Refuse part or all of the bible?

[Miller]

[QUOTE=Apos]
Um, what? What does this have to do with what I said? I am the one who is arguing that the moral precepts of the Bible are clearly vague and incomplete taken as a whole. In the particular part you were arguing about, however, I was responding to the claim that the Bible says nothing definitive about all sorts of moral questions and does in fact, give all SORTS of commands and instructions, sometimes in very exacting and almost obsessive detail. The two are not contradictions.
[/quote]

And I was responding to Valteron, who claimed that Jesus’s “two commandments” were useless because they didn’t cover every possible moral dilemma. They do: the rest, as Hillel said, is just commentary.

No way using the Bible, of course, because there is no agreement on how the Bible is used. But are you really not willing to say that someone has it wrong when they suggest that stoning gay people to death is just plain wrong: that this is NOT in fact, right?

I don’t understand what you’re saying here. Is there a typo in there or something?

I mean, I don’t have any doubt that most progressive Christians would be willing to lay down their lives to end slavery or to protect gay people from a death sentence in Nigeria, wherever these convictions ultimately come from (their interpretative reading of the Bible, or their own consciences overriding what’s written in the Bible). But doesn’t it seem kind of strange that while someone would actually DIE for a particular principle, they aren’t willing to simply explicitly write out that principle clearly in the one book they sit down to read from every Sunday (whether it be some completely different book, or a Bible with some extra chapters included, or whatever)?

In this case, I understand what you’re saying, but it doesn’t make any sense. Are you saying that no liberal Christian has ever written a book in which they say gays should not be beaten to death? I’m fairly certain one or two have. I can probably dig up some cites if you really want them.

[Apos]

[QUOTE=Miller]
And I was responding to Valteron, who claimed that Jesus’s “two commandments” were useless because they didn’t cover every possible moral dilemma. They do: the rest, as Hillel said, is just commentary.
[/quote]

The mere command to love is so vague that it could legitimately be consistent with virtually any treatment at all. Does it include tough love? What if the best way to express love is to save someone’s eternal soul, surely more important than any earthly need, by flaying their body until the devil is flayed out?

I don’t understand what you’re saying here. Is there a typo in there or something?

No. I’m agreeing that there is no way to establish what is rightly moral using the Bible alone on these topics, especially if we allow in interpretations that permit you to find avocations to peace in instructions on how to destroy the unborn of your enemies.

But that doesn’t mean that people are unable to come up with and agree upon moral precepts.

In this case, I understand what you’re saying, but it doesn’t make any sense. Are you saying that no liberal Christian has ever written a book in which they say gays should not be beaten to death?

No, and I’m beginning to suspect that you know I’m not saying that. Sigh.

[Miller]

[QUOTE=Apos]
I find that on these threads, long lines of parsed out discussion can tend to confuse exactly what’s being talked about. In this case, your response here to the actual thread of discussion is almost entirely nonsensical: it SORT of makes sense if what it was responding to was taken entirely in isolation, but in the context of the points we were talking about, it basically goes nowhere.

I think this discussion is pretty interesting, but before I continue it, I’d really like to get some sense that you are actually interested in it as well. If I type up another long response, and get a bunch of disjointed non-sequiturs back, then I’ve wasted your time and you’ve wasted yours as well.
[/QUOTE]

I assure you, I do not generally spend several hours writing multiple pages of verbiage on subjects in which I’m not interested. If you don’t understand something I’ve posted, I’m happy to clarify, but I don’t really appreciate the veiled accusations of intellectual dishonesty.

[Miller]

Sigh indeed. Let’s take another look at that passage, shall we? Here’s what you said, with my emphasis added.

@Apos

But doesn’t it seem kind of strange that while someone would actually DIE for a particular principle, they aren’t willing to simply explicitly write out that principle clearly in the one book they sit down to read from every Sunday (whether it be some completely different book, or a Bible with some extra chapters included, or whatever)?

Now, maybe I’ve just suffered a massive stroke and lost my ability to parse simple text, but it seems to me that you’re asking why no liberal Christian has ever written a book explaining why they, as liberal Christians, think it’s wrong to beat gay people to death. I’m pretty sure that such books exist, which is why your comment there doesn’t make any sense to me. I’d already addressed why they don’t edit the Bible in that lengthy post of mine that you almost completely ignored.

