How America's Biblical Ignorance Allows the Christian Right to Use 'Religious Freedom' For Its Own Agenda
Hobby Lobby paved the way for corporations to cherry-pick their own religious beliefs.
357 COMMENTS357 COMMENTS



A A A
Email
Print

A Hobby Lobby store is seen on June 30, 2014 in Plantation, Florida

July 8, 2014 |




The Bible doesn’t mention anything about contraception or abortion, but this hasn’t stopped 89 million American evangelicals acting as if “thou shall not consume a pregnancy pill” were one of the Ten Commandments. For the benefit of my mostly American audience, it’s not. In fact, the first four of the Hebrew God’s Decalogue amount to nothing more than “maniacal throat clearing,” to steal a phrase from the late Christopher Hitchens.

The decision of the five conservative justices to rule in favor of Hobby Lobby, thus granting religious personhood to 90 percent of U.S. corporations, which means that certain for-profit companies may refuse to cover forms of birth control they find morally objectionable, has been debated from every angle except one: the theological perspective.

An overwhelming majority of hyper-religious Americans, and Americans in general, are incapable of debating the theological aspect of their faith. Not only do a staggering majority of Americans have no idea what is or isn’t written in the Bible, they have not a morsel of knowledge as it pertains to just about all aspects of historical context and biblical scholarship.

At a time of heightened controversy surrounding women’s reproductive rights, most discourse relies upon the political, philosophical and legal dimensions of access to abortion and contraception. In almost all instances, religious traditions and theological perspectives are not fully explored beyond an occasional reference to the biblical commandment, “thou shall not kill.” The nation’s collective biblical ignorance not only prevents any reasonable theological debate, but also allows Christian fundamentalists, like Hobby Lobby and its Christian Right supporters, to contort scripture to their own advantage.

The Right has successfully rebranded the brown-skinned liberal Jew, who gave away free healthcare, was pro-redistributing wealth, and hung with a prostitute, into a white-skinned, trickledown, union-busting conservative, for the very fact that an overwhelming number of Americans are astonishingly illiterate when it comes to understanding the Bible. On hot-button social issues, from same-sex marriage to abortion, biblical passages are invoked without any real understanding of the context or true meaning.

If you need to know what drives the Christian Right’s rabid enthusiasm to rally behind Hobby Lobby, it’s important to understand how social conservatives have morphed Jesus into a muscular, masculine warrior, in much the same way the Nazis did, as a means of combating what they see as the modernization of society.

“A significant impetus behind the assault on women and modernity was the feeling that women had encroached upon traditional male spheres like the workplace and colleges. Furthermore, women’s leadership in the churches had harmed Christianity by creating an effeminate clergy and a weak sense of self. All of this was associated with liberalism, feminism, women, and modernity,” Thom Hartmann writes.

Biblical illiteracy has made its way all the way up to the bench of the nation’s highest Court. In 2002, Justice Scalia defended his pro-death penalty stance by claiming that the Bible forgives those who wrongly apply the death penalty to innocent persons on the grounds that the wrongly convicted will have an opportunity to set the record straight in the courthouse of the afterlife.

More than 95 percent of U.S. households own at least one copy of the Bible. So how much do Americans know of the book that one-third of the country believes to be literally true? Apparently, very little, according to data from the Barna Research group. Surveys show that 60 percent can’t name more than five of the Ten Commandments; 12 percent of adults think Joan of Arc was Noah’s wife; and nearly 50 percent of high school seniors think Sodom and Gomorrah were a married couple.

According to the American Bible Society’s 2014 "State of the Bible" report, a majority of U.S. adults (81 percent) said they consider themselves highly, moderately or somewhat knowledgeable about the Bible. Yet less than half (43 percent) were able to name the first five books of the Bible. The report also showed that only half knew that John the Baptist was not one of the 12 apostles, while roughly 82 percent believe “God helps those who help themselves” is a biblical verse.

