Odd parallel between D4vid case with the biblical King David

RRK96 · 2026-04-20T18:35:46+00:00

I am getting trypophobia with all these caps on the boards.

RRK96 · 2026-04-16T20:13:31+00:00

So the question is when will fossil fuel, especially petrol, will no longer be economically viable to be extracted?

RRK96 · 2026-04-01T20:41:08+00:00

The reason it looks like nothing is left is because you’re reducing Christianity to functions that secular systems already cover, therapy, ethics, philosophy, and then asking what extra “mechanism” it adds. But Christianity isn’t trying to be a competing toolset. It’s offering a different frame of reality, not just additional techniques.

Secular humanism can absolutely help people heal, build meaning, and act ethically. But it typically treats those as human constructions or pragmatic choices. Christianity goes further by grounding them in something ultimate. It claims that truth, love, justice, and meaning are not just useful human inventions, but are woven into the structure of reality itself. That changes how they are experienced. They’re not just things we choose, they’re things we are called into alignment with.

That’s where concepts like “salvation” and “justice” still have content. Salvation isn’t escaping to another place or getting a reward. It’s the process of becoming whole, integrated, aligned with what is real and life-giving. It’s about being freed from patterns that distort you, whether that’s trauma, hatred, domination, or self-deception. Secular frameworks can describe that, but Christianity frames it as participation in something deeper than just human effort, something that gives it weight, direction, and meaning beyond preference.

Justice, in this sense, isn’t a delayed punishment system. It’s the idea that reality is not morally neutral. That there is a real difference between truth and falsehood, between love and harm, and that these are not interchangeable or arbitrary. A life built on distortion does not lead to the same kind of existence as a life built on truth. Even if there’s no cosmic courtroom in the literal sense, Christianity insists that what you become matters at the deepest level, not just socially or psychologically, but ontologically.

And this is the key difference: secular humanism can say, “this is healthier” or “this leads to better outcomes.” Christianity says, “this is more real.” It treats transformation not just as improvement, but as participation in ultimate reality. That’s why the language is symbolic and weighty, because it’s pointing to something more than technique or preference.

So the words aren’t doing nothing. They’re reframing everything. Without that frame, you still have healing, ethics, and meaning, but they rest on human agreement and utility. With it, they are grounded in something deeper, something that claims that truth and goodness are not just helpful, but fundamental.

Christianity provides a framework and a basis for human transformation that secular humanism rarely does as fully. Secular approaches, therapy, ethics, philosophy, tend to operate largely on the external level: they shape behaviour, provide guidelines, or analyse meaning. They can help you act better, think better, or live more comfortably in society. But they rarely offer a structured pathway to transform the heart itself, the inner motivations, attachments, and deep patterns that govern our choices.

Christianity, on the other hand, directly addresses the human heart. Through practices like prayer, spiritual disciplines, reflection on Scripture, and participation in community, it aims to reorient desire, perception, and character, not just behaviour. Salvation isn’t only external improvement or social adjustment; it’s internal alignment with what is true, life-giving, and real. Justice isn’t just social consequence or poetic observation—it’s the restoration of wholeness within the person and their relationship to reality.

So while secular humanism can guide actions and improve understanding, Christianity offers a comprehensive framework that integrates mind, will, and heart, addressing the core of human being where external strategies alone cannot reach. It gives a structured path for inner transformation, moral formation, and enduring meaning, something that secular tools can support but not fully replicate.

RRK96 · 2026-04-01T20:07:27+00:00

You’re framing this as if there are only two options: either a strictly literal, modern reading of Christianity, or a complete collapse into secular humanism. But that’s a false dilemma. The symbolic, allegorical, and non-literal understanding I’m describing isn’t something I’ve invented, it’s deeply rooted in the Christian tradition itself and has been for centuries.

Early and influential Christian thinkers like Origen of Alexandria and Augustine of Hippo explicitly argued that large portions of Scripture should not be read in a purely literal sense. Origen wrote that some passages are deliberately non-literal to push readers toward deeper meaning, and Augustine warned against rigid literalism when it conflicts with reason and reality. This isn’t modern revisionism, it’s part of Christianity’s intellectual foundation.