Incidentally, stuff like this:

@Apos

I’m agreeing that there is no way to establish what is rightly moral using the Bible alone on these topics, especially if we allow in interpretations that permit you to find avocations to peace in instructions on how to destroy the unborn of your enemies.

doesn’t do a whole lot to establish sympathy when you accuse other people of deliberatly misreading your arguments.

[Apos]

Look, go back and read the line of discussion, and YOU tell me if reminding me that progressive Christians don’t read the Bible literally was really an on topic response. I KNOW they don’t.

I retract any implication of dishonesty: you obviously spend a lot of time composing responses as I do, but after the downright evasive and dismissive posts of Quiddity Glomfuster, I don’t want to just jump on ahead when the line of discussion is crumbling apart into talking past each other in its wake.

[Polycarp]

[QUOTE=Apos]
The mere command to love is so vague that it could legitimately be consistent with virtually any treatment at all. Does it include tough love? What if the best way to express love is to save someone’s eternal soul, surely more important than any earthly need, by flaying their body until the devil is flayed out?
[/QUOTE]

Correct. And trust me, that argument has in fact been trotted out by the people I’ve termed Neopharisees. One of them, responding to me on another board with a Christian theme, was very explicit in saying that he was opposed to gay marriage and abortion precisely because he was commanded to love gay people and pregnant girls considering abortion, and he wanted to save them from being condemned by God for committing those sins. (If you think about it, the arrogance in that statement is Gobsmacking. :smack: )

This is why Jesus gives specific examples, like the ones that have turned into clichés: “go the extra mile,” “turn the other cheek,” and particularly the Parables of the Last Judgment (AKA the Sheep and the Goats), the Prodigal Son, and the Good Samaritan.

Idealism means nothing without practical action to back it.

====

But, in the last analysis, and setting aside the difficulties with Bible as record of Jewish myth, legend, and ingrained cultural trait disguised as divine command, it’s pretty clear that there are interior self-contradictions between elements of Scripture. Why do we not all truck off to Jerusalem every Pesach with an unblemished lamb? Why do we not close down oyster bars as abominations worse than gay clubs by Scriptural standards? Because someone has decided that some but not all commandments are still applicable, from a conservative Christian viewpoint.

But that is not what Jesus and Paul say at all. Paul says we’re free from the Law, 100%. The Law was, in his mind, a paidogogos, a slave set to keep the children safe while they were going to school. And with the advent of the Holy Spirit in our lives, we don’t need it any more. But we’re not free to sin against God, but free to do His will without worrying about the pilpuls of the Law.

And what does Jesus say? “Keep the Law. But keep it as God wants it kept. These two commandments summarize His intent in giving it, all that He wants done in obeying it. If you turn one aspect of it into something that goes against them, you’re violating the spirit of the Law. Furthermore, the Law, as Hillel said, can be summarized as ‘Do to others as you would have them do to you.’ Don’t judge how others are keeping the Law; you have enough trouble keeping it fully yourself without worrying about them. And further, the two halves of the summary – they’re really identical in application, as anything you do to someone else, I’ll judge as having been done to me.”

That simple principle wraps the whole thing up in a nutshell.

[Apos]

[QUOTE=Miller]
Now, maybe I’ve just suffered a massive stroke and lost my ability to parse simple text, but it seems to me that you’re asking why no liberal Christian has ever written a book explaining why they, as liberal Christians, think it’s wrong to beat gay people to death. I’m pretty sure that such books exist, which is why your comment there doesn’t make any sense to me.
[/quote]

Sorry then: the context of this whole line of discussion is not why they don’t write any random book, but why a book saying that isn’t front and center in their spiritual lives on the same level as the Bible. Isn’t the grand summary

I’d already addressed why they don’t edit the Bible in that lengthy post of mine that you almost completely ignored.

I don’t intend to ignore it forever, but I want to make sure we are on the same page. I think I need to ditch the point by point and write in paragraphs.

doesn’t do a whole lot to establish sympathy when you accuse other people of deliberatly misreading your arguments.

Ok, so that was over the top, but the point remains, if our starting point for a discussion on morality contains all sorts of claims about things that we all agree are highly immoral, and to compensate we then present the idea that we need to reinterpret all sorts of things, then isn’t THAT a pretty good reason why it’s so hard to agree what the Bible says is moral? At that point, why does it have to be this way?

If progressive Christians don’t believe that the Bible is actually the word of God, but rather the word of men who may or may not have good insights on God (and hence interesting but not particular necessary), why does the process have to basically dead-end 2000 years ago? Why is Paul sitting in the Pews, and getting poured over and the focus of scripture readings, when there have been a heck of a lot more developments on thinking about God since him? Why is Paul so special over and above everyone else, something people keep coming back to over and over?

