Note that the site is in archived, read-only mode. You can browse and read, but posting is disabled.
Welcome to Anarchy101 Q&A, where you can ask questions and receive answers about anarchism, from anarchists.

Note that the site is in archived, read-only mode. You can browse and read, but posting is disabled.


+5 votes
Some anarchists focus on the concept of vengeance as an attempt to counter leftist appeals to justice. On the other hand, resorting to vengeance could quickly devolve into an ongoing series of tit-for-tat skirmishes. What are people's thoughts on this and on questions that come up around this?
by (22.1k points)
I didn't include this as part of my answer because I couldn't figure out a way to work it in, but -- what's wrong with tit for tat skirmishes? Assuming you mean skirmishes with i.e. the state, it seems to me that a stable ongoing conflict is better than no conflict at all.. Or maybe you're suggesting that focusing on vengeance could ensure that the conflict doesn't escalate or generalize?
I'm assuming they're referring to individual conflict resolution, as in between people, and not the state. Failing to achieve some sort of resolution in a dispute at that level seems to be something that most wouldn't like.
I was just thinking in a general sense. I posed this question based on something elsewhere, and was just curious how people would respond. I don't necessarily think tit-for-tat skirmishes are always undesirable, whether against the state or in interpersonal or inter-group conflicts. On the other hand, the ability to walk away from things after brief flare ups is one of the differences I've often seen cited between moderr warfare and so-called "primitive warfare" (which is a problematic term in its' own right.
This is a very interesting topic!

There's a really good part of A Thousand Plateaus by Deleuze and Guattari called  Nomadology: The War Machine which discusses how certain groups practice a style of warfare where there is ongoing but infrequent violence between groups that is mainly designed to keep the groups in motion and prevent ongoing trade relations from developing, thus warding off the development of the state. If you are interested in this kind of thing I also really recommend reading the political anthropologist Pierre Clastres.

As for the issue of individual conflict resolution, I don't know very much about it but I believe that most notions of blood debt are designed to provide a way for conflicts to be honorably wound down and ended, for instance by requiring a goat to change hands or something (although it doesn't always work!) ... it definitely seems like the American anarchist movement doesn't have any sort of culture of manners/honor or whatever to deal with this problem yet...

3 Answers

+1 vote
i would say vengeance over justice for sure, but sometimes not vengeance either.
the terminology around vengeance is helpful for folks who are re-connecting with their/our rage, i think, and the fact that it is explicit about being placed in time and in relationships is a Good Thing (especially as opposed to the ahistorical, existing-in-a-vacuum "justice").
obviously it is easy to make vengeance into a ressentiment, entirely reactive uhhh... reaction (sorry), depending on what level of thing one is seeking vengeance for, and what kind of vengeance one is seeking... but context will always be important.
by (53.1k points)
Reactive reaction! After my heart, you are,  dot!
hearts! yum! ;)
+1 vote
I would actually say justice, although my understanding of that term is probably different from that of most leftists.

In Remnants of Auschwitz, Agamben says that law is not directed toward the establishment of justice, nor is it directed toward the verification of truth. Law is solely directed toward judgment, independent of truth and justice. According to Agamben, punishment is only important in that it is a fulfillment of the judgement already pronounced.

The widespread use of the term justice to refer to the outcome of juridical proceedings simply mistakes judgment for justice.

However, I don't think it is possible to bring about justice simply by skipping (or pretending to skip) over judgment and immediately meting out punishments (i.e. vengeance.) It seems to me that the concept of vengeance is almost inevitably a kind of mirror image of state judgement-punishment, differing only in that the question of judgment is hidden from view. I would say that a person enacting vengeance probably always passes judgement on the person they attack-- they just haven't given them a trial.

For me the nice thing about the notion of justice is actually its "ahistorical existing in a vacuum" status, as dot put it.  This means that we can work out what it would mean to achieve justice not only in the sense that the state pretends to offer it or in merely parallel senses (such as attacking individual neo-nazis, or rapists, or politicians (not that doing those things is a bad idea per se)) but potentially in a much broader sense.

