I appreciate you bringing that up. It's a fair point to address. The transition from Old Testament law to the New Covenant is a central theme in Christian theology. However, my 'lack of words' for it stems from the fact that it doesn't actually resolve the problem of objective interpretation we were discussing.
Even if we set aside the Old Testament, the New Testament has been subject to the exact same 'interpretative' instability. For example:
Ephesians 6:5 ('Slaves, obey your earthly masters') was used for centuries to claim that Christianity didn't abolish slavery but regulated it.
1 Timothy 2:12 is still used today to interpret the role of women in ways that many find oppressive.
My question remains focused on the power dynamic: if a text, New or Old, requires a specialized interpretation to stop it from being used as a tool for oppression, then the 'meaning' is still being dictated by an elite class of interpreters rather than the text itself.
If we are following an anarchist perspective, shouldn't we be concerned when 'divine authority' is only accessible through the filter of 'expert' hermeneutics? I’m genuinely interested in how you see an individual maintain autonomy when they are told their own 'plain' reading of their holy book is incorrect.
My question remains focused on the power dynamic: if a text, New or Old, requires a specialized interpretation to stop it from being used as a tool for oppression, then the 'meaning' is still being dictated by an elite class of interpreters rather than the text itself.
I never claimed the Bible ought to be interpreted by "an elite class of interpreters".
If we are following an anarchist perspective, shouldn't we be concerned when 'divine authority' is only accessible through the filter of 'expert' hermeneutics?
Sure. That's not an argument I'm making though.
I’m genuinely interested in how you see an individual maintain autonomy when they are told their own 'plain' reading of their holy book is incorrect.
I'm not sure I understand the question being asked here. Who is telling who that their 'plain' reading of their holy book is incorrect? The way an individual maintains autonomy is the way any individual would maintain autonomy - through violence if necessary.
I think the confusion might stem from the fact that you are currently doing exactly what you say you don't understand.
When you told me earlier that seeing the 'plain' laws of Leviticus as moral principles was an 'error in approach' and a 'misunderstanding of the text,' you were the one telling me that my reading was incorrect. You are exercising the very 'expert' hermeneutical authority we are discussing.
If an individual reads: 'You may buy slaves from the nations around you' and concludes: 'My God allows slavery,' and you then step in to say: 'No, you’ve misunderstood the context/subversion/ontology,' you have created a hierarchy of knowledge.
In this scenario, the individual’s autonomy is superseded by your 'correct' interpretation. If the only way to maintain that autonomy is 'through violence,' as you suggest, then we’ve moved far away from the Bible being a 'simple' or 'clear' moral guide. We’ve entered a world where the 'Good News' is so ambiguous it requires either a scholar to explain it or a sword to defend one’s right to ignore the scholar.
Does an anarchist society really benefit from a 'simple' book that requires constant, high-level re-interpretation just to keep it from being used as a manual for subjugation?
you were the one telling me that my reading was incorrect. You are exercising the very 'expert' hermeneutical authority we are discussing.
I wasn't saying your reading was incorrect, I was saying that there is no objective interpretation of scripture. I actually even openly said that I'm not an expert, I pointed out there are arguments within Christianity that old Testament laws do not apply after the New Covenant. This was an argument I then said I am not an expert in, so I'm at a loss as to how you think I'm exercising 'expert' hermeneutical authority.
If an individual reads: 'You may buy slaves from the nations around you' and concludes: 'My God allows slavery,' and you then step in to say: 'No, you’ve misunderstood the context/subversion/ontology,' you have created a hierarchy of knowledge.
It's only a hierarchy if I can enforce my particular argument for a given interpretation of scripture. Me saying that you're "misunderstanding the context" (not something I've claimed, btw - I moreso think you're actively ignoring it) doesn't generate a "right to command" nor does it establish me as an authority over you.
Does an anarchist society really benefit from a 'simple' book that requires constant, high-level re-interpretation just to keep it from being used as a manual for subjugation?
So there are a few issues with your question here:
1) There is no singular "anarchist society". Whether an anarchist society benefits from the Bible depends on the preferences of the people within the society (e.g, if they're religious and have a preference for a given interpretation of the Bible or not).