"All the research indicates that biblical literacy in America is at an all-time low," Kenneth Berding, professor of New Testament at Biola's Talbot School of Theology, told the Christian Post. "My own experience teaching a class of new college freshman every year for the past 15 years suggests to me that although students 15 years ago knew little about the Bible upon entering my classes, today's students on average know even less about the Bible."

No one should take the Christian Right’s attitudes toward sexuality and abortion seriously when so many evangelicals believe Sodom and Gomorrah to be a married couple. Put another way: one should not be allowed to hide behind the veil of “religious freedom,” as an excuse to discriminate against others, when one has little or no understanding of their own religion.

Knowing the New Testament is not simply a matter of reading the Bible cover to cover, or memorizing a handful of verses. Knowing the Bible requires a scholarly contextual understanding of authorship, history and interpretation. For instance, Hobby Lobby and pro-life activists hide behind the “thou shall not kill” commandment, but the Bible demands death for a whole range of minor indiscretions, from cursing your parents (Exodus 21:17) to drunken behavior (Deuteronomy 21:18-21), from working on the Sabbath (Exodus 31:14) to a woman lying about her virginity (Deuteronomy 22:20-21).

Invariably, Christians dismiss these complicating and contradictory biblical laws with an, “Oh, that’s the Old Testament” defense. Typically they then claim the New Testament supersedes Mosaic Law—the 613 commandments of the first five books of the Old Testament. But Jesus said, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” (Matthew 5:17-20)

In other words, if the followers of Christ are to apply their religious beliefs in a way that is consistent with the laws and traditions of their faith, how does this not challenge a great number of the nation’s secular laws? The Supreme Court has set precedence in a way that allows corporations to cherry-pick which of the nation’s secular laws don’t suit them, while simultaneously allowing these same corporations the right to cherry-pick their own religious beliefs.

what is a 'secular' law,,,,?

and how is preventing pregnancy the same as preventing birth

I dont consider 'abortion' in the same class as 'contraception'

The privately owned company, which is self-insured, does not object to providing preventive birth-control coverage to its employees and only objects to drugs such as the morning-after and week-after pill that prevent a fertilized human egg from implantation, Duncan said.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-09-13/lifestyle/sns-rt-us-usa-health-hobby-lobbybre88c0uc-20120913_1_hobby-lobby-healthcare-mandate-health-mandate


seperation clause is useless here as both sides of it can be argued to be violated

making a law to respect religion
making a law to impede free exercise of religion

It may not use those precise terms, no. But abortion would inevitably be murder. I don't care if the world doesn't consider a baby a living being till after so long in the womb. It's still a potential person in that womb. And why the need for pregnancy pills? Sex is for reproduction, outside of that it would be along the lines of fleshly desires. And we are taught to feed the soul the things it needs rather then the flesh of it's sinful desires.

And in response to the rest of it, most of it anyway I did not read the entire thing as it's pointless. But why the need for pregnancy pills and or abortions? Why not just wait till the two are ready to have a child? Why so much need for sex?

What exactly do the two have anything to do with one another? Nobody cherry picks what verses or what laws still apply. The entire old covenant has been fulfilled, all the prophecies were fulfilled, finished, completed. Thus Jesus gave us a new covenant to live by, sealed with his blood on calvery. One can not follow the old covenant completely and the new covenant completely at the same time. They do not mix together, they were not suppose to mix. Thus Jesus fulfilled one and gave us another.

So explain to me what this has to do with Nation's secular laws?

LOL The point is illiteracy, not abortion, etc.

illiteracy? You do realize Christianity is about having a relation with our father, our God. An every day walk. It's not just about the knowledge in the bible. It's about faith and the actions that come forth from it. Someone could be entirely a "Christian" and never having ever even seen a bible or even one scripture.

And what does illiteracy and abortions have anything to do with one another? As you claim the point isn't about abortion, but your post included reference to such.



So how does illiteracy and abortion have anything to do with one another? You claim the bible doesn't say anything about contraception or abortion, you're absolutely wrong. The world doesn't look at abortion as murder because it has been socially accepted. But point blank, abortion is premeditated first degree murder and no way to beat around that fact.