For me, a useful notion of justice would have to go beyond the simplistic ascription of guilt or innocence to individual people, and would show clearly that neither law nor vengeance can resolve our biggest problems.
by (8.0k points)
edited by
implicit in my answer is the idea that things should be personal and relationship-based. the abstract nature of justice that you laud is a problem because of the assumptions of objectivity and generalities that i think are inherently bureaucratic and objectifying...
vengeance to me is not about punishing (although i recognize your point), but about the acknowledgment of actual people; a rejection of universality of judgement/morals.

tl/dr: justice is a tool of state/morality builders.
dear dot,

it is always nice to get an email saying that you have responded to my comment after like a year. I am now left wondering, what was I reading a year ago that led me to take this bizarre position? too much agamben I guess. normally I do not have anything nice to say about notions of justice...

I definitely sympathize with what you are saying about the fact that justice does not address/acknowledge individual people and situations. I suppose I was probably trying to suggest that there could be a kind of justice that is not so rigid/procedural. which might be true. I don't know. it's funny, because I was just having this exact argument yesterday, and I said more or less the same thing you are saying.  I will maybe return to this w/ a more combative answer the next time I read some Agamben.
it's been a year! i can respond! (lol, the flows of internet conversation.)

it's fun to get my agamben filtered through people who actually read him. :)
good question, ingrate!

@asker, you said: "I don't think it is possible to bring about justice simply by skipping (or pretending to skip) over judgment and immediately meting out punishments (i.e. vengeance.)"

i would argue that vengeance does NOT skip over judgment, it merely places it solely in the domain of the individual(s) impacted. which seems like where it best fits. for others (not directly impacted) to reach judgment is not substantially different from a "legal system", which i have no use for. however, that is not to say that those immediately impacted might not be well-served by some discussion with others familiar with the situation.
I think that's what I was trying to say, although I could have been clearer. When you take vengeance, you still pass judgment, you just don't have an institutional mechanism for doing so.

I'm sure this is a better arrangement than courts, but almost anything would be...
–2 votes
Neither, forgiveness on the wronged side and repentance from the person doing the wronging. That's what I think is the right answer. Anarchy should be peaceful because we hold to no rulers. Once you violate a persons body or rightful possessions you have violated anarchy in whole.
by (170 points)
this presumes a whole ton of things: most simply put as the wronged and the wronger must agree that a wrong has been done and what that wrong is.
also, consequences. many people who claim to be wronged today would say they're perfectly willing to forgive the person who wronged them providing that person does something(s) proving that they've learned a lesson/won't do the bad thing again.
(this proving is also problematic, since there is a questionable connection between the action to be taken to prove a lesson learned, and the original action...)
and etc really.

this idea of peace seems like a tool of the ruling class.
just sayin'.

further questions:
what are "rightful possessions"? what counts as violation?
If someone is acting upon my body in a way that I find to be hostile and violating, and so I kick them in the stomach which makes them stop, do you think my action counts as 'violating' their body?
True that my answer presumes a whole ton of things. But lets consider the perfect (which does not exist in reality but ideologically) for a moment and examine our actions towards others.

Flip, I would consider kicking someone in the stomach a violation to their body whether or not they violated my body or "rightful possessions".

It's still not right to answer evil with evil, rather answer evil with good. A gentile answer turns away wrath.

In my current position I still consider people to have (own) personal property and things. A personal possession are things like your wife, your house, your car, your phone, your computer things you worked for and paid for and posses. Those things would be personal possessions. Only things that have been rightfully achieved would be considered a personal possession. I am interested in the idea of "no personal possessions"? Never seen a logical argument to back that up though so I would love any/all input on that.
It's pretty terrible that you describe your wife as that which you possess. But I guess that's an honest and true depiction of the institution of marriage: men owning and controlling women.

"The perfect" which you describe is just another authority that you're making for yourself. Why bother?

What's wrong with kicking someone who was violating me? It seems like a perfect gesture of anarchy: maintaining autonomy over my own body against something doing harm to me.
flip, i don't define my marriage that way at all. i know some people who do, but that definition doesn't feel honest or truthful at all to me, far from it. but i agree with your comment about the "terribleness" of viewing your spouse as a possession.
cd88, i agree with your short answer of "neither" to this question, but not your conceptions of rightness and wrongness.
flip:  "It's pretty terrible that you describe your wife as that which you possess. "

  ^^^^^  yep, that.  seriously.
Not really saying that a man owns his wife but more that a man is the womans and the woman is the mans in possession when they are married. We are told to love our wives which was a culture shock to those people because back then your wife was your property and that was how they saw them (same as children).