[Apos]

[QUOTE=Polycarp]

This is why Jesus gives specific examples, like the ones that have turned into clichés: “go the extra mile,” “turn the other cheek,” and particularly the Parables of the Last Judgment (AKA the Sheep and the Goats), the Prodigal Son, and the Good Samaritan.

Idealism means nothing without practical action to back it.
[/quote]

These examples are illustrative, but not conclusive. You want me to concede, basically, not just that the bad guys are misreading the true Jesus, but rather that they are misreading the Jesus of the Bible. I just don’t see it. Your interpretation is neither the only one supportable nor even always the clearest path through the text.

Which brings me to that clear statement issue I raised before. What do you think about the idea of a more clear and direct statement against cruelty, slavery, and coercion? Don’t you think that if that were somewhere in Jesus’ teachings, the history of Christianity would be vastly different?

Miller says that bad people would have been able to still find ways around it, but I don’t really buy that. At the very least, at least then, THEY would be the ones who need to argue against clear commands in the text, while the rest of us would be defending a plain reading. And I just don’t see how things like the Inquisition wouldn’t have been prevented if the Bible clearly said it was a no no.

Of course, in a related issue, I’m honestly not sure if Christianity would really have succeeded as it had if those statements were there. Jainism, for instance, DOES contain such clear statements, and it hasn’t exactly taken off in popularity. Hell was a great selling point, and as the pastor who decided it didn’t exist found out, a heck of a lot of people just don’t see the point without it (their loss of course, as I think you and I would agree).

[Miller]

[QUOTE=Apos]
Look, go back and read the line of discussion, and YOU tell me if reminding me that progressive Christians don’t read the Bible literally was really an on topic response. I KNOW they don’t.
[/quote]

I honestly thought that my response was on topic, and if it was not, then I don’t know what you were trying to argue there. What’s the significance of the Bible claiming that portions of itself were written by God? If we’re discussing people who do not believe in the literal truth of the Bible, they’re just as free to disregard that part of the Bible as they are to discard any other part of it.

I retract any implication of dishonesty: you obviously spend a lot of time composing responses as I do, but after the downright evasive and dismissive posts of Quiddity Glomfuster, I don’t want to just jump on ahead when the line of discussion is crumbling apart into talking past each other in its wake.

Thank you. Sorry for getting snippy with you in return. If you want, we can call this ground zero for this debate and proceed from here. In a moment, I’m going to try to restate as much of the argument from my long post in a more succinct form, so you can skip straight to that if you like and avoid the line-by-line dissection.

Ok, so that was over the top, but the point remains, if our starting point for a discussion on morality contains all sorts of claims about things that we all agree are highly immoral, and to compensate we then present the idea that we need to reinterpret all sorts of things, then isn’t THAT a pretty good reason why it’s so hard to agree what the Bible says is moral? At that point, why does it have to be this way?

If progressive Christians don’t believe that the Bible is actually the word of God, but rather the word of men who may or may not have good insights on God (and hence interesting but not particular necessary), why does the process have to basically dead-end 2000 years ago? Why is Paul sitting in the Pews, and getting poured over and the focus of scripture readings, when there have been a heck of a lot more developments on thinking about God since him? Why is Paul so special over and above everyone else, something people keep coming back to over and over?

The reason the Bible is important to Christians is because it’s as close as you can get to a first hand account of who Christ was and what he said. That’s why they don’t, as a rule, want to edit or add to it. There’s already been enough changes made to it that make it hard enough to figure out what Christ was trying to say. Any further changes, no matter how well intended, would only muddy the waters even worse for whoever comes along afterwards. Christianity does not procede from the Bible, the Bible procedes from Christianity. Most Christians have a faith in Jesus that is wholly independent of the Bible. The Old Testament is useful because it gives a context for what Jesus himself believed and taught. The New Testament is useful because it was written by other Christians who lived close to the era in which Jesus himself lived, and presumably have special insight into what he was like, even if they never met him personally. Additionally, some of them may have had genuine encounters with the Divine. A modern reader may not agree with how these writers interpreted that encounter, but that doesn’t mean those accounts are entirely without value.