So please do enlighten us with how illiteracy and being or not being a Christian have anything to do with one another.

This is the point, so I do not understand the question. A personal relationship is personal and not to be force fed to others.

The Bible has been used for centuries by Christians as a weapon of control. To read it literally is to believe in a three-tiered universe, to condone slavery, to treat women as inferior creatures, to believe that sickness is caused by God's punishment and that mental disease and epilepsy are caused by demonic possession. When someone tells me that they believe the Bible is the 'literal and inerrant word of God,' I always ask, 'Have you ever read it'?" Bishop John Shelby Spong. 2

"...texts from the source we call Holy Scripture have been used in the past to defend the divine right of kings and to oppose the Magna Carta; to condemn Galileo and to assert that the Sun does indeed rotate around the Earth; to justify slavery, segregation and apartheid; to keep women from being educated, entering the professions, voting or being ordained; to justify war, to persecute and kill Jews; to condemn other world religions; and to continue the oppression and rejection of gay and lesbian people." Bishop John Shelby Spong 1 (He left out transgender individuals)

The problem with the Old and New Testaments is that they are both dated pieces of literature that reflect the values and mores of those who wrote them between 1000 BCE and 135 CE. Many passages in the Old Testament reflect a tribal mentality that portrays God as hating everyone the people of Israel hated. It also portrays God as killing the firstborn male in every household in Egypt on the night of the Passover; justifies the institution of slavery (except for fellow Jews) and defines women as the property of men. Note that even the Ten Commandments exhort us "not covet our neighbor's house, his wife, his slaves, his ox, his ***, etc." The neighbor is clearly a male, and the things that we are forbidden to covet are all male possessions. The New Testament portrays Paul as believing that slavery is good if it is kind. Paul also reveals attitudes toward women that are today deeply embarrassing: "I forbid a woman to have authority over a man." "Women should keep quiet in church." Bishop John Shelby Spong. 4

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all of fiction. Jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic-cleanser; a misogynistic homophobic racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal ..." 3 Richard Dawkins

And yet with appropriate exegetes one finds:
These Hebrew Scriptures, however, also define God as love, justice and as a universal being. In the portrait of the "Servant" in Isaiah 40-55 the Hebrew Scriptures portray human life as capable of giving itself away and even of acting in such a way as to draw the pain out of others, absorb it and return it as love.

The point of the article is that most people are biblically illiterate and thus use it for their own purposes which in general go against the actual teachings.

That is a person's actions, that is not "Christianity" nor supported by Christianity. No where will you find anything for slavery, treating women inferior or anything as you mentioned. Nor does it support diseases being caused by God's punishment in those exact words.

You also have to keep in mind "Christians" and everything that applies to "Christians" is new testament. Before the new testament, there was no "Christ" thus there was no "Christianity". So please do enlighten us with verses from the new testament, the laws "Christians" are to follow that it supports any of which you just mentioned.

How is it vindictive? How is it petty? And why shouldn't he be jealous? And or proud? Would you not be jealous if something you "created" didn't show you love? And or what giving something or someone else the credit for that which belonged to you? Now keep in mind, God didn't "born" us, he "created" us. Specifically made each of us precisely how he wished for us to be. And is he unforgiving? Did he not come and take your place for your sins, or my sins, or any one elses sins so they would not have to? How is it homophobic? Must you forget the reason and purpose for sex? Is it not for reproduction? Beyond that, it is sinful lust of the flesh and produces nothing positive. Please enlighten me with these of which I request.

Homophobic is anything they want it to be for special rights.

Speak against gays u r homophobic.

So is speaking against Christian. Christian-phobic?

No its their right, Free speech.

Then abortion its a womans right.

Then why is it when a drunk hits a car and a pregnant womans baby dies its called murder?

Double standards. you are either politally correct or not. It is all special interest groups who rule the law of the land. Not the "We the people" democracy is dying because the law says the vote of the people only stands if Politally correct? correct?