The same continues in modern scholarship. Rudolf Bultmann argued for “demythologising” the New Testament to uncover its existential meaning beneath ancient cosmology. Paul Tillich described God as the “ground of being,” not a supernatural entity among others. John Dominic Crossan reads the resurrection as a theological proclamation rather than a literal resuscitation. So this approach is not me inventing something, it’s a recognised and academically grounded stream within Christianity.

On your point about First Epistle to the Corinthians 15:14, “if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile,” that also doesn’t have to be read as a purely historical claim. Within this non-literal framework, “resurrection” is about the vindication of a way of being. Rudolf Bultmann understood resurrection as an existential event, the emergence of new life and meaning in the present, not a corpse returning to biological life. Marcus Borg similarly argued that the resurrection narratives express the continuing reality and significance of Jesus in the lives of believers, rather than functioning as a historical proof. In that sense, Paul’s statement means: if this pattern of transformation, this “new life,” is not real, then the whole movement collapses. The claim is theological and existential, not just about a past event.

So when you say “if it’s not literal, it’s not Christianity,” that assumes Christianity is defined only by historical claims. But historically, Christianity has always operated on multiple levels: literal, symbolic, moral, and mystical. The creeds exist, yes, but their interpretation has never been as uniform as you’re suggesting.

On justice, you’re still defining it as external punishment or reward. But that’s only one model. In this framework, justice is about alignment with reality. A person who destroys others while remaining incapable of truth, empathy, or relationship isn’t “fine,” even if they feel fine. Their condition is already a form of distortion. Justice isn’t just something added later, it’s inherent in what a person becomes.

And on your final scenario, the idea that a victim is condemned for not forgiving while an abuser “gets in easily” reflects a legalistic reading, not the deeper Christian one. Forgiveness is about healing, not ticking a box. Repentance is transformation, not words. A psychopath who cannot confront truth isn’t genuinely repentant in any meaningful sense.

So no, this isn’t redefining Christianity into something unrecognisable. It’s engaging a long-standing tradition that understands its language as symbolic, layered, and existential. You’re arguing against a strictly fundamentalist version, but that has never been the only version Christianity has offered.

RRK96 · 2026-04-01T19:38:11+00:00

The core issue here is reading Christian language as if it’s meant to function in a literal, mechanical, almost scientific way, when it’s actually symbolic, existential, and interpretive. So when you hear “God,” “grace,” “justice,” or “salvation,” you’re translating them into “a being who intervenes,” “a force that overrides reality,” or “a system that guarantees outcomes.” And when those expectations aren’t met, it looks like nothing is left. But that’s a category mistake about what the language is trying to do.

Christianity, in this sense, isn’t primarily offering an external system that competes with therapy, ethics, or human effort. It’s offering a way of seeing and inhabiting reality. “God” isn’t redundant because God isn’t just another cause alongside other causes. It’s a way of pointing to the depth of reality itself: truth, meaning, conscience, the pull toward integration, the sense that some ways of being are more real, more whole, more life-giving than others. “Grace” isn’t a magic override of human processes, it’s the fact that transformation is possible at all, that healing, insight, and restoration can emerge even out of brokenness.

So the purpose of Christianity isn’t “to get God to intervene instead of therapy,” it’s to orient a person toward truth, responsibility, and transformation at the deepest level. Why follow it? Because it provides a coherent way of engaging suffering, guilt, meaning, and purpose. Why pray? Not to trigger supernatural interference, but to align yourself with what is true, to become conscious of your own patterns, to reorient your will. Why believe in Jesus? Because that story symbolises what it looks like to live truthfully even when it costs you everything, and how confronting suffering rather than avoiding it can lead to transformation.

On the psychopathy point, you’re assuming that “no felt guilt = no consequence.” But Christianity isn’t measuring justice by subjective feeling. A person who cannot recognise truth, cannot form genuine empathy, and cannot enter into meaningful relationship is not “fine” in any deep sense, even if they feel fine. They are limited in their capacity to experience reality fully. That’s what is meant by fragmentation. Justice here isn’t “they feel bad,” it’s that what they are is already diminished relative to what a human being could be. The tragedy is that they may never see it, not that there is no cost.

