• Tinidril
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    This is probably the worst abuse of the “but context!” argument I have ever seen. Consideration of context is one thing, but you are just making up a more palatable meaning because that’s what you want to see. There is no actual context that changes what these verses mean, and your charitable interpretation of the word 'slave" is actually removing the true historical context.

    • CeeBee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is probably the worst abuse of the “but context!” argument I have ever seen.

      Context is king.

      Consideration of context is one thing, but you are just making up a more palatable meaning because that’s what you want to see.

      Absolutely not. The meaning of a single verse is meaningless without the broader context. Something that says “you must obey Jesus” means nothing until you understand *who" Jesus is.

      and your charitable interpretation of the word 'slave" is actually removing the true historical context.

      I think you’re mis-applying a different historical context.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_slavery

      “Broadly, the Biblical and Talmudic laws tended to consider slavery a form of contract between persons, theoretically reducible to voluntary slavery, unlike chattel slavery, where the enslaved person is legally rendered the personal property (chattel) of the slave owner.”