True marriage is not the man barking orders to the woman and her just doing what the man says just because he says it. True marriage is an understanding that both the man and woman are equal in the sight of God and God is the head of the marriage. There are plenty of verses that show people how to live a christian walk in marriage, even in the situations where a christian is married to a non christian. The only reason for divorce is marital unfaithfulness, the other party breaking the covenant that was made. Israel was called an adulterous nation and God divorced the and married a new bride.

My argument against violence is that violence is a physical thing. The physical is not what we should be consumed with but the spiritual. The everyday spiritual walk interprets into the physical world through your actions and interactions with other people. This isn't only for Christians, this rule applies to every person alive. You have a spiritual life weather you think you do or don't, you have some code that you live by and that code is also interpreted through your actions and interactions with others.

Don't get me wrong, I am not a pacifist, I just think there is another way then to simply answer evil with evil.
bornagainanarchist, what is your concept of rightness and wrongness?
dot, you are correct that the ruling class use this as an excuse to apply laws and regulations to the masses. I would say that I don't agree with a ruling class and I think people in general can use logical discernment amongst ourselves to decide who has been wronged. If a man murders another man in cold blood murder with no cause is that wrong? If I steel all your gold from your house is that wrong? If I burn your house down is that wrong? Or are these just actions being made with no wrong or right associated to them? If so then the form of anarchy you describe would be chaos because there are no moral foundations to what is right and what is wrong.
cd88, i don't conceive of them (rightness and wrongness). sure, i've had those ideas stuffed down my throat over the years from hierarchical institutions, family, church, and so on, but i reject the idea of right and wrong at this point in my life. i work diligently at removing the words from my vocabulary.

perhaps this explanation may help....i do have a concept of pain - physical, emotional, and mental. and when i think about how i want to live or what actions i desire to take, i often take into account my perception of potential pain and suffering (to myself and/or others, the land, animals) that might result, and whether i think that pain will benefit or harm those involved, directly or tangentially. but i see those distinctions as subjective to me, rather than falling on a side of right or wrong.

those perceptions have changed over the years based on my experiences, and on stories i've heard and witnessed from other people, by both thought and intuitive processes, sometimes via dreams, other times through reading, and so on. actually, those perceptions change all the time, depending on the situation and the people and things involved. operating this way feels much different to me than thinking and acting based on conceptions of right and wrong, and i have felt happier and freer as a result.

dealing with other peoples' concepts of right and wrong still presents plenty of challenges for me, as does dealing with my own semi-brainwashed mind. :)

edit to add: regarding the original question, i agreed with your answer of "neither" because i don't desire the concepts of either vengeance or justice. i never even use the words to describe my life or thoughts - much like right and wrong, they have no meaning for me other than what i think other people mean by them (if you know what i mean!).

after a little more reflection, i'd say i do have a meaning of vengeance, but i just don't desire it as a way of reacting, although many times i've felt like i wanted it momentarily. ultimately, i want healing from pain rather than vengeance. justice, on the other hand, has no relevance to my life, since it seems to come back to ideas of right and wrong.
bornagainanarchist, I'm intrigued by your point of view.

Can you explain your viewpoint on Vengeance VS Justice?

Isn't vengeance personal justice?
clisterdude88, thanks for your interest.

i think of vengeance as wanting to hurt someone who you think has hurt you in some way...whereas justice to me implies "a wrong that must be righted".

i don't think of vengeance as "personal justice" because the desire to inflict pain on someone as retaliation doesn't imply anything about right or wrong. rather, imo, it implies the (mistaken) notion that i'll feel better if i hurt you as you hurt me.

does that help?
bornagainanarchist, somewhat. That is very interesting indeed. I still hold to right and wrong because of my christian stand points but I do see what you are saying. That is a very interesting way to look at situations for sure and I kinda like it.

So do you think vengeance is a rash decision based on feeling or is it more of just in our nature? Do you think that vengeance should be acted upon in all/any/some situations?

I would personally say that vengeance is not the correct response but forgiving. I am not saying to forget but I think we should forgive. Because if I ever hurt someone I would want to be forgiven rather then be hurt back.
i think wanting vengeance comes from the notion that you'll feel better (whatever that might mean - relieved, at peace, satisfied) through inflicting pain. i can't recall ever feeling that way, even in instances of "minor" revenge like yelling at someone who yelled at me. i usually ended up feeling worse - more tense, more angry, dissatisfied, etc. sometimes i forget that, sometimes i remember.

where does that feeling of wanting to retaliate come from? i can't say i know for sure.  probably from ideology.