Tell me it is not so????

lol,, Christian phobic, now that's funny

I do believe that's a good point, but doubt it will catch on

always cringed at the idea that dislike or disagreement of something was automatically 'phobic',,,,

While I appreciate the individual integrity of the individuals on here and elsewhere, one needs to understand the vocal majority of the so-called Xians in general. For example:


8 Ways Christian Fundamentalists Cause Their Followers to Become Agnostics or Atheists
Here are some top ways Christians push people out the church door or shove secret skeptics out of the closet.

464 COMMENTS464 COMMENTS



A A A
Email
Print
May 27, 2012 |
If the Catholic bishops, their conservative Protestant allies, and other right-wing fundamentalists had the sole objective of decimating religious belief, they couldn’t be doing a better job of it.

Testimonials at sites like ExChristian.net show that people leave religion for a number of reasons, many of which religious leaders have very little control over. Sometimes, for example, people take one too many science classes. Sometimes they find their faith shattered by the suffering in the world – either because of a devastating injury or loss in their own lives or because they experience the realities of another person’s pain in a new way. Sometimes a believer gets intrigued by archaeology or symbology or the study of religion itself. Sometimes a believer simply picks up a copy of the Bible or the Koran and discovers faith-shaking contradictions or immoralities there.

But if you read ExChristian testimonials you will notice that quite often church leaders or members do things that either trigger the deconversion process or help it along. They may turn a doubter into a skeptic or a quiet skeptic into an outspoken anti-theist, or as one former Christian calls himself, a "devangelist."

Here are some top ways Christians push people out the church door or shove secret skeptics out of the closet. Looking at the list, you can’t help but wonder if the Catholic bishops, Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann and their fundamentalist allies are working for the devil.

1. Gay Baiting. Because of sheer demographics, many gay people are born into religious families. The condemnation (and self-condemnation) they face if their families see homosexuality as an abomination can be excruciating, as we all know from the suicide rate. Some emotionally battered gays spend their lives fighting or denying who they are, but many eventually find their way to open and affirming congregations or non-religious communities.

Ignorant and mean-spirited attitudes about homosexuality don’t drive just gays out of the church, they are a huge deconversion issue for straight friends and family members. When Christians indulge in slurs, devout moms and dads who also love their gay kids find themselves less comfortable in their church home. Young people, many of whom think of the gay rights issue as a no-brainer, put anti-gay churches in the “archaic” category. Since most people Gen X and younger recognize equal rights for gays as a matter of common humanity, gay baiting is a wedge issue that wedges young people right out of the church. That makes Fred Phelps a far better evangelist for atheism than for his own gay-hating Westborough Baptist Church.

2. Prooftexting. People who think of the Bible as the literally perfect word of God love to quote excerpts to argue their points. They often start with a verse in 1 Timothy: All scripture is given by inspiration of God (as if this circular argument would convince anyone but a true believer). They proceed to quote whatever authoritarian, anti-gay or anti-woman verse makes their point, like, Whoever spares the rod hates their children...Blows and wounds cleanse away evil, and beatings purge the inmost being or Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. In doing so, they call into question biblical authority, because the Bible writers so obviously got these issues wrong. Literalists who prooftext are a tremendous asset to those who would like to see Bible worship fade away – because prooftexting on one side of an argument invites the same in return, and it is easy to find quotes from the Bible that are either scientifically absurd or morally repugnant.

Many liberal or modernist Christians see the Bible as a human document, an attempt by our spiritual ancestors to articulate their best understanding of God through the lens of imperfect human cultures and minds. Suppose such a Christian is confronted with a verse that says, for example, Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man (Numbers 31:17-18), or No man who has any defect may come near [to God in the temple]: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; no man with a crippled foot or hand, or who is a hunchback or a dwarf, or who has any eye defect,...(Leviticus 21:17-23). He or she can simply shrug and say, “Yeah, that’s ugly.” A couple of years ago a group of liberal Christians even kicked off an Internet competition to vote on the worst verse in the Bible. Their faith doesn’t stand or fall with the perfection of the Bible. Biblical literalists, on the other hand, give someone like me an excuse to talk about sexual slavery or bias against handicapped people in the Bible – in front of an audience who have been taught that the good book is uniformly good. For a wavering believer, the dissonance can be too much.