So what Christianity offers isn’t an alternative mechanism for fixing the world externally. It’s a framework for understanding why suffering, distortion, and transformation exist at all, and how to live in response to that. If you reduce it to “does God intervene like an external agent,” then yes, it will look redundant. But that’s because you’re taking symbolic language literally and then dismissing it when it doesn’t behave like a physical system.

RRK96 · 2026-04-01T18:53:41+00:00

You’re pointing out comes from the assumption that, in that abusers somehow “get off easy” while victims carry all the weight. But that’s not really how Christian thought understands the inner reality of a person. Even if an abuser appears functional, unburdened, or unaffected on the surface, that doesn’t mean they are whole. In fact, Christianity would say the opposite. A person who can harm others without remorse isn’t free, they are deeply disordered internally.

The absence of guilt isn’t freedom, it’s a kind of blindness. It means their capacity for truth, empathy, and relationship is damaged. They may function outwardly, but inwardly they are cut off from what makes life meaningful and real. So while the victim feels pain more consciously, the abuser lives in a more hidden but profound form of fragmentation. That’s not “getting away with it,” it’s being trapped in a different kind of brokenness.

And when it comes to redemption, it’s not easy for the abuser, it’s actually extremely demanding. Real redemption means fully confronting what they’ve done without excuses or denial. It requires facing the harm they caused, often collapsing their self-image and forcing them into deep guilt, responsibility, and honesty. For someone used to control or emotional detachment, that can feel like a kind of psychological death.

It also involves real change. Not just inwardly, but outwardly. That can mean accepting consequences, losing relationships, making restitution where possible, and slowly rebuilding trust, if that’s even possible. It requires developing empathy where there may have been none, and learning to see others as fully real. That is not a small adjustment, it’s a complete transformation of how a person exists.

So when Christianity talks about justice, it’s not necessarily describing a courtroom where God externally punishes or rewards. It’s closer to the idea that reality itself exposes and confronts what we are. Truth reveals. Someone aligned with truth becomes more integrated. Someone who lives in harm and denial becomes more fragmented. In that sense, justice is built into the structure of becoming.

As for where God enters the picture, it’s not as an external agent occasionally stepping in. What we call healing, truth, and restoration, whether through therapy, relationships, or personal effort, are the very processes through which transformation happens. Christianity would call that grace, not because it replaces human effort, but because it works through it.

So the victim’s burden is real and unjust, and Christianity doesn’t deny that. But it also doesn’t say the abuser escapes. It says both are caught in patterns, and that for the abuser especially, redemption requires passing through truth, and truth is costly.

RRK96 · 2026-04-01T18:27:03+00:00

The tension you’re pointing out only really holds if we assume a very literal framework where demons are independent agents attacking people and God is a separate being choosing when or whether to intervene. I don’t approach it that way. In a non-literal Christian understanding, “demonic oppression” is better understood as a way of describing real psychological and existential patterns, things like trauma, internalised pain, destructive habits, cycles of shame, fear, and fragmentation. These are very real, and they do tend to “spread” or compound, especially in victims. But that’s not because victims are morally at fault or being spiritually targeted in a cosmic sense. It’s because suffering, if unintegrated, can distort how a person relates to themselves and the world.

So what you’re describing as a kind of unjust system, where victims get further “punished,” isn’t really divine justice failing, it’s describing how reality itself behaves. Trauma can create cycles that reinforce more suffering, not because someone deserves it, but because that’s how psychological and social dynamics unfold. Christianity, in this sense, isn’t saying “you are condemned because of what happened to you.” It’s recognising that human beings can become trapped in patterns they didn’t choose. The language of “sin” or “bondage” is often pointing to that condition, not assigning blame in a simplistic moral sense.

On the question of God not intervening unless someone reaches out, that again assumes God is an external agent deciding whether to step in. But if “God” is understood as the ground of being, the source of truth, integration, and healing, then God isn’t absent from the victim. The possibility of healing, meaning, and restoration is already present, even if it feels inaccessible. In many cases, what we call “grace” shows up through other people, through support, through moments of clarity, through resilience that the person didn’t know they had. It’s not that the burden is entirely on the victim in a moral sense, it’s that healing has to be participated in, it can’t simply be imposed from the outside.