also, i see a difference between acting in the moment and acting later after thinking about and planning some sort of revenge. like if someone yells at  or hits me, and i immediately yell back (or hit them), it seems like more of a defense mechanism. but if i sat back for a few days after someone attacked me and then i planned and carried out my own attack later on, it probably has more to do with ideology - like concepts of right and wrong and justice and fairness....

maybe i've made an arbitrary distinction there (between immediate and delayed reactions), i don't know. like i mentioned earlier, i don't think about vengeance or justice much at all, nor do i act from those concepts in my life. but when it comes to pain that i perceive in myself or another person, i try to pay attention to my (and their) actions and the results, and go on to the next situation informed by them.
bornagainanarchist, the way you live is sort of the way I live. I do not want to retaliate against people when I am wronged, I would rather take the wrong (hurt) and act in the right way (IMO) toward the person doing the wronging (hurting). I think that when we don't repay evil for evil (hurt for hurt) we become the "bigger man" in the situation. I think our actions towards others effects our physical lives as well as your spiritual lives (thought processes). I also think there are natural repercussions for our actions. If someone hurts you over and over you are not going to want to be around that person (in most situations) and the person doing the hurting will eventually be alienated by people who don't want to associate with them because of the pain they inflict. It's kinda like Karma but IMO it's more of the way life works naturally.
yes, i think we see some things in a similar way (like karma), cd88, but as you noted, we use different words. the different words likely indicate some difference in meaning as well.

i say "hurt" or "pain" instead of "wrong" because what causes one person to feel pain doesn't necessarily cause it in another. for example, I've said the same exact thing to different people and one person feels attacked while another might laugh at what i said, or seem confused by it, or not even feel much at all. so, the pain or hurt also resides within the person feeling it, not necessarily as a sole cause by another. in other words, i don't always think myself responsible for another person's pain, nor do i necessarily blame another person for my pain. so i don't label the experience of pain as "wrong".

a punch in the face (or a more severe physical attack) on the other hand, probably feels painful to almost everyone. to reiterate what dot said in her/his answer above - context and people and relationships make a difference -a concept of "wrong" doesn't allow for that, imo.

your thoughts interest me as well and i've enjoyed the discussion.

edited for clarity
bornagainanarchist, I see what you are saying about pain being relative to the person feeling it. I would agree with you as well.

What about intentionally causing pain? Acting in a way you know will hurt someone else, is that a violation of anything or is it just an act with no right or wrong attached to it?
clisterdude88, well, i don't think i can know with absolute certainty what will or won't hurt someone else, and it depends on the person, the situation, and the relationship, but generally speaking, i personally don't desire to have my actions or words cause suffering to another.

"a violation of anything" i don't use the word "violation" in my language. violation implies right and wrong to me, which i reject. but i do perceive consequences to all my (or anyone else's) actions (like karma again) and i usually give some consideration to what i think might follow. still, there are plenty of situations where what i say or do ends up with another person feeling pain, whether i intended it or not...and then we (those of us involved) deal with it, or try to ignore it. i usually prefer to deal with it in some way...and the way i deal with it depends entirely on the factors i mentioned above (people, relationship, situation, etc.).
cd88:  "Not really saying that a man owns his wife but more that a man is the womans and the woman is the mans in possession when they are married."

that is pretty much how i interpreted what you previously said. it is the concept of "possession" in this context that bothers me, i find it completely UN-anarchistic. i assume we are still talking about all this in the context of a desire for anarchy (however each of us defines that).

i appreciate that you are coming to this discussion looking for honest dialog. but from almost every one of your answers and comments, it is apparent to me that you hold tightly to some views that i find both uninteresting and not at all related to MY desires for anarchy.  your perspective (as i understand it) does not seem to take into account the relevance of context (as has been mentioned). i could probably repeat much of what baa has said (in my own words), but it seems unnecessary. suffice it to say, i find your perspective hugely moralistic. you probably consider that a compliment, but if you are interested in looking at it somewhat critically, i suggest some readings on the topic of moralism from an anarchist perspective.  for starters, take a look here:
@cd88:  i may have missed this if you have addressed it elsewhere, but i have a question. do you consider yourself an anarchist?  are you interested in anarchy as a perspective that resonates with you?

if so, how do you define anarchy? how do you reconcile your clearly deep-rooted belief in christianity (and an all-powerful god) with anything resembling anarchy? i'm seriously curious.
funkyanarchy, thank you for the article, I will read it.