3. Misogyny. For psychological and social reasons females are more inclined toward religious belief than males. They are more likely to attend church services and to insist on raising their children in a faith community. They also appear more indifferent than males to rational critique of religion, like debates about theology or evolutionary biology. I was interested to notice recently that my YouTube channel, Life After Christianity, which focuses on the psychology of religion gets about 80 percent male viewers. Women are the church’s base constituency, but fortunately for atheists, this fact hasn’t caused conservative Christians to back off of sexism that is justified by – you got it – prooftexting from the Old and New Testaments.

Evangelical minister Jim Henderson recently published a book, The Resignation of Eve, in which he urges his fellow Christians to take a hard look at the consequences of sexism in the church. According to Henderson, old-school sexism has driven some women out of Christianity permanently, but that’s just the tip of the iceberg. For those who stay, it means that many are less enthusiastic and engaged than they would be. Churches rely on women to volunteer in roles that range from secretary to director of children’s programs to missionaries. That takes a high level of confidence in church doctrines and also a strong sense of belonging. Biblical sexism cultivates neither. Between 1991 and 2011 the percent of women attending church in a typical week dropped by 11 points, from 55 to 44 percent.

4. Hypocrisy. Christians are taught – and many believe—that thanks to the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit they are a moral beacon for society. The writer of Matthew told his audience, “You are the light of the world.” That’s a high bar, and yet decent believers (along with many other decent people) try earnestly to meet it. But the added pressure on those who call themselves the "righteous” means that believers also are prone to hiding, pretending, posing, and turning a blind eye to their own very human, very normal faults and flaws.

People who desperately want to be sanctified and righteous, “cleansed by the blood of the lamb” – who need to believe that they now merit heaven but that other people’s smallest transgressions merit eternal torture—have a lot of motivation to engage in self-deception and hypocrisy. High-profile hypocrites like Ted Haggard or Rush Limbaugh may be loved by their acolytes, but for people who are teetering, they help to build a gut aversion to whatever they espouse. But often as not, the hypocrisies that pose a threat to faith are small and internal to a single Bible-study or youth group. Backbiting and social shunning are part of the church-lady stereotype for a reason. They also leave a bitter taste that makes some church members stop drinking the Kool-aid.

5. Disgusting and Immoral Behavior. The priest abuse scandal did more for the New Atheist movement than outspoken anti-theists like Christopher Hitchens (God is Not Great), Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion), Sam Harris (The End of Faith) or Bill Maher (Religulous) ever could. To make matters worse (or better, depending on your point of view) Bill Donohue of the Catholic League seems to be doing everything possible to fan those flames: On top of the abuse itself, followed by cover-ups, he is now insisting that the best defense of church property is a good offense against the victims, and has vowed to fight them “one by one.”

The Freedom from Religion Foundation publishes a bi-monthly newspaper that includes a regular feature: The Black Collar Crime Blotter. It features fraud, drug abuse, sex crimes and more by Protestant as well as Catholic clergy. The obvious purpose is to move readers from religion isn’t true to religion isn’t benign to religion is abhorrent and needs fighting. Moral outrage is a powerful emotion.

6. Science Denial. One of my former youth group friends had his faith done in by a conversation with a Bible study leader who explained that dinosaur skeletons actually are the bones of the giants described in early books of the Bible. Uh huh. Christians have come up with dozens of squishier, less falsifiable ways to explain the geological record: The "days" in Genesis 1 were really "ages." Or God created the world with the fossils already in place to test our faith. Or the biblical creation story is really sacred metaphor. But young-earth creationists who believe the world appeared in its present form 6,000-10,000 years ago are stuck. And since almost half of the American public believes some version of this young-earth story, there are ample opportunities for inquiring minds to trip across proto-scientific nonsense.