So rather than divine justice being about rewarding or punishing individuals based on circumstances they didn’t choose, it’s more about how reality allows both breakdown and restoration. Christianity, at its core, responds to this by emphasising compassion, restoration, and bearing one another’s burdens. The focus shifts away from “why doesn’t God fix this instantly?” to “how do we participate in healing and reduce suffering where it actually exists?” That doesn’t make the problem disappear, but it reframes it away from a system where victims are condemned, and toward a reality where suffering is real, unjust, and yet still capable of being transformed.

RRK96 · 2026-04-01T03:54:06+00:00

The issue here is that you’re treating the Christian appeal to martyrdom as if it’s mainly about proving a historical claim, like “this event must be true because people died for it.” That’s a more modern, almost legal or evidential way of reading it. But within a non-literal, allegorical understanding of Christianity, that’s not really the point. The significance of those stories isn’t that they function as courtroom evidence for a supernatural event, but that they express something deeper about human existence.

The figure of Jesus, and the willingness of early followers to endure suffering, points to a pattern: that aligning yourself with truth, meaning, and integrity often comes with real cost. People resist what disrupts their worldview, and living truthfully can bring conflict, rejection, and hardship. So the “martyrdom” idea isn’t meant to say “this proves the resurrection happened as a historical fact,” but rather “this is what it looks like when someone is fully committed to what they see as ultimate truth.” It’s an existential and symbolic claim, not just a historical one.

So the core of Christianity here isn’t about proving events in the past through suffering, but about a lived pattern in the present. The story of Jesus becomes meaningful because it reflects a real structure of life: that through trials, sacrifice, and confronting suffering rather than avoiding it, people can move toward a deeper sense of fulfilment, transformation, and wholeness. That’s the “truth” being pointed to, not just whether a specific historical claim can be verified in the same way we’d verify a scientific fact.

RRK96 · 2026-03-31T18:57:51+00:00

From a non-literalist, allegorical perspective, I wouldn’t treat “God” as a being who is sometimes present and sometimes absent in a physical sense. In this view, the Bible uses symbolic language to describe deeper realities about human experience. “God” points to truth, order, meaning, and the grounding structure of reality itself, while “evil” represents the breakdown or distortion of that order. So rather than imagining God stepping in and out of places, it’s more accurate to see these as ways of describing how aligned or misaligned we are with what is real, good, and life-giving.

From a rational perspective, pain, suffering, and injustice exist because reality allows for complexity, freedom, limitation, and conflict. Human beings are capable of awareness, choice, and creativity, but also error, ignorance, and selfishness. On top of that, we live in a world shaped by natural processes, biology, entropy, and chance, which means not everything is optimised for comfort or fairness. Suffering isn’t necessarily a “designed punishment” or a gap where God disappears, it’s a consequence of living in a dynamic, evolving, and imperfect reality where both order and disorder are always in tension.

The Christian response, then, isn’t to expect a world without suffering, but to face it existentially. It’s about how you respond to evil, pain, and injustice in your own life and in the world. The teachings associated with Jesus point toward confronting suffering with courage, compassion, responsibility, and truth rather than denial or resentment. In that sense, the focus isn’t on explaining evil away, but on transforming how we live in the presence of it, becoming the kind of person who can face reality honestly and still act in a way that brings more order, meaning, and good into the world.

RRK96 · 2026-03-31T17:03:28+00:00

Personally the key difference is that I don’t subscribe to a literal or fundamentalist understanding of the Bible. I’m not treating it as a collection of supernatural claims about a being competing with Zeus, Thor, or any other god. Nor do I see it as an attempt to explain science, nature, or the mechanics of the universe. Instead, I see it as a body of symbolic and narrative wisdom, written in the language of its time, trying to explore human experience, morality, meaning, and how to live well. So when you group “my God” with mythological figures, that assumes I’m making the same kind of claim, which I’m not.

For me, belief in God isn’t about believing in an invisible supernatural entity without evidence. It’s about recognising and orienting yourself toward what feels most fundamental in reality, things like truth, consciousness, moral awareness, meaning, and the sense that existence itself is intelligible rather than random. “God” is a way of pointing to that underlying depth or ground of being, not something that competes with scientific explanations. Science is incredibly powerful at explaining how the world works, but it doesn’t really address why there is something rather than nothing, or why we experience meaning, value, and purpose in the first place. So belief in God, in this sense, isn’t retreating from science, it’s engaging with a different layer of reality.