I call myself an Anarchist/Christian or an "In the Kingdom Christian" or "Fulfilled Prophecy Christian" for lack of a massively know title for what I am.

My definition of anarchy is simply no rulers (besides God). The idea of no rulers was originally influenced the more I studied the bible. I have read the bible all the way through around 9 (lost count really) times and have read individual books so many times I couldn't count (not bragging just stating). I have also read some of the books that were excluded from the cannon like Enoch, Adam and Eve 1&2 and Jashar (spoken traditions that have been written down and really cast out by most Christians as nonsense), as well as Jewish Pharisees, modern day Jewish religion and even the Koran and I have studied a little about a few other religions but I mainly dip in fulfilled prophesy of the Bible because that is where part of my evidential  faith comes from, there are prophecies that match documented history events like the siege of Tyre by Alexander the Great (Ezekiel warned them between 593 and 565 B.C. and the siege was in 332 B.C.) and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. (book of Revelation).

You asked: are you interested in anarchy as a perspective that resonates with you?

(If I read that correctly) I think that is the only way anarchy works. It is the individual who creates the perspective of anarchy within themselves. If anarchy is forced upon society then anarchy has just become the very thing that anarchists are against.

The idea that you NEED or FORCE someone to believe the same way you do is absolutely absurd. Instead we need to teach people how to think and logically discern what is truth and what is not, based on the evidence. We also need to teach people how to listen, that is the biggest problem we have.

My version of anarchy is also influenced by the fact that I believe everything is a creation of God. The trend I seem to be seeing amongst most people active on this discussion is that you are all free from the idea of a god and that the religious institutions are placed to make people believe in God as an institution for control and therefore without that institution everything is subjective to the individual, therefore not only anarchy of government and society but the mind as well.(?) Correct me if I am wrong. I believe that God and the law of Love are absolutes, that is why it is called "the way".

Also the way I communicate with others is influenced by scripture. example: Proverbs 18:13 | Proverbs 18:17 | Deuteronomy 1:17 | etc etc.

I am interested in the truth over simply being right because I want to be right. I want to know the truth. So far as I use ideas from the scripture it seems to prove itself in my own life situations. I have benefited from not taking vengeance and I have benefited from not retaliating, it brings be peace in times that I should be loosing my mind and in times of conflict a gentle answer turns away wrath.

Like I said before, my beliefs are for me as you your own. I just want to see (and really try to understand) other's side of the story.

Marriage is a God (christian/jewish) instituted covenant between 1 Man 1 Woman and God. The two shall become one flesh, let no man separate what God has put together. The only reason for divorce is marital unfaithfulness according to Jesus (Matthew 19). The man cannot force the woman to be faithful and the woman cannot force the man to be faithful but they both made a covenant and should strive to keep their vows and we are told how to live as Christians.

How I put anarchy and Christianity together. I don't know how to explain it in a screenshot without showing ALL the information I have gone through but to attempt to put it as simply as I can I would say:


God is the creator and we are the created. Man was created to fail in order to bring about the savior to glorify God and to bring all creation back to Him to glorify Him. We are objects of grace because of the savior who completed the law for us and died as the perfect lamb sacrifice (must know the old to understand the new). God states that we should have no rulers or kings besides Him. Now when we do appoint ourselves a king who we listen to over Gods word we have rejected Gods authority and have started judgment on ourselves (I believe government is a sign of judgment). 1 Samuel 8 warns about this. Jesus in the new testament tell us not to appoint rulers or to be called father or rabbi but instead we are all brothers and sisters because one is our father who is in heaven and one is our head, the Christ. Jesus said "give back to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's".

That's the short version.

I do like the free minds of anarchy though because it questions everything and I think to question everything makes for a good basis of knowledge.
have you ever read a book and it just really hit you? maybe because of where you were when you read it, or because you read it with people who really liked it too, or maybe because the language was really evocative... or maybe all those reasons...
and then you recommend the book to someone else, thinking, they're going to get so much out of this! plus they'll understand me better! this will be great!
and they read it and they're like, "wha...?"

that happens to me all the time...

ps: also, this is funny:
I am interested in the truth over simply being right because I want to be right. I want to know the truth.
Bornagain – Most social relationships that have been defined by society are tainted with that society’s intentions and values. I’m not saying that we should ‘refrain’ from these relationships, because there IS no outside that our refraining would lead us to. How we mold our own relationships is up to us. But marriage does seem to be the most obvious social relationship that is meant to enforce control, even if you (or other married anarchists I know who defy this cliché) are able to navigate your marriage in a healthy way.

