Both
No, it is the same topic.
So if this is a valid approach to the book as a historical text, why is it not a valid approach as a religious text?
And you prefer they were sexist and homophobic? No? Then why are you criticizing people for getting things half right? Instead of trying to convince them that they have to treat both parts of the Bible literally, doesn’t it make a hell of a lot more sense to encourage them to treat other parts of the Bible as questionable?
This is why people like you drive me up the wall. There’s some really bad actors out there using Christianity to hurt people. And there’s a lot of really good Christians out there who want to stop them just as much as you and I do. So why do you spend so much energy attacking our allies? The more “cafeteria Christians” there are in this country, the better off everyone in this country is. Why are you so obsessed with painting this as a bad thing?
Anyway, to your specific criticisms of this being “self serving” and “inconsistent,” how so? If a person says, “The Bible has a lot of valuable information in it, but is also the work of flawed humans who let the politics and social mores influence their writing, so one has to study carefully and understand the full historical context of a passage before you can determine if it’s really in accordance with God’s will,” where’s the inconsistency? If a straight person reads the Bible, and decides to discard the bits that are critical of homosexuality, how is that self-serving? What does a straight Christian gain by disregarding the homophobia in the Bible?
I didn’t say it would eliminate free will, I said it would not adequately test it.
Would an individual Christian still be as charitable if they weren’t Christian? Maybe, maybe not. But overall, religious people are significantly more charitable than the non-religious.
So, you’re coming out against forgiveness as a virtue? I mean, I’m not any kind of Christian at all, but that seems to me to be the faith’s largest, most unquestionably positive aspect.
Anyway, who are you to say those Christians are not working hard for their faith? Do you know how they spend all their free time? Do you know, for a fact, that they’ve never worked in a soup kitchen or a food bank? Do you know, for a fact, that they’ve never volunteered at Habitat for Humanity? Do you know, for a fact, that they’ve never passed on a luxury for themselves so that they can cut a check to Medicien sans Frontiers?
Except for the gay thing, not one single thing on that list is a Christian characteristic. Everything else is a right-wing political position. Your problem isn’t with Christianity at all, you’re problem is with conservatives. Who, yeah, sure, are mostly Christian. But you know what? So are liberals.
One of the more underhanded tricks in the current election cycle is the attempt by some conservatives to paint social issues as “Christian versus liberal.” When they say that, they are lying. And when you start threads like this one, you spread that lie.
Stop being a tool for the political right of this country.
Yes, of course, that is exactly the answer. If there was a street preacher named Jesus who honestly thought he could heal people… we can easily imagine a scenario where Jesus prayed for someone, laid hands on them, and through the power of suggestion… they felt better. 30 years later when this gets written down it gets turned into a story about pigs and demons. (You don’t really think I was incapable of coming up with that scenario myself, do you?).
But you are using LOGIC.
How well do you think LOGIC is going to work on the guy at the 24 hour stop and go gas station who, when his coworker got robbed, he says, he will be OK because “Jesus will protect him”. Those are his literal words, I am exaggerating exactly 0.00%.
Do you think that guy is going to listen to logic and the story of Jesus and the pigs? By what percentage is he going to change his mind on that topic if I take 10 minutes to sit down and slowly, calmly, reasonably try to use logic…
How do you distinguish between these two topics? Not even the most literal of literalists is going to deny that some parts of the Bible are metaphor and story. The question of whether the Bible is factually correct depends a lot on where you draw the line.
I don’t know what the literalist view of Job is, but I think it would not be a stretch for them to say that it is a story with a very clear moral point. It is also not anchored in history, real or legendary. Arguing that the Bible is not true because the view of Satan in Job contradicts that of other books is not valid.
On the other hand if we dug up the skeleton of Jesus, while I’m sure some would turn the empty tomb into a metaphor it wouldn’t look good for Christianity. And we have confusion, such as the importance of the Fall happening due to a choice by Adam and Eve and the fact they never existed.
Miller, thank you, honestly, for taking the time to type that out and talk to me. I’m just too tired to read it all and respond right now. I know I am responding to other people on this thread but those are short responses…
I’ll respond to this part however:
To answer your question, I am a little reluctant to do it in the open forum but I will still answer.