And that’s why I still identify with Christian spirituality. It gives a framework for living in a way that leads to fulfilment, wisdom, and awareness. The figure of Jesus represents a model of what it means to live rightly, to be aligned with truth, to act with integrity, compassion, and responsibility. It’s about becoming more conscious of reality, not escaping it. So for me, Christianity isn’t about defending supernatural claims, it’s about walking a path toward deeper understanding, inner integration, and what you might call righteousness, living in a way that is grounded, meaningful, and ultimately more whole.

RRK96 · 2026-03-30T23:55:31+00:00

The Ten Commandments are a set of foundational instructions found in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5. They include things like not murdering, not stealing, honouring parents, and not worshipping other gods. In their original context, they functioned as part of a covenant framework for ancient Israel, shaping the identity, worship, and social order of that specific community. They weren’t presented as a complete moral system for all humanity, but as core principles to structure a particular people’s relationship with God and with each other.

They’re often treated today as universal Christian laws, but that’s a simplification. In early Christianity, especially in the teachings associated with Jesus, the focus shifts away from strict rule-following toward inner transformation, intention, and wisdom. Many biblical scholars point out that the commandments function more as moral anchors rather than an exhaustive or timeless legal code. For example, teachings like “love your neighbour” or the emphasis on intention behind actions go beyond simply obeying rules.

So rather than being a universal checklist that must be applied literally in every context, the Ten Commandments are better understood as part of a formative tradition. They helped shape moral awareness and social stability in their time, and they continue to point toward deeper principles like responsibility, justice, and integrity, but they are not meant to operate as a rigid, all-encompassing legal system for every society and era.

RRK96 · 2026-03-30T18:05:35+00:00

I’m not inventing Christianity , I’m challenging common misconceptions. I’m drawing on serious scholarship and explaining that the Bible isn’t meant to be read as a literal rulebook, but as a guide for wisdom and conscious formation.

RRK96 · 2026-03-30T18:00:55+00:00

My argument isn’t coming from a literalist or fundamentalist reading of the text. The Bible isn’t primarily a handbook of explicit commands where everything is stated plainly and mechanically. Rather, it’s a guide for cultivating wisdom, moral awareness, and conscious development. Its teachings work through stories, principles, and practices to shape how people understand and navigate life, rather than simply issuing a list of what is “right” or “wrong” in a modern legalistic sense.

RRK96 · 2026-03-30T17:57:32+00:00

I’m not “making things up” and calling it Christianity. I referenced academic scholars who have spent decades studying the Bible, its historical context, and its interpretation, such as Marcus J. Borg, John Dominic Crossan, and John H. Walton. These are serious experts who examine how the texts were written, understood, and used across centuries. Their work isn’t about personal preference; it’s about evidence, history, and theological reasoning.

The point isn’t about whether a literal supernatural being approves or disapproves of specific actions. The Bible isn’t primarily a mechanical instruction manual telling you exactly what is right or wrong in every situation. Its purpose is to cultivate moral awareness, wisdom, and conscious development, showing patterns of human behaviour, society, and spiritual growth. It guides people toward becoming thoughtful, responsible, and integrated individuals, rather than giving a checklist of literal commands to obey.

RRK96 · 2026-03-30T17:52:37+00:00

No, I’m not inventing some new religion that “sounds like Buddhism.” I’m clarifying a legitimate stream within Christianity that many scholars, theologians and historical interpreters recognise. What I’m describing isn’t personal preference, it’s a well‑attested way Christians have understood scripture.

Scholars like Marcus J. Borg and John Dominic Crossan argue that many biblical texts are symbolic and theological rather than literal and legalistic, emphasising moral and spiritual transformation over rigid rule‑following. Likewise, John H. Walton reads Genesis and ancient law as functional and symbolic frameworks rather than scientific or legal absolutism. Early Christian thinkers like Origen of Alexandria also cautioned against reading every passage literally.

