Since the Bible is purportedly “The Word of God”, then I propose that the divisiveness of that commandment comes from God.
Frankly, I’m getting really tired of Christians picking and choosing their interpretation of the bible. They use all the parts they like, and any part they don’t like, or can’t defend, they say, “Oh, well, that’s just a metaphor”, or “The Bible is the Word of God, but it was written by fallible humans, so they must’ve gotten that part wrong.”
If you get to choose how you interpret the bible, why even have it? Just do what you want and be honest about it.
ANYWAY… I believe that religion is, by it’s very nature, exclusionary. I was just using the Christian First Commandment as an example. If humans are the source of religion’s divisiveness, then why bring God into it at all? Either God tells you what to do, and he’s to blame, or humans invented God out of whole cloth and religion is just an excuse to have an exclusive club. Which one ARE you arguing, anyway?
All religions are a club, exclusive to those who adhere to its rules and tenets. Everyone who doesn’t adhere is automatically an outsider (usually described as “damned”).
Yes, actually. If you believe that God gave you those commandments, then God instituted the divisiveness. If you believe that humans are the source of that divisiveness, how can you insist that the Bible is The Word of God? You can’t have it both ways.
Well, I’d have to disagree with you there. I don’t think you can reasonably assign blame for human actions to non-existent actors.
My heart bleeds for you, it really does, but I feel compelled to point out that this has absolutely nothing to do with my post.
All Christians interpret the Bible. Any one who has ever read any book about any subject interprets the books they have been reading. Interpretation is a necessary and unavoidable step in the process of literacy. The only way to avoid interpreting a given text is to be entirely ignorant of the language in which the text is written.
Secondly, your “be honest about it” suggestion is idiotic. A Christian who interprets the Bible to contain a liberal, humanist message is no more dishonest about their motives than a Christian who interprets the same book as carte blanche to treat anyone different from themselves as a subhuman. Polycarp isn’t lying when he says he reads the Bible as instructing him to show love to other humans, regardless of their differences. It’s not a question of honesty, and attempting frame the question in terms of honesty or dishonesty shows a remarkable lack of insight.
All that aside, I have to say, once again, that this has fuck-all to do with what I’ve posted.
Neither. I’m arguing that humans, by their nature, create excuses to be exclusionary. Attacking the excuses for this exclusiveness is a waste of time, because even if you manage to squelch one such excuse, it will do nothing to improve the human condition, because we will fall back on one of our plentiful number of other excuses to be hate each other, or simply invent a new one.
Where have I insisted that the Bible is the word of God? Are you paying attention to what I’m saying here, or are you just using the occasion of my posts as an excuse to engage in a number of prescripted anti-theist rants?
You know, I could very well ask you the same damn question. All I did was disagree with you, originally, and post my reason for doing so. You immediately attacked me… and frankly, at this point, I can’t tell why.
You seem to be saying that humans are, by their nature, exclusionary. I’m not disagreeing with you.
However, I am saying that religions are ALSO exclusionary. Now, whether you believe that the rules that create that divisiveness is handed down from on high, or is simply because humans created those rules- hey, that’s up to you. But if you’re arguing that the divisiveness is strictly due to the fact that humans put those rules in, I’m going to have to disagree. Either God exists, and he instituted the rules which makes religion divisive, or he doesn’t, and religion itself is the cause for the divisiveness.
Personally, I don’t think God exists, and therefore I blame religion for its own “us vs. them” philosophy.
You… hell, I don’t know what the hell you think. Did someone piss in your wheaties this morning?
Now, granted, it’s very easy to get confused over the general “you” and the specific “you.” On the other hand, if you read that post as using the general “you,” it makes absolutely no goddamned sense in the context of what you were responding to. Nothing about the point I was trying to make is altered by who believers in the Bible perceive to be the source of its authority.
I didn’t attack you, I attacked your arguments. And I attacked your arguments because they had only the barest connection to anything I’d said.
Oh, really? Remember this exchange?
So, what exactly were you disagreeing with, then?
Well, God doesn’t exist. Which means that religion is entirely a human construct. Which means that any divisiveness in religion must come from the humans who created it. Where else could it come from?
And how was this philosophy introduced into the concept of religion? Sprang up all on its own, did it? Some stone-age human said, “Hey, maybe there’s a big man who lives in the sky who made everything,” and then all by itself, religion started generating passages about stoning infidels?
I’m not surprised you don’t know what I think. Judging from your posts, you barely know what you think.
If you presume you can interpret the bible, the perfect word of god, are you not saying I know more than god. ? If it is the word then follow it. If it has to be interpreted then it is not the work of god.
Add me to the list. I guess you’re looking for more than 400K to convince yourself that Pat is not our “Christian spokesman”.
Three down, 399,998 to go.
Funny thing is that you actually acknowledged that you’ve seen Pat on certain media channels (but tuned him out) whereas, I can’t remember which year I’ve last seen the dude, because I don’t have a need to watch or listen to his twisted views, nor have I been instructed that I have to watch or agree with him.
Miller, I really think you are going way overboard on Lightnin’.
I would humbly suggest you consider the difference between Humans working on a community newspaper versus Humans working on a Church newsletter. Which human construct is inherently less divisive?
IMHO, I think it means that anything subject to interpretation by necessity is open to misinterpretation, and an all-knowing god would certainly know how to put across instructions that couldn’t be misinterpreted.
It sounds to me as though what you really want is for all Christians to think the same way, so you can find it easy to dismiss the whole (very very large) group of them with a wave of your hand. Life just doesn’t work like that. No two members of any group think exactly the same way on any issue, and the people who want to disrespect them for membership in that group are just going to have to live with that and…guess what? Judge people on their own merits! Imagine! I’m sorry if it frustrates you that Christians each have their own brains that they use to think with, and their own POV on what the Bible is trying to teach us, but unfortunately, it is the case.
But that presumes He wants a single interpretation. Why not leave people free to pursue whatever they treasure most? If you interpret Jesus as a monster, then you are right to turn away from Him. Why would God want to trump your own subjective will with His?
The point has always been not whether board members agree with him. It is that he is the Christian spokesman. He is. Open access to the white house ,daily TV and huge political influence ,makes him that. Every stupid proclamation the jerk utters is covered and explained away by TV. He gets a pass because he is the man.He appears on news talk endlessly.His opinions are sought when the Christian side needs to be presented.
Appeared on 700 club…
Tom Delay
Hannity and Colmes
Ollie North
Zogby
Eleanor Clift
Peggy Noonan
John Kyl
Brownback
Lieberman
Gore
Hatch
Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. Plus numerous celebrities and sports figures.
He is the man.He gets deference from the powerful. His influence is huge .
His influence, once significant, has been fading steadily for 15 years.
That said, even if he is A spokesman for (one identifiable) segment of Christians in the U.S., only an utter fool would treat him as THE spokesman for all the Christians in the U.S., including those who never watch CBN, those who disagree with his theology as well as his politics, and those he has condemned.