I have a lot of personal issues, resentment and bad attitude as a result of growing up in the “bible belt” in the 70’s and 80’s. I know there is a huge amount of this bad attitude, this animosity, that flows over whenever I try to have a “normal” discussion on this topic.
Yeah, you’re right. I’m being unfair and I’m being biased. You’re right. For the moment the best I will do is acknowledge that you are right. Certainly it would do me well to improve my attitude.
One is a matter of interpretation; how the reader is supposed to engage with the text and thus the meaning they are to extract from it. For instance, if the Bible is just a series of historic accounts of things that happened, then nothing is asked of the reader except the ability to read. Conversely, a metaphorical view demands deconstruction of the metaphors in a search for the truth contained within. This same process can be applied to any written work, and is independent of the issue of factual accuracy.
The Bible is a useful historical text in that it teaches us what people back then thought of history, and it is a useful historical document in that much of it is going to do things like show what cities existed when it was written. It is not a useful historical document in the sense of accurately representing what happened - especially in its past.
It is a useful religious document in that it shows us the beliefs of people living back then. It is not useful in the sense of accurately describing discussions with God. Hope that’s clear.
How does a good Christian know that women preaching in church is a good thing and homophobia is a bad thing? They can know this from basically atheistic moral reasoning - in that this reasoning does not involve the supernatural. Or they can dig up Biblical passages supporting their point of view. If they do the former, why use the Bible at all? It clearly does not give us good moral teaching in all cases. If they do the latter, they run into the problem that they are using an interpretation of an obscure passage to go up against a very clear and specific prohibition. Anyone not already convinced that homophobia is bad is not going to be convinced. So, moderates using the Bible as the source of moral judgement are actually unintentionally supporting those who use the Bible for moral judgements they don’t care for. Remember, in this case they are giving the Bible a special position in giving moral advice.
If the moderates used the Bible as an ethics and philosophy document - on an equal footing with Socrates and Seneca - no problem. But then they really wouldn’t be Christian, would they?
Fundamentalists say the Bible is the word of God. Moderates say the Bible is the word of God except for the parts my advance 21st century morality disagrees with. They are right about the superiority of their 21st century morality, but they don’t seem to get the God as a source of morality part.
Good read, overall, Miller, not too much to quibble about, but was wondering if this is really true. If you have your reasons, no problem. Religious people are real good about helping themselves and their own, but when it’s all tallied up, others see it differently.
Well, of course we do. I only believed in the morality of gay marriage after my conversion to Christianity. I was perfectly fine with the Civil Unions argument (this was back in 2009) . After I became I Christian, I came to the realization that God wants His blessings, including those of marriage, to flow to all of His people. Hence, God was most definitely a source of my morality (FWIW, I came to believe in the right of Universal Health Care through my faith as well - I like to tell folks “Jesus made me a Commie” but my faith was definitely the main driver of my leftward view on things).
That’s reasonable if you treat the bible as a philosophical tract, as I just mentioned. But people treat the Bible as the way morality gets transmitted from the source of all morality. If you believe that, then the normal ethical debate is pointless.
The historical part is important in the sense of backing up the morality part.
Let’s look at original sin. If God just made everyone inherently sinful, it would be his fault. But Christianity teaches we are that way by a choice made by the parents of us all. If history shows there was no Adam and Eve, we don’t have to believe the moral message of the story. In general, the Bible says trust me, this is what happened and claims a special path to God. That claim is pretty much untrustworthy if all the checkable history is bogus.
No one runs around proposing laws based on the ethical reasoning of Socrates and Plato and Aristotle being unimpeachable. If we demote the Bible to that level, all will be dandy.
Well, as far as social justice goes the right is misreading the Bible just like the left does in terms of sexism and support for gay rights. The left has a better Biblical argument which is why the right is pissed at Francis. No one argues about that around here, which is interesting.
I don’t recall the Bible addressing SSM. But the act that married people do is an abomination according to the Bible - does it make sense for you to think that it supports legitimizing such a thing in marriage? I agree with your end position, but I have an easier time justifying it in purely secular terms, since I can ignore all the nasty things the Bible says about this.
And while marriage is great
<Republican homophobe> does he want the blessings to include marrying your dog?</HR> Or your sister? We know he does not mind marrying multiple women though, that ir right in the thing.
You’ve shifted the discussion now on how to win converts and convince people when I thought we were talking about how people can deal with and interpret the bible.
I was discussing (or pointing out) that “your interpretation” of what the bible says (or means) is no more valid than a ‘believers’ interpretation of what the bible says (or means).
You can state all day long that the bible is myth - you can point out errors and conflicts within the text - that does nothing to change the believers mind, since what they ‘believe’ is based on ‘faith’ (which is not rational or reasonable) and the rest is irrelevant to that.
Well, actually, at post 39 you shifted the conversation, I was replying to you…
1- Please stop telling me what I can not tell other people… do you see the flaw in this topic… hey Robert… you can’t tell other people what to think/not think.
With this very tactic… you are telling me what to think/not think.
2- Yes, I can tell them you can not cast demons into pigs. I can most definitely tell them that. I am getting tired of you telling me I can’t tell people that you can’t cast demons into pigs.
Yes, um, yes… obvious and redundant. Not going to change their mind. Got that. Do you have anything else to say or are you just going to find more ways to admonish me for “not understanding that people of faith will not change their mind”.
I think I mentioned in the other thread, a more moderate/liberal reading of Scripture is to look at the entire body of work as one whole and what it is trying to teach in that way. The idea that the Bible is simply the way to show God is a good metaphor - we read Scriptures through the prism of Christ. And we read a lot of what is going on in the Old Testament as a progression - you’ll note that as you read from the Pentateuch to the Prophets, that suddenly people are starting to say all sorts of interesting almost Jesus-like things about accepting everyone, including gentiles. And the focus comes more into ideas such as love rather than justice (though both are included - and loving justice is of course the basis for social justice).
We also tend to read Scripture as a product of its time. Of course folks aren’t going to like homosexuality 2000-4000 years ago. Israel and Judah, especially, who is dramatically outnumbered by its enemies on all sides and needs all the population it can get. That and they had no understanding of sexual orientation - they just thought homosexuality was folks getting too lustful that all of a sudden they are just fucking everything that moves. Anyways, that’s off point a bit. However, it seemed to me, when reading the Bible that while you had condemning of homosexual acts, far more of the Old Testament involved compassion for the poor and needy. And as Scripture progressed, there was much more of a focus on compassion and love. Then you had Jesus.
I don’t think the story ends in 150 AD. I feel that the progression of God’s love and compassion continues onward and changes our minds about things - the classic case is the gentiles. From completely ‘outside’ to part of the family. It’s like that.
I don’t think you’ve quite grasped my point. The Bible is a combination of facts, fantasy, propaganda, and cultural assumptions. A historian can go through the Bible, and figure out which bits are broadly historically accurate, which are heavily spun to suit the political climate of the day, and which are made up out of whole cloth. And nobody argues that this is a bad approach to the book.
So, why can’t one do the same thing with religious truth? Setting aside, for the moment, that you and I are both atheists, and don’t believe there is any religious truth in there - why can’t a Christian perform the same sort of triage on the book, sorting the truths, from the half-truths, from the lies? Why is it any less valid when a Christian does it for religious purposes, versus when a historian does it for academic purposes? Other than the fact that, as a non-theist, you don’t like the decisions they make in the process?
Well, a Christian would likely argue that God gave all humans an inherent moral sense, which he expects us to use to differentiate right from wrong. Which would, in his view, involve the supernatural.
You know, MLK Jr. was a great man, who arguably did more than any other individual to fight racism and prejudice in this country. He was also a womanizer and a plagiarist. Does the fact that he cheated on his wife mean that it’s impossible to find wisdom and virtue in Letters from a Birmingham Jail? I don’t think so. Does the fact that the Bible teaches homophobia mean that it’s impossible to find wisdom in its message of forgiveness? Again, I don’t think so. And I don’t think its remotely inappropriate or hypocritical for a Christian to approach the Bible the same way: the collected works of several people who had within them both wisdom and iniquity, which require some effort from the reader to disentangle.