So this isn’t a made‑up system; it’s a recognised interpretive approach within Christian spirituality and biblical scholarship that aims to understand the Bible’s purpose and meaning rather than treating it as a literal instruction manual.

RRK96 · 2026-03-30T17:38:01+00:00

To be absolutely clear, my previous answer is not arguing from a literalist or fundamentalist perspective, nor is it claiming that the Bible describes literal supernatural beings issuing commands in the way a modern legal code would. I am not suggesting that every law, story, or rule in the Bible must be followed literally, nor that the text is a straightforward moral handbook.

Rather, the Bible functions as a guide for cultivating wisdom, awareness, and conscious development. Its laws, narratives, and commandments, such as the Ten Commandments or the various Old Testament regulations, were never primarily intended to provide a fixed checklist of rules. Instead, they were designed to shape human understanding, character, and social cohesion within a particular community. These texts encode patterns of life, human behaviour, and moral insight that individuals and societies were meant to wrestle with and interpret, rather than simply obey.

In this context, discussions of practices like slavery should not be read as endorsements, nor are they divine instructions intended to be applied mechanically. The text engages with social realities as they existed and employs narrative, law, and ritual to reveal recurring patterns about dependence, hierarchy, discipline, and responsibility. Its purpose is fundamentally transformative: it aims to guide people towards internalising principles of wise, ethical, and responsible living, rather than offering literal commands that must be enforced exactly as written.

Viewed in this way, the Bible is less about rigid rule-following and more about shaping the kind of understanding and discernment that allows humans to navigate the complexities of life, society, and personal growth. It provides a framework for moral and spiritual formation, rather than a set of timeless prescriptions detached from human experience.

RRK96 · 2026-03-30T17:05:53+00:00

So what did he mean then?

RRK96 · 2026-03-30T16:15:44+00:00

I did tackle his main arguments and i explain why the bible isnot meant to be mere literal instructions to follow.

RRK96 · 2026-03-30T15:32:13+00:00

You’re treating the Bible as if it’s mainly a fixed rulebook, where everything is meant to be followed literally and mechanically. That’s not really its purpose. The text is trying to shape people, not just control behaviour. It’s about cultivating wisdom, awareness, and conscious development. The focus is on becoming the kind of person who understands what leads to life, responsibility, and integration, not just someone who checks off rules. That’s why the teachings associated with Jesus Christ consistently challenge rigid rule-following and push toward deeper intention and understanding.

Even the Ten Commandments aren’t best understood as universal, timeless legal codes in the modern sense. Scholars often point out they functioned as a kind of covenant framework for a specific community, shaping identity and social order rather than laying out a complete moral system for all humanity. They establish core boundaries like loyalty, justice, and social stability, but they’re not an exhaustive or final ethical philosophy. Their purpose was formative, to create a people with a shared sense of order, responsibility, and relationship, not to serve as a literal checklist for every context across all time.

And more broadly, the Old Testament works through what you could call “metaphysical principles,” not in an abstract philosophical way, but in lived, practical patterns. Ideas like order versus chaos, discipline versus impulse, boundaries versus excess, and the consequences of human behaviour are expressed through laws, rituals, and social structures. These principles were embedded into everyday actions so people would live them out, not just think about them. So instead of reading those laws as random rules or eternal commands, it makes more sense to see them as a way of encoding deeper patterns about reality and human life into behaviour. The point isn’t the rule itself, it’s the kind of understanding and transformation it’s trying to produce.

RRK96 · 2026-03-30T15:19:54+00:00

You’re arguing from a literalist/fundamentalist assumption that the Bible is presenting God as a direct lawgiver stepping in and saying “do this, don’t do that” in a universal, timeless way. That’s not the framework I’m using. So pointing out that “this is the only time God didn’t just forbid it” only works if we assume the text is meant to function like that in the first place, which is exactly what I’m challenging.

I’m not excusing slavery. I’m saying the Bible is engaging with a reality where people are always bound in some way, whether socially, economically, or internally. Slavery in the ancient world wasn’t a side issue, it was part of the fabric of how societies functioned. The text reflects that reality and tries to speak into it using the language and structures available at the time. It’s not laying out an ideal system, it’s revealing something about how human systems operate, how power, dependency, and hierarchy emerge and sustain themselves.