[Valteron]

[QUOTE=Miller]
The reason the Bible is important to Christians is because it’s as close as you can get to a first hand account of who Christ was and what he said. That’s why they don’t, as a rule, want to edit or add to it. There’s already been enough changes made to it that make it hard enough to figure out what Christ was trying to say. Any further changes, no matter how well intended, would only muddy the waters even worse for whoever comes along afterwards. The New Testament is useful because it was written by other Christians who lived close to the era in which Jesus himself lived, and presumably have special insight into what he was like, even if they never met him personally. Additionally, some of them may have had genuine encounters with the Divine. A modern reader may not agree with how these writers interpreted that encounter, but that doesn’t mean those accounts are entirely without value.
[/QUOTE]

That is precisely my point, Miller. You yourself admit that the Gospels are already confusing and muddied, and that it is hard to figure out what Christ was trying to say. So how come the same Son of God, who is one with God and therefore omniscient and omnipotent, could not arrange things to have his message come through clearly?

I know, I know. YOU figure you have understood it right. Logically, all the Christians who have completely different conceptions of that message, from the guys who ran the Inquisition to the Crusaders who massacred Jews and Muslims, must have had it wrong?

[Quiddity_Glomfuster]

[QUOTE=Apos]
If you actually try to read through the thread, and particularly this line of discussion, your response here is completely incoherent. It’s as if you simply forgot entirely what was being discussed and responded to this statement out of the blue.
[/quote]

I’m wearying of this. You make a point. I respond. Then you claim that wasn’t the point. Discussions with people who keep changing their story are tiresome.

when you yourself seem to think anyone who reads it literally (i.e. anyone who does NOT misinterpret the plain text!) is an idiot.

Yeah I do. And your problem with that is?

The Bible is not, in fact, very clear about a lot of things, and in certain parts when it is clear, it seems very plain that, say, putting to death people that try to deconvert from Christianity is precisely what it calls for in no uncertain terms. You can argue that these passages were written by flawed human beings, and I’ll agree with you. But arguing that they are being “misinterpreted” and those who interpret it that way are idiots for doing so is simply ridiculous.

There you go again. You’re on a totally other point. You said the first commandment said that people who worshipped graven idols were to be killed. You are wrong. Period. Now you’re saying you were talking about something else. You weren’t.

[Miller]

[QUOTE=Valteron]
That is precisely my point, Miller. You yourself admit that the Gospels are already confusing and muddied, and that it is hard to figure out what Christ was trying to say. So how come the same Son of God, who is one with God and therefore omniscient and omnipotent, could not arrange things to have his message come through clearly?
[/quote]

Speaking just for myself, it always seemed odd that God would go to all the trouble of giving us free will, and then stick us with a book of instructions detailing exactly how we’re supposed to behave. Part of the whole “free will” gig seems to include a certain measure of figuring shit out for ourselves. A book that says, on one page, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” and on another, “Kill the unbeliever,” would probably be a pretty good moral test: which message does the reader accept as being what God wants?

I’ve no idea how widespread that idea is among Christians, though.

I know, I know. YOU figure you have understood it right. Logically, all the Christians who have completely different conceptions of that message, from the guys who ran the Inquisition to the Crusaders who massacred Jews and Muslims, must have had it wrong?

Sure. Isn’t that your own position, though? That the Christians who killed Jews and Muslims throughout history were wrong to do so, and were not, in fact, doing God’s will at all? How precisely is your position different from my position on this subject?

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Voyager]
That’s very reasonable. I have a question - how do you weight the Bible compared to say, Plato, or other moral philosophers? Do you give it special credence, or do you consider them all sources of questions and suggestions about how to approach these problems?
[/QUOTE]

I think it’s a lot about our personal culture and what we’re exposed to. I’d have to admit a certain affection for the story of Jesus due to my Christian background although I’ve been deeply moved by writings decidedly non Christian.

Personally I’m attracted to the story of Jesus format in the gospels rather than the list of Jesus sayings in the Gospel of Thomas. Then again I feel that way about history too.

IMHO the story format better illustrates the application of the principles being taught.

I think there’s a lot of pressure in our culture to accept the special elevated sacred status of the book. Ultimately I think we are better off to recognize that isn’t so. If we are to seek love wisdom and truth, then seek it in other places as well. We’re the better for it.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Voyager]
That’s why they’re called the 10 Suggestions. :rolleyes:

[/QUOTE]

And oh yeah…I found this very funny.
I can just picture angry OT God saying.

“Look I know you’re busy and I don’t mean to bother you, but if you’ve got a minute , and you don’t mind too much, I got this list…”

[Miller]

The Ten Suggestions

1. I know you’re all terribly busy, but I did go to a lot of effort to set this all up, you know. So, really, would you mind not worshipping Mammon? I mean, if it’s not too much trouble?

2. Look, make the idol if you want, but honestly, he’s not listening.

3. And would you please not say my name so much? It’s just, every time you do, I look up, and I’m kind of busy over here.

4. Are you busy Sunday? Okay, never mind.

5. Why don’t you ever call your mother?

6. Do you have to kill the guy? Maybe if you talked it over.

7. I don’t think nailing his wife is really going to help either.

8. I know she’s hot, but really, I don’t think that makes a difference.

9. Well, maybe he is like that, but there’s two sides to every story, you know.

10. Has anyone seen my stapler? It was a red Swingline, and they’re the only model that doesn’t bind up all the time, so if anyone saw it, can I get that back?

[Quiddity_Glomfuster]

[QUOTE=Apos]
You’re not even going to quote mine a complete sentence?
[/quote]

I quoted the bit relevant to my reply since you seemed to have forgotten what you said. You claim that you are not playing extremes yet you say the choice is accept or totally discount.

But trying to claim that it doesn’t command such things in the first place is simply nonsense.

I didn’t. I refuted your claim that the Ten Commandments order the death of people who don’t honour #1. Period.

Because a) Jesus does NOT explicitly say that, and b) it makes no sense anyway if that’s how you read it.

Yes he did explicitly say that.

“Teacher, 21 which commandment in the law is the greatest?”
He said to him, 22 "You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.
This is the greatest and the first commandment.
The second is like it: 23 You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments."

Now you can argue until the end of time that it’s not there but there it is in whatever your colour your font and background are.

Morality is not a “that was then, this is now” sort of proposition.

Yeah it is. Different circumstances then.

If it is an absolutely the case that you must love and not slaughter man women and even unborn children of your enemies, then it is not something that was okay to do previously.

I turn your attention to You shall not murder

If it is wrong to kill someone just because they try to encourage you to worship a different God, then it’s wrong period.

Correct. So what’s your point?

But if you disagree, then when exactly did this transition happen, anyway? What do you have to say to the person who was legitimately murdered, under this decree, just an hour before Jesus put it into effect?

Where is this decree? I’ve yet to see it. Cough it up, please.

We’re talking about what the Bible actually says.

So where are your quotes?

Would you agree that the the Bible, as written, commands and celebrates irrational things, by your own logic?

The question makes no sense.

Jesus never explicitly says anything about getting rid of the old law, and his followers, in fact, continue to fight over this issue for decades afterwards. So clearly, it AIN’T so obvious or certain.

The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments.

If you think Paul was wrong, then why not correct his misunderstandings for us?

The common interpretation of the situation just after the departure of Jesus from this planet was that He’d be back anytime. In a couple of years maybe. He was telling men not to marry and families to pretend they weren’t married so they could do God’s work in the last days

What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short. From now on those who are married should live as if they were not; 30 those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; 31 those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.

I Corinthians 7

Ok, a lazy, somewhat off-topic response, but if so, then why not discard it?

Huh?

Well, for starters, eternal damnation? All the things Jesus has to say about those who are getting tossed in the flames to wither away?

Cites, please.

[DanBlather]

[QUOTE=Miller]
The Ten Suggestions
[/QUOTE]
Classic, well done!! Now imagine Stewart Smalley sauing it.

[Voyager]

[QUOTE=Miller]
The Ten Suggestions

[/QUOTE]

Excellent, thank you. There were 20, of course, before Moses dropped one of the tablets.

(At least something useful came out of this thread.)

[Miller]

[QUOTE=DanBlather]
Classic, well done!! Now imagine Stewart Smalley sauing it.
[/QUOTE]

I was thinking of someone more Arthur Dent-ish.

[Zoe]

Apos: I’ve found things Polycarp or Liberal have said about God and love and so forth to be far more profound and (and this is important) clear and definitive than the Bible itself. Why aren’t those views bound and sitting in the pews and studied in the breakout sessions instead of the Bible?

I agree with you about the quality of their writing.

The pews are not the only seats in the house, you know. Works by talented authors may be found elsewhere in the building. All sorts of classes and study groups are available at churches I have attended. They include studies of other religious faiths. Most churches are just not as bleak as you perceive them to be. (My exposure has been generally to mainstream Protestant liberal churches.)