Like other factors I’ve mentioned, science denial doesn’t just move believers to nonbelief; it also rallies opposition ranging from cantankerous bloggers to legal advocates. It provides fodder for comedians and critics: “If the world was created 6,000 years ago, what’s fueling your car?” It may produce some of the most far-reaching opposition to religious belief, because science advocates argue that faith, even socially benign faith, is a fundamentally flawed way of knowing. The Catholic church, perhaps still licking wounds about Galileo (it apologized finally in the 20th century), has managed to avoid embarrassing and easily disproven positions on evolutionary biology. But one could argue that its atheism-fostering positions on conception and contraception similarly rely on ignorance about or denial of biological science -- in this case embryology and the basic fact that most embryos never become persons.

7. Political Meddling.If you look at religion-bashing quote-quip-photo-clip-links that circulate Facebook and Twitter, most of them are prompted by church incursions into the political sphere. A spat between two atheists erupted on my home page yesterday. “Why can’t ex-Christians just shut up about religion and get on with building a better world?” asked one. “Why can’t we shut up?!” screeched the other. “Because of **** like this!” He posted a link about Kansas giving doctors permission to deny contraception and accurate medical information to patients.

I myself give George W. Bush credit for transforming me from a politically indifferent, digging-in-the-garden agnostic into a culture warrior. He casually implied that, when going to war, he didn’t need to consult with his own father because he had consulted the big guy in the sky, and my evangelical relatives backed him up on that, and I thought, oh my God, the beliefs I was raised on are killing people. The Religious Right, and now the Catholic bishops, have brought religion into politics in the ugliest possible way short of holy war, and people who care about the greater good have taken notice. Lists of ugly Bible verses, articles about the psychology of religion, investigative exposes about Christian machinations in D.C. or rampant proselytizing in the military and public schools –all of these are popular among political progressives because it is impossible to drive progressive change without confronting religious fundamentalism.

8. Intrusion.Australian comedian and atheist John Safran flew to Salt Lake City for a round of door-to-door devangelism after Mormons rang his doorbell one too many times on Saturday morning. More serious intrusions, in deeply personal beginning- and end-of-life decisions, for example, generate reactive anti-theism in people who mostly just want to live and let live.

Catholic and evangelical conservatives have made a high-stakes gamble that they can regain authoritarian control over their flocks and hold onto the next generation of believers (and tithers) by asserting orthodox dogmas, making Christian belief an all-or-nothing proposition. Their goal is a level of theological purity that will produce another Great Awakening based largely on the same dogmas as the last one. They hope to cleanse their membership of theological diversity, and assert top-down control of conscience questions, replenishing their membership with anti-feminist, pro-natalist policies and proselytizing in the Southern hemisphere. But the more they resort to strict authoritarianism, insularity and strict interpretation of Iron Age texts, the more people are wounded in the name of God and the more people are outraged. By making Christian belief an all-or-nothing proposition, they force at least some would-be believers to choose “nothing.” Anti-theists are all too glad to help.

Don't judge the belief by the general person. It is not "Christian" to treat a homosexual any different then anyone else, why would there be? They're people just like us lol, they just have made a different choice that we didn't. They "sin" differently then I do, who cares? It's not our place to judge them, or say they are "wrong" as that is between them and God.

BTW, did some one ask for this info:


The Christian Scriptures and Slavery

Neither Jesus nor St. Paul, nor any other Biblical figure is recorded as saying anything in opposition to the institution of slavery. Slavery was very much a part of life in Judea, Galilee, and in the rest of the Roman Empire during New Testament times. The practice continued in England, Canada and the rest of the English Empire until the early 19th century; it continued in the U.S. until later in the 19th century.

Quoting Rabbi M.J. Raphall, circa 1861:

"Receiving slavery as one of the conditions of society, the New Testament nowhere interferes with or contradicts the slave code of Moses; it even preserves a letter [to Philemon] written by one of the most eminent Christian teachers [Paul] to a slave owner on sending back to him his runaway slave." 1



Paul's violation of the Mosaic Code on slavery:

While in prison, Paul met a runaway slave, Onesimus, the property of a Christian -- presumably Pheliemon. He sent the slave back to his owner. This action is forbidden in Deuteronomy 23:15-16:

"Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee."