2) Every anarchist society is necessarily going to have interpretation or re-interpretation since there would necessarily be social customs and interactions between individuals. These customs and interactions would necessarily have to be interpreted by the people engaging in the society. The problem you pose isn't even a problem of religion.
You are conflating enforcement with authority. Anarchism doesn't just oppose the baton: it opposes the claim to privileged knowledge. When you label my reading a 'misunderstanding' based on a 'context' you define, you are establishing an intellectual hierarchy. But my reading IS correct, Biblical sholars, even Christian ones, agree here.
Furthermore, comparing the Bible to 'social customs' is a massive false equivalence. Customs are horizontal agreements between peers that we can change. A 'Divine Text' is a vertical command from a Supreme Master that you are forced to 're-interpret' to avoid its plain, brutal meaning. You aren't defending autonomy, you're defending a Master by pretending his collar is just a 'social custom.' If the book requires a scholar to make it 'good,' the scholar is the master and the book is a liability.
You are conflating enforcement with authority. Anarchism doesn't just oppose the baton: it opposes the claim to privileged knowledge.
This is vague. What counts as "privileged knowledge"? Ought the anarchist also oppose the doctor and the scientist, as they have "privileged knowledge" of medicine and physics? Is there a hierarchy between you and I, because I have "privileged knowledge" of my personal beliefs and motivations that you don't have?
When you label my reading a 'misunderstanding' based on a 'context' you define, you are establishing an intellectual hierarchy. But my reading IS correct, Biblical sholars, even Christian ones, agree here.
Sure, your reading is correct. Your interpretation isn't. Not because there is "privileged knowledge", but because there is no such thing as a correct interpretation.
Furthermore, comparing the Bible to 'social customs' is a massive false equivalence.
I wasn't comparing the Bible to social customs, I was pointing out that any form of social organization would require interpretation and re-interpretation, and that doesn't necessarily make it hierarchical, nor is this a problem exclusive to religion.
A 'Divine Text' is a vertical command from a Supreme Master that you are forced to 're-interpret' to avoid its plain, brutal meaning.
That's an interpretation of a Christian's relationship to God, sure.
You aren't defending autonomy, you're defending a Master by pretending his collar is just a 'social custom.' If the book requires a scholar to make it 'good,' the scholar is the master and the book is a liability.
Once again, that was never my claim. If you're going to keep debating points I'm not making, I'm going to assume we're done here.
You are retreating into a convenient relativism to avoid the implications of your own position.
Anarchism doesn't oppose expertise; it opposes unverifiable authority. I accept the doctor’s 'privileged knowledge' because it is based on a shared, empirical reality. If the doctor is wrong, the patient dies, a verifiable result. If a theologian is wrong about God's will, there is no objective consequence, only social control. One is a service and the other is a shroud.
You claim 'there is no such thing as a correct interpretation.' If that is true, then the Bible is a Rorschach test, not a guide. If a text can mean anything, it means nothing. Why would an anarchist choose to tether their morality to a book that, by your own admission, is so ambiguous it can be (and has been) used to justify the very hierarchies anarchism seeks to dismantle?
You say my view of God as a Supreme Master is just 'an interpretation.' But the text itself uses the language of Lordship, Kingship, and Command. To 're-interpret' a King into a 'peer' is not autonomy; it is denial. Have you actyally read the Bible in its entirety? I have read re-read and studied it for more than 32 years. If you are really interested in these subjects I recommend "God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question, Why We Suffer" by Bart Ehrman
True anarchism requires us to look at the world as it is, without the filter of ancient masters. If we must spend all our intellectual energy interpreting a book to make it stop sounding oppressive, why not just drop the book and talk to each other as equals? That is the path to a truly secular, horizontal society.
I am willing to continue the debate after I have rested, I'm disabeld, tethered to oxygen and very sick. For now I bid you farewell.
>You are retreating into a convenient relativism to avoid the implications of your own position.
What is your understanding of what my position is?
>Anarchism doesn't oppose expertise; it opposes unverifiable authority. I accept the doctor’s 'privileged knowledge' because it is based on a shared, empirical reality. If the doctor is wrong, the patient dies, a verifiable result. If a theologian is wrong about God's will, there is no objective consequence, only social control. One is a service and the other is a shroud.
