GEA versus Slavery | A fun exercise?

It's actually really simple to beat Fundamentalist Christian type people with the Book. The big mistake that I've grown weary of however is, to make it about convincing 'them'. The issue with these, or any, types of discussions is, that the discussion is never really about the people doing the discussing. It's about what the viewer takes away from it. Here then, when education is crucial to come to a proper conclusion, the problem however is that people who don't have it are prone to drawing false ones.

Say, for instance, person X said something that is 100% and demonstrably true. On TV. Then at some home in front of some TV then, there were a bunch of people. The loudest, most adamant about having an opinion however disagrees with X on a multitude of Levels. Next to them then a somewhat insecure person that tends to believe X, but is also somewhat emotionally dependent on ... let's call them person Y ... and ... let's call them person Z lacking the expertise to sufficiently defend X's position gets told by Y that X is wrong.

That is one problem that exists.
In a variety of flavors.

Like, when it comes to the Bible - the problem isn't only with people being opinionated about what it contains, but also about its significance. And there sure is a divide regarding its significance. So, making serious statements about the Bible is challenged by two positions. A) by the religious person disagreeing with the "interpretation" and B) by the person dismissing it all outright. If B were capable of understanding the statement in question, they could support the claim, therefore helping that understanding to spread; Thus diffusing the influence of people that are just wrong about it.

Unfortunately then, we don't live in a world where it's that simple.
Dealing with Faith, there's - up unto a point of personal enlightenment at least - always a component of faith.

And that's where things become political. Something that seems to be very crucial in the modern political landscapes, is the presence of people that are willing to take positions. Or, those that do would typically be fascists and the rest would be in some kind of disarray. Like, yea - any leftie would agree - I suppose - that it's difficult to side with politicians that take a hard position on anything because there's always someone who disagrees.


The challenge for me would be - at any rate - to clean up misconceptions around Christianity. There is a history/legacy to it; And one of my core ambitions is to iterate upon that, as opposed to getting rid of it. And that also informs my general political attitude.

With all that, I am - first and foremost - a Christian. Neo-Gnostic. And by the tools I have to back my position up, I don't see how anyone could legitimately challenge it.

And ... it might be a tough pill to swallow; Unless people can understand that my affiliation and association is with 'the True divine' first - and to let the rest come from there.


Ignoring what weird theories people might have about the nature of the divine - to focus on Christianity, for now I picked the example of Slavery.
So - by some mouths, the Bible condones it apparently.
Against that, there is a very simple question: So, in those verses that allegedly condone or just mention Slavery, does it say that the Slave-Master is to treat their Slaves well?

The right answer is: Yes!

While some seem to take the idea that Slavery is 'accepted' there as equivalent to the Bible being in 'support' of it; As if it were a descriptive matter, which it clearly is not (at least not concerning the validity of Slavery); The fundamental descriptive component is directed at Slave owners - asking a certain state of mind of them. And so a rhetorical question to append here is this: Is that state of mind consolable with a violent insistence of maintaining an institution of Slavery?
From my understanding, there are two forms of Slavery we find in the Bible. There's the form of Slavery that is usually depicted as the existence of Israelites under the rule of Egypt - and there's the form of Slavery which presents the Slave as effectively a member of "the Family". A servant, like a Butler for instance. Generally we can make it about whether or not the Slave is being held in Chains. Or so, what motivates the Slave to remain in their position. On the Servant side there's ... stuff like a roof over the head, nourishment, maybe even social bonds. Or so a lack of alternatives. All the same may apply to the chained type of slave, except ... here it's not so much a free choice as it is one that is "encouraged" in ways that I would call ... unfriendly, to say the least.

So, what this verse states - raw and simple - is that the "Master" HAS TO care for the Slave, righteously. And depending on the circumstance, that might even require them to keep the Slave; If that for instance were the Slaves only chance at a decent life, or survival at all. But any kind of abusive sentiment ... regardless of how one might try to make the other words fit ... just don't work.
Ultimately that means ... so, when plaid out to its ultimate conclusion ... that Slavery is to be dissolved. It all depends on our circumstances.


The thing is that Slavery is kind of convenient if you get to have the say. And with that you might feel a little need to maybe ... kind of ... keep the institution of slavery alive. That however isn't kind unto the slave.
You know, like, they might actually enjoy being free - and starting a life of their own!


Anyway. That's my take on it!