Cd88 – Bah, I wanted to get into this conversation more but at this point my comments would be back-tracking quite a bit.
cd88:  "My definition of anarchy is simply no rulers (besides God). "

i usually am all about the gray areas, and NOT being binary in my thinking. but i have to say, proclaiming (even *only*) god as your "ruler" goes a very long way towards discrediting any claims of anarchy (at least in my eyes). i surely don't claim a monopoly on defining the term, but i have a very difficult time seeing the absolute acceptance of a ruler (regardless of who/what that ruler is) as remotely anarchic.

also, your continued biblical references are a bit of a turn off. just sayin.

please take my comments as they are intended: as critique of your ideas (as i understand them), not as an attack on you personally. you do seem sincere in your desire to engage in meaningful discussion here. but your idea of anarchy is dramatically different from my own, and i personally have zero interest in it. so i will bow out of this part of the conversation.
flip, i think i get your meaning about people using marriage as a form of control (i've witnessed it many times), and how that relates to societal values...

but i don't see it as the most obvious social relationship meant to enforce control, primarily since both people enter the relationship willingly (at least today in most places) and can leave it whenever they wish (in most relationships).

i'd pick compulsory schooling as the most obvious form of social control, and from a personal relationship standpoint, parents forcing their children to go to school (among many other things parents usually force their daughters and sons to do without consent).
funkyanarchy, thank you for your input on the topic, if that is all you will have to say on the subject I really do appreciate your input. I'm use to using verses as backup so my bad, don't take me quoting verses as me throwing scripture in your face, its an old habit and those die hard.

I guess since you aren't interested in my form of anarchy let me ask you this. Could you accept me as I am and what I believe and still associate/converse with me even though our views are extremely different? If so, that is what I seek in anarchy.
cd88, of course i can accept you as you are, and engage with you on various topics. (religion is simply not one of those.)  it does beg the followup question:  what does it mean to "accept" you?  in this ultra-mediated form of communication, it doesn't mean a whole lot.

you seem to be genuinely curious and open minded in those posts i have read here. that is far more than i can say about many self-identified anarchists that have passed through here to engage.  and for that i give you kudos.

accepting, and engaging with, folks that i disagree with is unfortunately an all-too-common fact of my life. if i was incapable of associating with folks i disagree with, i would have damn near nobody in my life. :-)  my immediate family, who i love and enjoy immensely when i am around them (not very often), is filled with do-gooder liberals whose worldview i find generally useless. but they are fun, smart, interesting, and i have plenty to enjoy and engage with them, without delving into our divergent worldviews.  

hopefully that answers your question.

i do have some curiosity about how you reconcile accepting god as your ruler/master with anarchy (which means, literally, "without leader/ruler").  but as those are not remotely reconcilable in any way in my world, i can easily let that go. and accept you as someone that shares *some* of my desires for anarchy.
You asked how I reconcile accepting god as my ruler with anarchy which means literally without leader/ruler. I would say human leader/ruler. Because IMO God exists, and if God exists then He would be the boss man on scene. I back that opinion with scripture. I back my anarchy with scripture too. And to be honest not a single Christian I know has a scriptural comeback, only emotional comebacks.

I will accept that answer/explanation about your position on "acceptance".

See, I would say that I "accept" you and the views you have as your own.
Maybe I should say that I "acknowledge" instead.
well, your reliance on scripture to "back up" your belief (opinion?) in god as a ruler (one that somehow sits outside of anarchy's core tenet) is, to me, not very different from people in the past claiming/believing that slavery was fine because it was in the legal "scripture".  in your case, that scripture was supposedly written by a bunch of human beings with some very strong ideology, almost 2000 years ago. and according to many christians i have spoken with, is intended as abstract allegory and/or metaphor rather than concrete events and people. so quoting scripture presents me with absolutely nothing that i can take seriously as a basis for a belief system. though granted, even if it had been written as "fact" by generally accepted scientists, i would take it only very slightly more seriously.

so, again, i accept that you seem like a reasonable, curious, relatively open-minded person looking to explore the world and your place in it. i just have strong disagreement with the perspective you articulate. i am ok with that. i asked about how you reconcile, you explained, and i find your explanation no more understandable or reasonable than what you have said previously.

so now, if you want to have further discussion with me, time to move on from religion/scripture topic. clear enough?