"He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him."

Rather than give the slave sanctuary, Paul returned him to his owner. Paul seems to hint that he would like Pheliemon to give Onesimus his freedom, but does not actually request it. See the Letter to Philemon in the Christian Scriptures.



Other references to slavery in the Christian Scriptures:

People in debt (and their children) were still being sold into slavery in the first century CE:

Matthew 18:25: "But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made."
Priests still owned slaves:

Mark 14:66: "And as Peter was beneath in the palace, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest:"
Jesus is recorded as mentioning slaves in one of his parables. It is important to realize that the term "servant" or "maid" in the King James Version of the Bible refers to slaves, not employees like a butler, cook, or maid. Here, a slave which did not follow his owner's will would be beaten with many lashes of a whip. A slave who was unaware of his owner's will, but who did not behave properly, would also be beaten, but with fewer stripes.

This would have been a marvelous opportunity for Jesus to condemn the institution of slavery and its abuse of slaves. But he is not recorded of having bothered to taken it:

Luke 12:45-48: "The lord [owner] of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."
One of the favorite passages of slave-owning Christians was St. Paul's infamous instruction that slaves to obey their owners in the same way that they obey Christ:

Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."
Other passages instructing slaves and slave owners in proper behavior are:

Colossians 4:1: "Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven."

1 Timothy 6:1-3 "Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;"
In his defense, St. Paul incorrectly expected that Jesus would return in the very near future. This might have demotivated him from speaking out against slavery or other social evils in the Roman Empire. Also he regarded slaves as persons of worth whom at least God considers of importance. St. Paul mentioned that both slaves and free persons are sons of God, and thus all part of the body of Christ and spiritually equal.

1 Corinthians 12:13: "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit."

Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

Colossians 3:11: "Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all."
Paul apparently saw no evil in the concept of one person owning another as a piece of property. In his Letter to Philemon, he had every opportunity to discuss the immorality of slave-owning, but declined to do so.

It always seems, in the end, we agree on these things more often than not. Is my style of writing and quoting difficult to tackle on first take? I have been told that many times.

Not entirely no. Because nothing said in here could be said in an argumentative or offensive way so to speak. This is a chat forum for our beliefs/feelings on things and or beliefs in general. If certain things you don't like or believe in, that's fine. That's your own choices, you're own opinion, belief, and or thought. Not saying you do, but say you think what I believe or what I say is total hogwash entirely crappy downgrading beliefs, that is entirely you're opinion and you're feelings. Please truly don't take this offensively, more of the philosophical way of reading it lol. Opinions are like buttholes, everyone's got one and most of them stink." But you have entirely all right to your opinion and or to express you're opinion. Again that is your feelings, nothing I can do to change that nor should I.

So with viewing it like that, I try not to let there be any kind of emotion between me and the people I'm discussing with. As to keep it from getting personal in any shape or form and drifting from the original topic and or what is being currently discussed in the thread.

No I don't take things personally, but am often confused as people seem to miss the points I am trying to make. Even though on these forums I have been called an AntiChrist and enemy of Xianity. I kinda chuckle; I am a legally ordained minister and do feel that it requires study to perform appropriate exegetes. Also, am a bit turned off by legalistic and literal tendencies when I feel that blocks/hampers actual spirituality. As the one article demonstrates it turns people off and away. Finally, there is the difficulties people have with science. I do feel using the Torah to limit/refuse another's rights is a misuse of the text and that theocracy is a bad thing.

you dont believe an antichrist could take the form of a minister? or are you just providing personal background?....lol

I also agree 'spirituality' is to 'religion'

what 'anatomy' is to 'health'

one is very personal and specific, the other can pertains to many different things relating to the first,,,,

No, simply pointing out that I have studied context, history, linguistics, heuristics, etc. and do not pull stuff out of my backside, except for that.....