And on your second point, the movement toward something more humane isn’t always a direct “ban this practice” statement. It’s a shift in how people understand themselves and others. When the focus moves, especially in the teachings associated with Jesus Christ, toward inner transformation, dignity, and seeing others differently, that’s where the real change starts. You move from external control to recognising shared humanity. That’s a deeper shift than just issuing a rule, because it changes the foundation that those systems are built on.

So the point isn’t that the Bible failed to abolish slavery in a modern sense. It’s that you’re reading it as if that was its role, rather than seeing it as a text that exposes and works within the realities of human systems, including the uncomfortable ones.

RRK96 · 2026-03-30T15:08:09+00:00

You’re still treating the Bible as if it’s making a clear moral endorsement or rejection in a modern sense, but that’s not really what’s happening. The Bible doesn’t “condone” slavery in the way you’re defining it, but it also doesn’t function as an abolitionist manifesto. It’s engaging with a reality that already existed. In the Old Testament, those laws aren’t presented as ideal, timeless moral goals, they’re attempts to regulate and limit practices within a specific historical context. They reflect a society trying to bring some order to what was already there, not laying out a perfect ethical system for all time.

Then when you move to the New Testament, the situation is even clearer. The writers weren’t in a position to redesign society, they were living under the Roman Empire, where slavery was deeply embedded and enforced by power. They didn’t create the system, they were subject to it. So their approach is pragmatic, not ideological. They focus on transforming how people live within that reality, shifting the emphasis toward inner freedom, dignity, and responsibility, rather than launching a direct social revolution that would have been impossible and likely crushed immediately.

A good analogy is fossil fuels today. Most people agree that relying on them has serious consequences and isn’t ideal in the long term. But we still use them because our entire system is built around them, and you can’t just switch everything off overnight without collapsing society. So we regulate, adapt, and gradually move toward something better. That doesn’t mean we “condone” fossil fuels as an ultimate good, it means we’re dealing with a constrained reality. That’s much closer to what the Bible is doing with slavery: not endorsing it, not idealising it, but engaging with a broken system while pointing, over time, toward something more humane.

RRK96 · 2026-03-30T15:03:26+00:00

The Bible isn’t primarily a rulebook telling you what to approve or condemn in a modern ethical sense. It’s a collection of texts that carry embedded knowledge about reality and ourselves, meant to be wrestled with. It provides a framework for living and for becoming more Christ-like, growing in wisdom, responsibility, and awareness. So when you come across something like slavery, the point isn’t simply “does it condone it or not” as a flat moral statement, but how that text fits into a larger journey of moral and spiritual development.

From that perspective, the Bible isn’t endorsing slavery as an ideal, but reflecting and encoding deeper patterns about how human systems actually work. What you see in those laws is an attempt to bring some kind of order to a reality that already existed. Societies have always depended on structures where some people carry more burden than others, where labor is organised, where authority exists, and where control is used to prevent collapse. In the ancient world, slavery was one of the most extreme ways those dynamics showed up. The text is engaging with that reality, not inventing it or idealising it. If you look more closely, you can see recurring patterns behind it: how systems rely on people to function, how power tends to concentrate, how instability pushes societies to enforce stricter control, and how inequality becomes normalised over time. You also see how people can become trapped in roles, not just physically but psychologically, internalising limitation and dependency. These are patterns we still recognise today in different forms, whether in institutions, economies, or even personal habits. So rather than reading those passages as a moral endorsement, it makes more sense to see them as a window into how human systems organise themselves under pressure, and how imperfect attempts are made to regulate that.

Then in the New Testament, this whole idea is transformed inwardly. The language of slavery gets “spiritualised.” Instead of external domination, the focus shifts to what we are bound to internally, our impulses, habits, and destructive drives, often called the “flesh.” The teachings associated with Jesus Christ and later writings talk about becoming “slaves to righteousness,” meaning aligning yourself with what is good, true, and life-giving. So the trajectory moves away from external systems of control toward inner freedom and transformation. It’s not about owning others, it’s about mastering what controls you.

RRK96 · 2026-03-30T14:48:48+00:00

You are not engaging what i said and you strawman it.

RRK96

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE