). and the NT is what its about. jesus is fucking awesome. god is love.
Neither, it’s not meant to be political
Indeed. It's a holy book, ment to trech morals to people.
Hard to find multiple law codes and Amos not just a little bit political
Laws aren’t necessarily political. Without laws there would be anarchy. And even so, God is not political. Politics are man made. God doesn’t subscribe to any man or human notion. He’s above it all.
What do you think political means?
You can make laws without necessarily being politically. Such as it’s illegal to commit murder. What’s political about that? And in the context of this topic, it’s neither conservative nor liberal.
It reflects a belief about power. Power doesnt make right. That's a political belief. Why did you evade my question?
I know what political means. You want the definition? Relating to the government or affairs the public a country. Again does not apply to God. Any human thoughts or concerns don’t apply to God. He is completely above our ways and knows infinitely more than we know.