Why wouldn’t they be? What the contradiction between viewing the Bible as an ethics and philosophy document, while also believing that Jesus was the Son of God?
Do they? That’s not really my experience of moderate Christianity, which usually focuses on the idea that the Bible was inspired by God, but filtered through humans, politics, and the passage of centuries.
you’re taking this way to personally - in fact, I have yet to say what you can or can’t do, think or say - what I have said is that your opinion is no more valid when it comes to how a particular verse or scripture must be interpreted - you seem to think that only your opinion on what is metaphor and what must be literal is the only way it can be - and it just isn’t so.
Thats what I came in here to say that if you combine “complex book” + “this seems like a metaphor” == everyone gets to have their own interpretation of it and its just as valid as someone else’s - what ‘seems like a metaphor’ to you may be a ‘literal event’ to someone else and vice -versa. Given the 2000 years since the editing was completed + changes in culture, languages and methods of storytelling, there’s no wonder that there are so many various interpetations around.
re: post 39 - you asked for a “good reason” - I gave you about as a good a reason as you’re going to get - where did I tell you could not do something? Be explicit - where did I tell you what you could or could not ‘think’ ?
You have a pleasant day -
In terms of the underlying message, those two are the same statement.
ETA: Yea, you are right, my attitude is bad. Sorry. I am tired and a little frustrated. Sleep problems, not your fault… I apologize.
Not the intent - that’s for sure -
would it make a difference if I said “your opinion was equally valid with a believers …” ??
Keep in mind that I am only saying that the ‘believers’ opinion is valid when it comes to the verses interpretation - not when it comes to reality itself - when we’re discussing the reality of demon possessed pigs I’m right there with you.
Entire body of work is like a hologram, which will look like the picture even if some parts are dirty. Or it might be like the contract Groucho and Chico reviewed in “Night at the Opera” where you throw out the bits you don’t like.
BTW I got taught by people who actually read the Bible in Hebrew, and there is nothing about Jesus before the NT. Plenty about the Messiah, but Jesus didn’t quite make it as the Messiah, despite the retconning to make it seem like he got born in the right place etc.
And I find it just amazing that non0literalists always find that the Bible absoutely supports anything that they come up with in terms of morality and social justice. Support for no divorce? Yup. Support for divorce? Yup. Slavery? Yup. Abolition? Yup. You can support any position you feel like taking. Kind of like C language syntax. I tried once to figure out what was the grammatically correct way of doing something, and every possibility was legal. Damn useless.
What you describe is exactly what you would expect of a document written with zero divine involvement. If there is a god, and he has the answer, and he inspired the Bible. why didn’t he get it right the first time. It is not like God went easy on his people. Ooo, you don’t like gay people, why don’t you kill them for a few thousand years until you grow out of it? This is the God who told Israel to get their asses out of Egypt and march around in the desert for 40 years.
The maturing of morality is one of the better reasons against God.
I’m not a gentile. Romans attacked my ancestors when they acted up. Christians tortured my ancestors for not drinking the Kool-Aid. From what I’ve read Roman morality was better than the first 1500 years of Christian morality. (And they had better toilets too.)
We’ve only had good Christian morality after secular governments stopped letting the church control morality.
First, let me ask you a question: Do you believe that Catholics are Christians? Yes or no?
Damn straight it would.
And you’re letting your biases cloud your judgement, and substituting emotion for logic. You’re not approaching this with an open mind – you’ve already decided what to believe, so what the hell is the point?
If you’re really, truely interested in this stuff (and it sounds like you are), why not read some books about it? There’s a wealth of material on the history of Christianity (hell, you could probably find the works of St. Augustine of Hippo online without even paying for it!).
Just as you’re biased by your upbringing, so am I. However, let me ask you – have you ever taken a class on comparative religions? Or how about the history of religious philosophy? The Reformation?
Do you what the Council of Nicea was about? The Council of Trent? Vatican Council I and II? The Protestant Reformation? (As a history major, I eat this stuff up – it’s freaking fascinating, btw)
Here’s what I said before:
People have been arguing over this kind of thing for millenia, but you seem to think you know better. Why?