mike, you are confusing the impressions you got from the text with the impressions historical actors that banned the slavery received. those are different things.
I'm not some casual observer in this with an agenda. I've previously been a licensed pastor for a denomination you've heard of. Read the texts cover-to-cover more times than you have, studied Koine Greek and Hebrew with professors that have professionally translated texts. I'm not appealing to authority, nor trying to start a dick-waving contest, but a resume can sometimes lend some context of who you're dealing with.
With that out of the way, I'll agree that historical context can be useful. But, man, I've seen that line abused more times than not. A section of text makes you feel a little uncomfortable? Hand-wave it away with, "oh, well, back then it was different..." For example, Jesus speaks of rich people and camels passing through the eyes of needles. I've heard that explained away with, "the wall of Jerusalem had a very short entrance, called the Eye of the Needle, through which a camel would have difficulty passing but it was not impossible." OMG, how many intellectual backflips do I need to do to feel comfortable with my lack of charity and emphasis on obtaining more stuff? How about we take Jesus at his word, and quit being so materialistic?
So I personally come to an impasse: taking the Bible word-for-word literally isn't an option (I can explain why if needed, but I'll assume it's obvious), but one can go the other way with so much "context" that Jesus himself wouldn't recognize the religion you end up with. Hence my conclusion that the canon cannot have been divinely inspired. If there's a divine being who wishes a personal relationship with us as individuals, she needs to do a better job getting to the point. You and I can't even agree on whether or not this divine being thinks slavery is OK or not. That's some pretty crap writing if something so simple isn't made plain.
I agree with you.
> ... but one can go the other way with so much "context" that Jesus himself wouldn't recognize the religion you end up with.
That is sadly what is done a lot of times. Being a follower means I seek to be who Jesus wants me to be. Often this means I have to lay down my view of things and take up His view of things.
> Hence my conclusion that the canon cannot have been divinely inspired.
That is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. What if you are wrong?
> If there's a divine being who wishes a personal relationship with us as individuals, she needs to do a better job getting to the point.
Or, perhaps, we need to listen to God Himself, not others' opinions of God (even our own).
> You and I can't even agree on whether or not this divine being thinks slavery is OK or not.
And we likely can't agree on programming languages or operating systems, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't program or use operating systems.
> That's some pretty crap writing if something so simple isn't made plain.
Or, we are not accepting His Word as it is, we are too busy letting others add and take away from it. For what it is worth, it is plain enough for a child to understand. I am convinced that a sincere seeker of Truth will find God through His Word, the Bible. Don't give up too soon. It may be just around the corner for you.
Edit: punctuation
I do appreciate your response, and trust that I'm smiling when I write this without any contempt: when do I get to give up? I'd say I gave it a more fair shot than most. Maybe it's $DEITY's turn to pick some of the slack. :-)
From my wall of text, one might conclude that I did, indeed, give it a fair and sincere shot. And I came to a different conclusion that you appear to have. No worries, I'm fine with that, we all make our own journey. I've enjoyed mine, and I hope you enjoy yours.
And, likewise, I hope you do not feel any contempt from me. When do you get to give up? I do not mean this in a disrespectful way ... I would ask God.
> Maybe it's $DEITY's turn to pick some of the slack. :-)
I just prayed that you will sense His love for you (and maybe even interpret that as picking up some of the slack).
> From my wall of text, one might conclude that I did, indeed, give it a fair and sincere shot.
I, for one, do not fault you for lack of trying. I am just saying don't give up now ... breakthrough could be around the corner. That is what I have prayed for you.
> And I came to a different conclusion that you appear to have. No worries, I'm fine with that, we all make our own journey. I've enjoyed mine, and ...
Ultimately, we all have to choose which path to follow. I respect you for at least giving it serious thought and consideration.
> I hope you enjoy yours.
Overall, yes, but following Jesus Christ does not necessarily make life easier. It certainly isn't boring, though! :)
However, it also sums up the views of many on religion in a fairly clear way: Whatever it means to you is yours, only yours. Your neighbor is entirely entitled to decide their own meanings as well.
If by this you mean each person has to decide for themselves, I agree. If you mean that religion is whatever anyone wants to make of it, I disagree. Truth is truth whether I acknowledge it or not. I do not decide what the truth is, it just is. It is my responsibility to seek the truth.
The following passage describes someone who has diligently sought the truth, once it is found:
"The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hidden in the field, which a man found and hid again; and from joy over it he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.
Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant seeking fine pearls, and upon finding one pearl of great value, he went and sold all that he had and bought it." Matthew 13:44-46 (NASB)
I agree with you. But, I disagree that the words of a book about religion is that ultimate truth.
I have no doubt that parts of the Bible are true. I'm not sure how else there would be stories of good, and bad, things that happened to people historically. Did people kill one another over things a "modern" society wouldn't? Sure. Did people see things they couldn't understand and attribute to a divinity? Yes.
> It is my responsibility to seek the truth.
I view my responsibility to be good to others in the best way I can. As you said, truth is truth. My faith of a religion is neither here nor there, and no one else's concern.
I'm not arguing you're wrong, but I don't believe I am either.
I respect you as an individual, even if we disagree. I respect your right to make that decision. It is my hope that you will reconsider, but I understand if you don't.
> I view my responsibility to be good to others in the best way I can. As you said, truth is truth.
I certainly don't disagree with this. I am not suggesting for a moment that a follower of another religion, an agnostic or an atheist cannot do kind acts or contribute to society. Among my friends are those whom I highly respect who don't agree with me when it comes to faith. I am not saying that it is my exclusive responsibility to seek the truth. It is still my responsibility, though.
> My faith of a religion is neither here nor there, and no one else's concern.
I agree that it is no one else's concern in that I am not responsible for what you choose to do. That doesn't mean that I am not allowed to be concerned for you. (In the sense of wanting you to find what I have found.) I certainly don't want you or anyone to feel like I am cramming something down your throat. If I you have made you feel that way, please accept my apologies.
Agreed, and much respect is shared.
> I am not suggesting for a moment that a follower of another religion, an agnostic or an atheist cannot do kind acts or contribute to society.
Of course I agree here too. My apologies if it seemed as though I was implying otherwise. I have concerns when someone tries the make the case that one way is better than another; I don't see that here.
> I certainly don't want you or anyone to feel like I am cramming something down your throat. If I you have made you feel that way, please accept my apologies.
No apology needed. I don't, and never have taken, these kinds of discussions in an offensive kind of way. We're all entitled to our own decisions.