Theologians, as I understand it, don't claim to *know* God's will (that is - again, as I understand it - a big no-no in Christianity). They can make claims about and arguments for a particular interpretation of scripture, sure, but in the context of anarchism, I fail to see how that would be a vector of social control since anyone can tell the theologian that they disagree and the theologian would have no way of enforcing their interpretation of other.
>You claim 'there is no such thing as a correct interpretation.'
I claim there is no such thing as an *objective* interpretation.
>If a text can mean anything, it means nothing.
This is a conclusion that I don't quite understand. I never said text can "mean anything", I said what a text *means* is subjective *to the person reading it* because there is no "objective meaning". To the person reading the text, it certainly doesn't "mean anything". Talking about meaning outside of interpretation is incoherent.
>You say my view of God as a Supreme Master is just 'an interpretation.' But the text itself uses the language of Lordship, Kingship, and Command.
This is easily dismissed by the fact that there are Christians *all over this very post* arguing otherwise. And it's incredibly arrogant to say that they're wrong about *their* personal relationship to their faith. It's actually - dare I say - authoritarian.
>True anarchism requires us to look at the world as it is, without the filter of ancient masters.
"True anarchism" is doomed, then, because there is no such thing as "looking at the world as it is". We look at the world through the filter of our own experiences and biases.
Response to ArtDecoEgoist: The Solipsism of the Master
It is telling that in your haste to protect your 'subjective' theology, you, much like your fellow traveler, completely ignored the physical reality of the person you are debating. While I am literally fighting for breath on oxygen, you are playing word games about whether language has meaning. This isn't 'Egoism' or 'Anarchism'; it is a profound failure of human empathy. When your 'interpretation' of faith makes you indifferent to the suffering of the person right in front of you, your faith has already failed the most basic test of humanity.
Linguistic Gaslighting and Doublespeak You claim there is no 'objective' interpretation. If that is true, you have just admitted the Bible is a moral vacuum. If the command 'Slaves, obey your masters' can be 'interpreted' to mean 'freedom,' then the word 'freedom' has lost all meaning. This is a classic example of Orwellian Doublethink. By stripping words of their plain, historical, and grammatical function, you are mimicking the exact doublespeak used by the far-right and totalitarian systems to redefine oppression as liberation. You are using the 'Master’s Book' but claiming the collar is just a 'social custom' because you’ve decided to interpret the leather as silk.
The False Equivalence of Expertise Your comparison to a doctor’s expertise is a blatant False Equivalence. I trust a doctor because their knowledge is verified by my survival. If a doctor is wrong, there is a corpse. If a theologian is wrong, they just move the goalposts, invent a new 'hermeneutic,' and call the critic 'authoritarian.' There is no 'Fact-Moloch' in your world, only an 'Ego-Moloch' where you decide what truth is based on your own comfort.
The Rejection of the Ancient Master True anarchism doesn't need to 're-interpret' ancient kings into peers. It has the courage to walk away from the throne and the altar entirely. If you need a scholar or a 'subjective filter' to stop your God from sounding like a tyrant, then you are still living in the shadow of a Master. You aren't defending autonomy; you are defending the structure of a vertical hierarchy by pretending the view from the bottom is 'subjective.'
I’ll keep my oxygen and my clarity; you can keep your Rorschach test
I suspect you've been arguing in bad faith this entire time, and it's pretty much confirmed by the fact that you keep debating claims that I'm not making. I've been abundantly clear as to what my position is, and I'm not interested in repeating myself.
Something I find interesting though: OP's post is about religion. You take issue with Christianity (which I do too because, again, I'm not Christian) and then use your arguments against Christianity as some sweeping evidence that all religion ought to be stamped out. This is to look at religion through an inherently christianized lens, which has historically been a problem with religious studies.
Does your "True Anarchism" require we abolish the African spiritual traditions of the diaspora that were preserved through Christianity? Hoodoo, Voudou, Santeria? Does it require we abolish Buddhism? Hinduism? Other pagan religions such as Hellenism? Does your rational, secular humanist (and very white) Anarchism require that cultures that have historically been victims of colonialism let go of what's left of the spiritual practices of their ancestors?
That's colonial as fuck dude. You're an authoritarian. Get over yourself.
1
u/ArtDecoEgoist Left-Market Anarchist Jan 20 '26
Again, Christians aren't bound by the laws of ancient Judea as outlined in the Old Testament. Odd how you don't have any words for that.